# The Keystone Pipeline:  Jobs!



## Wry Catcher

Keystone XL pipeline would only create 35 permanent jobs

And Obama's Green and Renewable fiasco:

US solar power employs more people than oil, coal and gas combined

and,

U.S. Clean Energy Jobs Surpass Fossil Fuel Employment

Solar energy in the US employs more people than traditional coal, gas and oil combined, a report has found, in a revelation that could undermine Donald Trump’s argument that green energy isn’t good for the economy.

The latest report from the US Department of Energy (DOE) reveals solar energy accounts for the largest proportion of employers in the Electric Power Generation sector, with wind energy the third largest, while the coal industries have declined in the past 10 years.

Solar energy employed 374,000 people over the year 2015-2016, making up 43 per cent of the sector’s workforce, while the traditional fossil fuels combined employed 187,117, making up just 22 per cent of the workforce, according to the report.


----------



## martybegan

Wry Catcher said:


> Keystone XL pipeline would only create 35 permanent jobs
> 
> And Obama's Green and Renewable fiasco:
> 
> US solar power employs more people than oil, coal and gas combined
> 
> and,
> 
> U.S. Clean Energy Jobs Surpass Fossil Fuel Employment
> 
> Solar energy in the US employs more people than traditional coal, gas and oil combined, a report has found, in a revelation that could undermine Donald Trump’s argument that green energy isn’t good for the economy.
> 
> The latest report from the US Department of Energy (DOE) reveals solar energy accounts for the largest proportion of employers in the Electric Power Generation sector, with wind energy the third largest, while the coal industries have declined in the past 10 years.
> 
> Solar energy employed 374,000 people over the year 2015-2016, making up 43 per cent of the sector’s workforce, while the traditional fossil fuels combined employed 187,117, making up just 22 per cent of the workforce, according to the report.



What's wrong with construction jobs?

Also even if the pipeline itself doesn't add a lot of jobs, it's still jobs.


----------



## Billy_Kinetta

martybegan said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Keystone XL pipeline would only create 35 permanent jobs
> 
> And Obama's Green and Renewable fiasco:
> 
> US solar power employs more people than oil, coal and gas combined
> 
> and,
> 
> U.S. Clean Energy Jobs Surpass Fossil Fuel Employment
> 
> Solar energy in the US employs more people than traditional coal, gas and oil combined, a report has found, in a revelation that could undermine Donald Trump’s argument that green energy isn’t good for the economy.
> 
> The latest report from the US Department of Energy (DOE) reveals solar energy accounts for the largest proportion of employers in the Electric Power Generation sector, with wind energy the third largest, while the coal industries have declined in the past 10 years.
> 
> Solar energy employed 374,000 people over the year 2015-2016, making up 43 per cent of the sector’s workforce, while the traditional fossil fuels combined employed 187,117, making up just 22 per cent of the workforce, according to the report.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's wrong with construction jobs?
> 
> Also even if the pipeline itself doesn't add a lot of jobs, it's still jobs.
Click to expand...


And they pay better than the Democrats' fast food opportunities, which all got sucked up by illegals anyway.


----------



## tinydancer

Bloody fools. Trying this bullshit again. Construction jobs are always temporary.



Should no project ever be built because the construction jobs are temporary? The stupidity of this so called argument is astounding.

ETA the stats on Keystone Cushing to the Gulf project that was completed while every eco moron was protesting the XL.

Check out the labour stats.

Construction of the Gulf Coast Pipeline Project required:
•
US$2.3 billion in private sector investment
•
Six modern pump stations
•
More than 11 million hours of labor completed by 4,844 workers in the
United States of America
-
Heavy equipment operators, welders, laborers, transportation operators and supervisory personnel (including environment, safety and quality control inspectors)
•
More than 50 contracts with U.S. manufacturers and companies
building the pipeline and equipment in locations that include: Arkansas, California, Georgia,
Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New
York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina and Texas
•
The manufacturing of more than 485 miles of high strength, advanced oil
pipeline
(36 inch diameter); hundreds of large valves; thousands of fittings;
thousands of pieces of equipment used to build transformers, meters, electric
motors, cabling and electrical equipment; and piping assembling and structural
steel for supports
•
About
2.25 million barrels of new oil storage capacity
at Cushing, Oklahoma.

http://www.keystone-xl.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Gulf-Coast-Pipeline-Economic-Analysis.pdf


----------



## Billy_Kinetta

Wry Catcher said:


> Keystone XL pipeline would only create 35 permanent jobs
> 
> And Obama's Green and Renewable fiasco:
> 
> US solar power employs more people than oil, coal and gas combined
> 
> and,
> 
> U.S. Clean Energy Jobs Surpass Fossil Fuel Employment
> 
> Solar energy in the US employs more people than traditional coal, gas and oil combined, a report has found, in a revelation that could undermine Donald Trump’s argument that green energy isn’t good for the economy.
> 
> The latest report from the US Department of Energy (DOE) reveals solar energy accounts for the largest proportion of employers in the Electric Power Generation sector, with wind energy the third largest, while the coal industries have declined in the past 10 years.
> 
> Solar energy employed 374,000 people over the year 2015-2016, making up 43 per cent of the sector’s workforce, while the traditional fossil fuels combined employed 187,117, making up just 22 per cent of the workforce, according to the report.



When you can run your car on solar, let us know.


----------



## Weatherman2020

Wry Catcher said:


> Keystone XL pipeline would only create 35 permanent jobs
> 
> And Obama's Green and Renewable fiasco:
> 
> US solar power employs more people than oil, coal and gas combined
> 
> and,
> 
> U.S. Clean Energy Jobs Surpass Fossil Fuel Employment
> 
> Solar energy in the US employs more people than traditional coal, gas and oil combined, a report has found, in a revelation that could undermine Donald Trump’s argument that green energy isn’t good for the economy.
> 
> The latest report from the US Department of Energy (DOE) reveals solar energy accounts for the largest proportion of employers in the Electric Power Generation sector, with wind energy the third largest, while the coal industries have declined in the past 10 years.
> 
> Solar energy employed 374,000 people over the year 2015-2016, making up 43 per cent of the sector’s workforce, while the traditional fossil fuels combined employed 187,117, making up just 22 per cent of the workforce, according to the report.


How many permanent jobs created by building a bridge?

You lefties keep validating why America has turned its back on you.


----------



## Penelope

Weatherman2020 said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Keystone XL pipeline would only create 35 permanent jobs
> 
> And Obama's Green and Renewable fiasco:
> 
> US solar power employs more people than oil, coal and gas combined
> 
> and,
> 
> U.S. Clean Energy Jobs Surpass Fossil Fuel Employment
> 
> Solar energy in the US employs more people than traditional coal, gas and oil combined, a report has found, in a revelation that could undermine Donald Trump’s argument that green energy isn’t good for the economy.
> 
> The latest report from the US Department of Energy (DOE) reveals solar energy accounts for the largest proportion of employers in the Electric Power Generation sector, with wind energy the third largest, while the coal industries have declined in the past 10 years.
> 
> Solar energy employed 374,000 people over the year 2015-2016, making up 43 per cent of the sector’s workforce, while the traditional fossil fuels combined employed 187,117, making up just 22 per cent of the workforce, according to the report.
> 
> 
> 
> How many permanent jobs created by building a bridge?
> 
> You lefties keep validating why America has turned its back on you.
Click to expand...


Oh is he going to redo the bridges? When is that?  Sometime , we will be shocked.


----------



## Billy_Kinetta

Penelope said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Keystone XL pipeline would only create 35 permanent jobs
> 
> And Obama's Green and Renewable fiasco:
> 
> US solar power employs more people than oil, coal and gas combined
> 
> and,
> 
> U.S. Clean Energy Jobs Surpass Fossil Fuel Employment
> 
> Solar energy in the US employs more people than traditional coal, gas and oil combined, a report has found, in a revelation that could undermine Donald Trump’s argument that green energy isn’t good for the economy.
> 
> The latest report from the US Department of Energy (DOE) reveals solar energy accounts for the largest proportion of employers in the Electric Power Generation sector, with wind energy the third largest, while the coal industries have declined in the past 10 years.
> 
> Solar energy employed 374,000 people over the year 2015-2016, making up 43 per cent of the sector’s workforce, while the traditional fossil fuels combined employed 187,117, making up just 22 per cent of the workforce, according to the report.
> 
> 
> 
> How many permanent jobs created by building a bridge?
> 
> You lefties keep validating why America has turned its back on you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh is he going to redo the bridges? When is that?  Sometime , we will be shocked.
Click to expand...


They were "shovel ready" as Obama described them in 2009.  Obama was in office 8 years.  They are still shovel ready.

Trump has been in office six months.


----------



## Weatherman2020

Penelope said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Keystone XL pipeline would only create 35 permanent jobs
> 
> And Obama's Green and Renewable fiasco:
> 
> US solar power employs more people than oil, coal and gas combined
> 
> and,
> 
> U.S. Clean Energy Jobs Surpass Fossil Fuel Employment
> 
> Solar energy in the US employs more people than traditional coal, gas and oil combined, a report has found, in a revelation that could undermine Donald Trump’s argument that green energy isn’t good for the economy.
> 
> The latest report from the US Department of Energy (DOE) reveals solar energy accounts for the largest proportion of employers in the Electric Power Generation sector, with wind energy the third largest, while the coal industries have declined in the past 10 years.
> 
> Solar energy employed 374,000 people over the year 2015-2016, making up 43 per cent of the sector’s workforce, while the traditional fossil fuels combined employed 187,117, making up just 22 per cent of the workforce, according to the report.
> 
> 
> 
> How many permanent jobs created by building a bridge?
> 
> You lefties keep validating why America has turned its back on you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh is he going to redo the bridges? When is that?  Sometime , we will be shocked.
Click to expand...

Obama fixed the infrastructure in his 8 years didn't he?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Wry Catcher said:


> Keystone XL pipeline would only create 35 permanent jobs
> 
> And Obama's Green and Renewable fiasco:
> 
> US solar power employs more people than oil, coal and gas combined
> 
> and,
> 
> U.S. Clean Energy Jobs Surpass Fossil Fuel Employment
> 
> Solar energy in the US employs more people than traditional coal, gas and oil combined, a report has found, in a revelation that could undermine Donald Trump’s argument that green energy isn’t good for the economy.
> 
> The latest report from the US Department of Energy (DOE) reveals solar energy accounts for the largest proportion of employers in the Electric Power Generation sector, with wind energy the third largest, while the coal industries have declined in the past 10 years.
> 
> Solar energy employed 374,000 people over the year 2015-2016, making up 43 per cent of the sector’s workforce, while the traditional fossil fuels combined employed 187,117, making up just 22 per cent of the workforce, according to the report.



*US solar power employs more people than oil, coal and gas combined*

Excellent! I enjoy proof of the low productivity of solar.

*Solar energy employed 374,000 people over the year 2015-2016, making up 43 per cent of the sector’s workforce, while the traditional fossil fuels combined employed 187,117*

Solar, 1.4% of our electricity generation takes more than twice as many workers as the fossil fuels, gas and coal, that generate over 64% of our electricity.

What is U.S. electricity generation by energy source? - FAQ - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)


----------



## Muhammed

Billy_Kinetta said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Keystone XL pipeline would only create 35 permanent jobs
> 
> And Obama's Green and Renewable fiasco:
> 
> US solar power employs more people than oil, coal and gas combined
> 
> and,
> 
> U.S. Clean Energy Jobs Surpass Fossil Fuel Employment
> 
> Solar energy in the US employs more people than traditional coal, gas and oil combined, a report has found, in a revelation that could undermine Donald Trump’s argument that green energy isn’t good for the economy.
> 
> The latest report from the US Department of Energy (DOE) reveals solar energy accounts for the largest proportion of employers in the Electric Power Generation sector, with wind energy the third largest, while the coal industries have declined in the past 10 years.
> 
> Solar energy employed 374,000 people over the year 2015-2016, making up 43 per cent of the sector’s workforce, while the traditional fossil fuels combined employed 187,117, making up just 22 per cent of the workforce, according to the report.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you can run your car on solar, let us know.
Click to expand...

It's not as far away as you think.


----------



## Weatherman2020

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Keystone XL pipeline would only create 35 permanent jobs
> 
> And Obama's Green and Renewable fiasco:
> 
> US solar power employs more people than oil, coal and gas combined
> 
> and,
> 
> U.S. Clean Energy Jobs Surpass Fossil Fuel Employment
> 
> Solar energy in the US employs more people than traditional coal, gas and oil combined, a report has found, in a revelation that could undermine Donald Trump’s argument that green energy isn’t good for the economy.
> 
> The latest report from the US Department of Energy (DOE) reveals solar energy accounts for the largest proportion of employers in the Electric Power Generation sector, with wind energy the third largest, while the coal industries have declined in the past 10 years.
> 
> Solar energy employed 374,000 people over the year 2015-2016, making up 43 per cent of the sector’s workforce, while the traditional fossil fuels combined employed 187,117, making up just 22 per cent of the workforce, according to the report.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *US solar power employs more people than oil, coal and gas combined*
> 
> Excellent! I enjoy proof of the low productivity of solar.
> 
> *Solar energy employed 374,000 people over the year 2015-2016, making up 43 per cent of the sector’s workforce, while the traditional fossil fuels combined employed 187,117*
> 
> Solar, 1.4% of our electricity generation takes more than twice as many workers as the fossil fuels, gas and coal, that generate over 64% of our electricity.
> 
> What is U.S. electricity generation by energy source? - FAQ - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)
Click to expand...

And solar is so profitable most solar companies have gone under and the remaining are on the brink.


----------



## Wry Catcher

martybegan said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Keystone XL pipeline would only create 35 permanent jobs
> 
> And Obama's Green and Renewable fiasco:
> 
> US solar power employs more people than oil, coal and gas combined
> 
> and,
> 
> U.S. Clean Energy Jobs Surpass Fossil Fuel Employment
> 
> Solar energy in the US employs more people than traditional coal, gas and oil combined, a report has found, in a revelation that could undermine Donald Trump’s argument that green energy isn’t good for the economy.
> 
> The latest report from the US Department of Energy (DOE) reveals solar energy accounts for the largest proportion of employers in the Electric Power Generation sector, with wind energy the third largest, while the coal industries have declined in the past 10 years.
> 
> Solar energy employed 374,000 people over the year 2015-2016, making up 43 per cent of the sector’s workforce, while the traditional fossil fuels combined employed 187,117, making up just 22 per cent of the workforce, according to the report.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's wrong with construction jobs?
> 
> Also even if the pipeline itself doesn't add a lot of jobs, it's still jobs.
Click to expand...


Less jobs than a busy McDonald fast food restaurant?


----------



## Wry Catcher

Billy_Kinetta said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Keystone XL pipeline would only create 35 permanent jobs
> 
> And Obama's Green and Renewable fiasco:
> 
> US solar power employs more people than oil, coal and gas combined
> 
> and,
> 
> U.S. Clean Energy Jobs Surpass Fossil Fuel Employment
> 
> Solar energy in the US employs more people than traditional coal, gas and oil combined, a report has found, in a revelation that could undermine Donald Trump’s argument that green energy isn’t good for the economy.
> 
> The latest report from the US Department of Energy (DOE) reveals solar energy accounts for the largest proportion of employers in the Electric Power Generation sector, with wind energy the third largest, while the coal industries have declined in the past 10 years.
> 
> Solar energy employed 374,000 people over the year 2015-2016, making up 43 per cent of the sector’s workforce, while the traditional fossil fuels combined employed 187,117, making up just 22 per cent of the workforce, according to the report.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you can run your car on solar, let us know.
Click to expand...


I run my electric bike on solar.  In my community we see many Tesla's and lots of solar panels on roofs heating swimming pools.


----------



## Wry Catcher

tinydancer said:


> Bloody fools. Trying this bullshit again. Construction jobs are always temporary.
> 
> 
> 
> Should no project ever be built because the construction jobs are temporary? The stupidity of this so called argument is astounding.



The Pyramids used lots of labor, and they have had very little full time employment since they were built - in those days they didn't have labor unions, it was all under the Free to Work state of affairs.


----------



## Weatherman2020

Wry Catcher said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Keystone XL pipeline would only create 35 permanent jobs
> 
> And Obama's Green and Renewable fiasco:
> 
> US solar power employs more people than oil, coal and gas combined
> 
> and,
> 
> U.S. Clean Energy Jobs Surpass Fossil Fuel Employment
> 
> Solar energy in the US employs more people than traditional coal, gas and oil combined, a report has found, in a revelation that could undermine Donald Trump’s argument that green energy isn’t good for the economy.
> 
> The latest report from the US Department of Energy (DOE) reveals solar energy accounts for the largest proportion of employers in the Electric Power Generation sector, with wind energy the third largest, while the coal industries have declined in the past 10 years.
> 
> Solar energy employed 374,000 people over the year 2015-2016, making up 43 per cent of the sector’s workforce, while the traditional fossil fuels combined employed 187,117, making up just 22 per cent of the workforce, according to the report.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you can run your car on solar, let us know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I run my electric bike on solar.  In my community we see many Tesla's and lots of solar panels on roofs heating swimming pools.
Click to expand...

DUDE, what's with the red helmet?


----------



## MisterBeale

Wry Catcher said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Keystone XL pipeline would only create 35 permanent jobs
> 
> And Obama's Green and Renewable fiasco:
> 
> US solar power employs more people than oil, coal and gas combined
> 
> and,
> 
> U.S. Clean Energy Jobs Surpass Fossil Fuel Employment
> 
> Solar energy in the US employs more people than traditional coal, gas and oil combined, a report has found, in a revelation that could undermine Donald Trump’s argument that green energy isn’t good for the economy.
> 
> The latest report from the US Department of Energy (DOE) reveals solar energy accounts for the largest proportion of employers in the Electric Power Generation sector, with wind energy the third largest, while the coal industries have declined in the past 10 years.
> 
> Solar energy employed 374,000 people over the year 2015-2016, making up 43 per cent of the sector’s workforce, while the traditional fossil fuels combined employed 187,117, making up just 22 per cent of the workforce, according to the report.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you can run your car on solar, let us know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I run my electric bike on solar.  In my community we see many Tesla's and lots of solar panels on roofs heating swimming pools.
Click to expand...


They heat swimming pools eh?

Would you trust them to heat your house in the winter, or would you prefer gas?


----------



## Weatherman2020

Wry Catcher said:


> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bloody fools. Trying this bullshit again. Construction jobs are always temporary.
> 
> 
> 
> Should no project ever be built because the construction jobs are temporary? The stupidity of this so called argument is astounding.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Pyramids used lots of labor, and they have had very little full time employment since they were built - in those days they didn't have labor unions, it was all under the Free to Work state of affairs.
Click to expand...

"No such thing as a permanent job."
- Otto Thomas, phonograph needle assembler.


----------



## BULLDOG

martybegan said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Keystone XL pipeline would only create 35 permanent jobs
> 
> And Obama's Green and Renewable fiasco:
> 
> US solar power employs more people than oil, coal and gas combined
> 
> and,
> 
> U.S. Clean Energy Jobs Surpass Fossil Fuel Employment
> 
> Solar energy in the US employs more people than traditional coal, gas and oil combined, a report has found, in a revelation that could undermine Donald Trump’s argument that green energy isn’t good for the economy.
> 
> The latest report from the US Department of Energy (DOE) reveals solar energy accounts for the largest proportion of employers in the Electric Power Generation sector, with wind energy the third largest, while the coal industries have declined in the past 10 years.
> 
> Solar energy employed 374,000 people over the year 2015-2016, making up 43 per cent of the sector’s workforce, while the traditional fossil fuels combined employed 187,117, making up just 22 per cent of the workforce, according to the report.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's wrong with construction jobs?
> 
> Also even if the pipeline itself doesn't add a lot of jobs, it's still jobs.
Click to expand...


Most of that pipeline is already completed. Can you name one report where those jobs had any noticeable effect on employment? What makes you think the last part will? We could add a few jobs by tearing down all our bridges, but that probably isn't a good enough reason to do it.


----------



## guno

Weatherman2020 said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Keystone XL pipeline would only create 35 permanent jobs
> 
> And Obama's Green and Renewable fiasco:
> 
> US solar power employs more people than oil, coal and gas combined
> 
> and,
> 
> U.S. Clean Energy Jobs Surpass Fossil Fuel Employment
> 
> Solar energy in the US employs more people than traditional coal, gas and oil combined, a report has found, in a revelation that could undermine Donald Trump’s argument that green energy isn’t good for the economy.
> 
> The latest report from the US Department of Energy (DOE) reveals solar energy accounts for the largest proportion of employers in the Electric Power Generation sector, with wind energy the third largest, while the coal industries have declined in the past 10 years.
> 
> Solar energy employed 374,000 people over the year 2015-2016, making up 43 per cent of the sector’s workforce, while the traditional fossil fuels combined employed 187,117, making up just 22 per cent of the workforce, according to the report.
> 
> 
> 
> How many permanent jobs created by building a bridge?
> 
> You lefties keep validating why America has turned its back on you.
Click to expand...

^

speaking of shovel ready jobs


----------



## Weatherman2020

BULLDOG said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Keystone XL pipeline would only create 35 permanent jobs
> 
> And Obama's Green and Renewable fiasco:
> 
> US solar power employs more people than oil, coal and gas combined
> 
> and,
> 
> U.S. Clean Energy Jobs Surpass Fossil Fuel Employment
> 
> Solar energy in the US employs more people than traditional coal, gas and oil combined, a report has found, in a revelation that could undermine Donald Trump’s argument that green energy isn’t good for the economy.
> 
> The latest report from the US Department of Energy (DOE) reveals solar energy accounts for the largest proportion of employers in the Electric Power Generation sector, with wind energy the third largest, while the coal industries have declined in the past 10 years.
> 
> Solar energy employed 374,000 people over the year 2015-2016, making up 43 per cent of the sector’s workforce, while the traditional fossil fuels combined employed 187,117, making up just 22 per cent of the workforce, according to the report.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's wrong with construction jobs?
> 
> Also even if the pipeline itself doesn't add a lot of jobs, it's still jobs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most of that pipeline is already completed. Can you name one report where those jobs had any noticeable effect on employment? What makes you think the last part will? We could add a few jobs by tearing down all our bridges, but that probably isn't a good enough reason to do it.
Click to expand...

Most is completed just 4 months after Trump approved construction?

Is there anything Trump can't do?


----------



## Weatherman2020

Wry Catcher said:


> Keystone XL pipeline would only create 35 permanent jobs
> 
> And Obama's Green and Renewable fiasco:
> 
> US solar power employs more people than oil, coal and gas combined
> 
> and,
> 
> U.S. Clean Energy Jobs Surpass Fossil Fuel Employment
> 
> Solar energy in the US employs more people than traditional coal, gas and oil combined, a report has found, in a revelation that could undermine Donald Trump’s argument that green energy isn’t good for the economy.
> 
> The latest report from the US Department of Energy (DOE) reveals solar energy accounts for the largest proportion of employers in the Electric Power Generation sector, with wind energy the third largest, while the coal industries have declined in the past 10 years.
> 
> Solar energy employed 374,000 people over the year 2015-2016, making up 43 per cent of the sector’s workforce, while the traditional fossil fuels combined employed 187,117, making up just 22 per cent of the workforce, according to the report.


Obama built dog parks and the left cheered at his job creating skills.


----------



## Billy_Kinetta

Muhammed said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Keystone XL pipeline would only create 35 permanent jobs
> 
> And Obama's Green and Renewable fiasco:
> 
> US solar power employs more people than oil, coal and gas combined
> 
> and,
> 
> U.S. Clean Energy Jobs Surpass Fossil Fuel Employment
> 
> Solar energy in the US employs more people than traditional coal, gas and oil combined, a report has found, in a revelation that could undermine Donald Trump’s argument that green energy isn’t good for the economy.
> 
> The latest report from the US Department of Energy (DOE) reveals solar energy accounts for the largest proportion of employers in the Electric Power Generation sector, with wind energy the third largest, while the coal industries have declined in the past 10 years.
> 
> Solar energy employed 374,000 people over the year 2015-2016, making up 43 per cent of the sector’s workforce, while the traditional fossil fuels combined employed 187,117, making up just 22 per cent of the workforce, according to the report.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you can run your car on solar, let us know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not as far away as you think.
Click to expand...


I will expect the same performance as from a gas powered vehicle, otherwise no dice.


----------



## Wyatt earp

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Keystone XL pipeline would only create 35 permanent jobs
> 
> And Obama's Green and Renewable fiasco:
> 
> US solar power employs more people than oil, coal and gas combined
> 
> and,
> 
> U.S. Clean Energy Jobs Surpass Fossil Fuel Employment
> 
> Solar energy in the US employs more people than traditional coal, gas and oil combined, a report has found, in a revelation that could undermine Donald Trump’s argument that green energy isn’t good for the economy.
> 
> The latest report from the US Department of Energy (DOE) reveals solar energy accounts for the largest proportion of employers in the Electric Power Generation sector, with wind energy the third largest, while the coal industries have declined in the past 10 years.
> 
> Solar energy employed 374,000 people over the year 2015-2016, making up 43 per cent of the sector’s workforce, while the traditional fossil fuels combined employed 187,117, making up just 22 per cent of the workforce, according to the report.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *US solar power employs more people than oil, coal and gas combined*
> 
> Excellent! I enjoy proof of the low productivity of solar.
> 
> *Solar energy employed 374,000 people over the year 2015-2016, making up 43 per cent of the sector’s workforce, while the traditional fossil fuels combined employed 187,117*
> 
> Solar, 1.4% of our electricity generation takes more than twice as many workers as the fossil fuels, gas and coal, that generate over 64% of our electricity.
> 
> What is U.S. electricity generation by energy source? - FAQ - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)
Click to expand...





Lmfao great point...







*Solar energy employed 374,000 people over the year 2015-2016, making up 43 per cent of the sector’s workforce, while the traditional fossil fuels combined employed 187,117*

Solar, 1.4% of our electricity generation takes more than twice as many workers as the fossil fuels, gas and coal, that generate over 64% of our electricity.




.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Weatherman2020 said:


> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Keystone XL pipeline would only create 35 permanent jobs
> 
> And Obama's Green and Renewable fiasco:
> 
> US solar power employs more people than oil, coal and gas combined
> 
> and,
> 
> U.S. Clean Energy Jobs Surpass Fossil Fuel Employment
> 
> Solar energy in the US employs more people than traditional coal, gas and oil combined, a report has found, in a revelation that could undermine Donald Trump’s argument that green energy isn’t good for the economy.
> 
> The latest report from the US Department of Energy (DOE) reveals solar energy accounts for the largest proportion of employers in the Electric Power Generation sector, with wind energy the third largest, while the coal industries have declined in the past 10 years.
> 
> Solar energy employed 374,000 people over the year 2015-2016, making up 43 per cent of the sector’s workforce, while the traditional fossil fuels combined employed 187,117, making up just 22 per cent of the workforce, according to the report.
> 
> 
> 
> How many permanent jobs created by building a bridge?
> 
> You lefties keep validating why America has turned its back on you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh is he going to redo the bridges? When is that?  Sometime , we will be shocked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obama fixed the infrastructure in his 8 years didn't he?
Click to expand...


Nope, didn't you hear, Republicans passed the budget and their number 2 goal was to not allow Obama to fix anything.  Oh, you want to know what their #1 goal was?  What it has always been, to keep their pt job and continue to be paid FT wages, have great benefits and all kinds of perks.


----------



## Wry Catcher

bear513 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Keystone XL pipeline would only create 35 permanent jobs
> 
> And Obama's Green and Renewable fiasco:
> 
> US solar power employs more people than oil, coal and gas combined
> 
> and,
> 
> U.S. Clean Energy Jobs Surpass Fossil Fuel Employment
> 
> Solar energy in the US employs more people than traditional coal, gas and oil combined, a report has found, in a revelation that could undermine Donald Trump’s argument that green energy isn’t good for the economy.
> 
> The latest report from the US Department of Energy (DOE) reveals solar energy accounts for the largest proportion of employers in the Electric Power Generation sector, with wind energy the third largest, while the coal industries have declined in the past 10 years.
> 
> Solar energy employed 374,000 people over the year 2015-2016, making up 43 per cent of the sector’s workforce, while the traditional fossil fuels combined employed 187,117, making up just 22 per cent of the workforce, according to the report.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *US solar power employs more people than oil, coal and gas combined*
> 
> Excellent! I enjoy proof of the low productivity of solar.
> 
> *Solar energy employed 374,000 people over the year 2015-2016, making up 43 per cent of the sector’s workforce, while the traditional fossil fuels combined employed 187,117*
> 
> Solar, 1.4% of our electricity generation takes more than twice as many workers as the fossil fuels, gas and coal, that generate over 64% of our electricity.
> 
> What is U.S. electricity generation by energy source? - FAQ - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lmfao great point...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Solar energy employed 374,000 people over the year 2015-2016, making up 43 per cent of the sector’s workforce, while the traditional fossil fuels combined employed 187,117*
> 
> Solar, 1.4% of our electricity generation takes more than twice as many workers as the fossil fuels, gas and coal, that generate over 64% of our electricity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...


???  Is your point less jobs are better than more jobs???


----------



## Old Yeller

Billy_Kinetta said:


> When you can run your car on solar, let us know.




Question to all:  A Tesla car runs on Batteries.  Most are parked all day in the hot sun with no cover at worksites.

Why not integrate solar panels.........built into roof and or trunk?  Telsa bought solar city, correct?  Every time I get in a car and it is 140DEG inside parked out in PHX AZ,  I wonder.  I really wonder.   Even a trickle-charge is free?


EDIT:  Many styles of panels on the market.
2 solar panels in series could get over 100V DC with at least 8 amps current flow?
Or
4 solar panels in parallel could get >30 amps at around 58V DC. 

Are they too ugly? Heavy?  Why not built into the roof of these Tesla Sedans?


----------



## Penelope

Billy_Kinetta said:


> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Keystone XL pipeline would only create 35 permanent jobs
> 
> And Obama's Green and Renewable fiasco:
> 
> US solar power employs more people than oil, coal and gas combined
> 
> and,
> 
> U.S. Clean Energy Jobs Surpass Fossil Fuel Employment
> 
> Solar energy in the US employs more people than traditional coal, gas and oil combined, a report has found, in a revelation that could undermine Donald Trump’s argument that green energy isn’t good for the economy.
> 
> The latest report from the US Department of Energy (DOE) reveals solar energy accounts for the largest proportion of employers in the Electric Power Generation sector, with wind energy the third largest, while the coal industries have declined in the past 10 years.
> 
> Solar energy employed 374,000 people over the year 2015-2016, making up 43 per cent of the sector’s workforce, while the traditional fossil fuels combined employed 187,117, making up just 22 per cent of the workforce, according to the report.
> 
> 
> 
> How many permanent jobs created by building a bridge?
> 
> You lefties keep validating why America has turned its back on you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh is he going to redo the bridges? When is that?  Sometime , we will be shocked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They were "shovel ready" as Obama described them in 2009.  Obama was in office 8 years.  They are still shovel ready.
> 
> Trump has been in office six months.
Click to expand...


The pubs would not approve an infrastructure plan, remember.


----------



## Weatherman2020

Wry Catcher said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Keystone XL pipeline would only create 35 permanent jobs
> 
> And Obama's Green and Renewable fiasco:
> 
> US solar power employs more people than oil, coal and gas combined
> 
> and,
> 
> U.S. Clean Energy Jobs Surpass Fossil Fuel Employment
> 
> Solar energy in the US employs more people than traditional coal, gas and oil combined, a report has found, in a revelation that could undermine Donald Trump’s argument that green energy isn’t good for the economy.
> 
> The latest report from the US Department of Energy (DOE) reveals solar energy accounts for the largest proportion of employers in the Electric Power Generation sector, with wind energy the third largest, while the coal industries have declined in the past 10 years.
> 
> Solar energy employed 374,000 people over the year 2015-2016, making up 43 per cent of the sector’s workforce, while the traditional fossil fuels combined employed 187,117, making up just 22 per cent of the workforce, according to the report.
> 
> 
> 
> How many permanent jobs created by building a bridge?
> 
> You lefties keep validating why America has turned its back on you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh is he going to redo the bridges? When is that?  Sometime , we will be shocked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obama fixed the infrastructure in his 8 years didn't he?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope, didn't you hear, Republicans passed the budget and their number 2 goal was to not allow Obama to fix anything.  Oh, you want to know what their #1 goal was?  What it has always been, to keep their pt job and continue to be paid FT wages, have great benefits and all kinds of perks.
Click to expand...

What was the vote that allowed Obama to ship billions to Iran in cold cash?


----------



## Wry Catcher

Weatherman2020 said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Keystone XL pipeline would only create 35 permanent jobs
> 
> And Obama's Green and Renewable fiasco:
> 
> US solar power employs more people than oil, coal and gas combined
> 
> and,
> 
> U.S. Clean Energy Jobs Surpass Fossil Fuel Employment
> 
> Solar energy in the US employs more people than traditional coal, gas and oil combined, a report has found, in a revelation that could undermine Donald Trump’s argument that green energy isn’t good for the economy.
> 
> The latest report from the US Department of Energy (DOE) reveals solar energy accounts for the largest proportion of employers in the Electric Power Generation sector, with wind energy the third largest, while the coal industries have declined in the past 10 years.
> 
> Solar energy employed 374,000 people over the year 2015-2016, making up 43 per cent of the sector’s workforce, while the traditional fossil fuels combined employed 187,117, making up just 22 per cent of the workforce, according to the report.
> 
> 
> 
> How many permanent jobs created by building a bridge?
> 
> You lefties keep validating why America has turned its back on you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh is he going to redo the bridges? When is that?  Sometime , we will be shocked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obama fixed the infrastructure in his 8 years didn't he?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope, didn't you hear, Republicans passed the budget and their number 2 goal was to not allow Obama to fix anything.  Oh, you want to know what their #1 goal was?  What it has always been, to keep their pt job and continue to be paid FT wages, have great benefits and all kinds of perks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What was the vote that allowed Obama to ship billions to Iran in cold cash?
Click to expand...


NON SEQUITUR


----------



## Wyatt earp

Wry Catcher said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Keystone XL pipeline would only create 35 permanent jobs
> 
> And Obama's Green and Renewable fiasco:
> 
> US solar power employs more people than oil, coal and gas combined
> 
> and,
> 
> U.S. Clean Energy Jobs Surpass Fossil Fuel Employment
> 
> Solar energy in the US employs more people than traditional coal, gas and oil combined, a report has found, in a revelation that could undermine Donald Trump’s argument that green energy isn’t good for the economy.
> 
> The latest report from the US Department of Energy (DOE) reveals solar energy accounts for the largest proportion of employers in the Electric Power Generation sector, with wind energy the third largest, while the coal industries have declined in the past 10 years.
> 
> Solar energy employed 374,000 people over the year 2015-2016, making up 43 per cent of the sector’s workforce, while the traditional fossil fuels combined employed 187,117, making up just 22 per cent of the workforce, according to the report.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *US solar power employs more people than oil, coal and gas combined*
> 
> Excellent! I enjoy proof of the low productivity of solar.
> 
> *Solar energy employed 374,000 people over the year 2015-2016, making up 43 per cent of the sector’s workforce, while the traditional fossil fuels combined employed 187,117*
> 
> Solar, 1.4% of our electricity generation takes more than twice as many workers as the fossil fuels, gas and coal, that generate over 64% of our electricity.
> 
> What is U.S. electricity generation by energy source? - FAQ - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lmfao great point...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Solar energy employed 374,000 people over the year 2015-2016, making up 43 per cent of the sector’s workforce, while the traditional fossil fuels combined employed 187,117*
> 
> Solar, 1.4% of our electricity generation takes more than twice as many workers as the fossil fuels, gas and coal, that generate over 64% of our electricity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ???  Is your point less jobs are better than more jobs???
Click to expand...




Let me guess your another liberal that wants to  outlaw automation ?


This is funny almost 400,000 workers just to produce 1.4% electricity


.


----------



## Yarddog

tinydancer said:


> Bloody fools. Trying this bullshit again. Construction jobs are always temporary.
> 
> 
> 
> Should no project ever be built because the construction jobs are temporary? The stupidity of this so called argument is astounding.
> 
> ETA the stats on Keystone Cushing to the Gulf project that was completed while every eco moron was protesting the XL.
> 
> Check out the labour stats.
> 
> Construction of the Gulf Coast Pipeline Project required:
> •
> US$2.3 billion in private sector investment
> •
> Six modern pump stations
> •
> More than 11 million hours of labor completed by 4,844 workers in the
> United States of America
> -
> Heavy equipment operators, welders, laborers, transportation operators and supervisory personnel (including environment, safety and quality control inspectors)
> •
> More than 50 contracts with U.S. manufacturers and companies
> building the pipeline and equipment in locations that include: Arkansas, California, Georgia,
> Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New
> York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina and Texas
> •
> The manufacturing of more than 485 miles of high strength, advanced oil
> pipeline
> (36 inch diameter); hundreds of large valves; thousands of fittings;
> thousands of pieces of equipment used to build transformers, meters, electric
> motors, cabling and electrical equipment; and piping assembling and structural
> steel for supports
> •
> About
> 2.25 million barrels of new oil storage capacity
> at Cushing, Oklahoma.
> 
> http://www.keystone-xl.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Gulf-Coast-Pipeline-Economic-Analysis.pdf





And even if they are temporary jobs , it will boost the local community at least for that while.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Old Yeller said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you can run your car on solar, let us know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Question to all:  A Tesla car runs on Batteries.  Most are parked all day in the hot sun with no cover at worksites.
> 
> Why not integrate solar panels.........built into roof and or trunk?  Telsa bought solar city, correct?  Every time I get in a car and it is 140DEG inside parked out in PHX AZ,  I wonder.  I really wonder.   Even a trickle-charge is free?
Click to expand...


Most schools have solar panels which staff and students old enough to drive park under:

Vote which created the solar panels in school parking lots - Google Search


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Penelope said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Keystone XL pipeline would only create 35 permanent jobs
> 
> And Obama's Green and Renewable fiasco:
> 
> US solar power employs more people than oil, coal and gas combined
> 
> and,
> 
> U.S. Clean Energy Jobs Surpass Fossil Fuel Employment
> 
> Solar energy in the US employs more people than traditional coal, gas and oil combined, a report has found, in a revelation that could undermine Donald Trump’s argument that green energy isn’t good for the economy.
> 
> The latest report from the US Department of Energy (DOE) reveals solar energy accounts for the largest proportion of employers in the Electric Power Generation sector, with wind energy the third largest, while the coal industries have declined in the past 10 years.
> 
> Solar energy employed 374,000 people over the year 2015-2016, making up 43 per cent of the sector’s workforce, while the traditional fossil fuels combined employed 187,117, making up just 22 per cent of the workforce, according to the report.
> 
> 
> 
> How many permanent jobs created by building a bridge?
> 
> You lefties keep validating why America has turned its back on you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh is he going to redo the bridges? When is that?  Sometime , we will be shocked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They were "shovel ready" as Obama described them in 2009.  Obama was in office 8 years.  They are still shovel ready.
> 
> Trump has been in office six months.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The pubs would not approve an infrastructure plan, remember.
Click to expand...


After Obama's "stimulus", wasn't all the infrastructure fixed?  Why not?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Wry Catcher said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Keystone XL pipeline would only create 35 permanent jobs
> 
> And Obama's Green and Renewable fiasco:
> 
> US solar power employs more people than oil, coal and gas combined
> 
> and,
> 
> U.S. Clean Energy Jobs Surpass Fossil Fuel Employment
> 
> Solar energy in the US employs more people than traditional coal, gas and oil combined, a report has found, in a revelation that could undermine Donald Trump’s argument that green energy isn’t good for the economy.
> 
> The latest report from the US Department of Energy (DOE) reveals solar energy accounts for the largest proportion of employers in the Electric Power Generation sector, with wind energy the third largest, while the coal industries have declined in the past 10 years.
> 
> Solar energy employed 374,000 people over the year 2015-2016, making up 43 per cent of the sector’s workforce, while the traditional fossil fuels combined employed 187,117, making up just 22 per cent of the workforce, according to the report.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *US solar power employs more people than oil, coal and gas combined*
> 
> Excellent! I enjoy proof of the low productivity of solar.
> 
> *Solar energy employed 374,000 people over the year 2015-2016, making up 43 per cent of the sector’s workforce, while the traditional fossil fuels combined employed 187,117*
> 
> Solar, 1.4% of our electricity generation takes more than twice as many workers as the fossil fuels, gas and coal, that generate over 64% of our electricity.
> 
> What is U.S. electricity generation by energy source? - FAQ - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lmfao great point...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Solar energy employed 374,000 people over the year 2015-2016, making up 43 per cent of the sector’s workforce, while the traditional fossil fuels combined employed 187,117*
> 
> Solar, 1.4% of our electricity generation takes more than twice as many workers as the fossil fuels, gas and coal, that generate over 64% of our electricity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ???  Is your point less jobs are better than more jobs???
Click to expand...


We should hire people to ride bicycles attached to generators.
Think of all the jobs.
Think of all the "green energy".
Think of all the wasted spending.
DERP!


----------



## Wyatt earp

Wry Catcher said:


> Old Yeller said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you can run your car on solar, let us know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Question to all:  A Tesla car runs on Batteries.  Most are parked all day in the hot sun with no cover at worksites.
> 
> Why not integrate solar panels.........built into roof and or trunk?  Telsa bought solar city, correct?  Every time I get in a car and it is 140DEG inside parked out in PHX AZ,  I wonder.  I really wonder.   Even a trickle-charge is free?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most schools have solar panels which staff and students old enough to drive park under:
> 
> Vote which created the solar panels in school parking lots - Google Search
Click to expand...



Your linking to pictures made by crayons?



.


----------



## Wry Catcher

bear513 said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Yeller said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you can run your car on solar, let us know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Question to all:  A Tesla car runs on Batteries.  Most are parked all day in the hot sun with no cover at worksites.
> 
> Why not integrate solar panels.........built into roof and or trunk?  Telsa bought solar city, correct?  Every time I get in a car and it is 140DEG inside parked out in PHX AZ,  I wonder.  I really wonder.   Even a trickle-charge is free?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most schools have solar panels which staff and students old enough to drive park under:
> 
> Vote which created the solar panels in school parking lots - Google Search
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Your linking to pictures made by crayons?
> 
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Does this look like a crayon to you?


----------



## Wyatt earp

Wry Catcher said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Yeller said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you can run your car on solar, let us know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Question to all:  A Tesla car runs on Batteries.  Most are parked all day in the hot sun with no cover at worksites.
> 
> Why not integrate solar panels.........built into roof and or trunk?  Telsa bought solar city, correct?  Every time I get in a car and it is 140DEG inside parked out in PHX AZ,  I wonder.  I really wonder.   Even a trickle-charge is free?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most schools have solar panels which staff and students old enough to drive park under:
> 
> Vote which created the solar panels in school parking lots - Google Search
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Your linking to pictures made by crayons?
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Does this look like a crayon to you?
> 
> View attachment 134647
Click to expand...




It's an"artist rendering " do you know what that means?



.


----------



## Weatherman2020

Obama spent billions creating jobs building dog parks. For 45 days.


----------



## BULLDOG

Weatherman2020 said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Keystone XL pipeline would only create 35 permanent jobs
> 
> And Obama's Green and Renewable fiasco:
> 
> US solar power employs more people than oil, coal and gas combined
> 
> and,
> 
> U.S. Clean Energy Jobs Surpass Fossil Fuel Employment
> 
> Solar energy in the US employs more people than traditional coal, gas and oil combined, a report has found, in a revelation that could undermine Donald Trump’s argument that green energy isn’t good for the economy.
> 
> The latest report from the US Department of Energy (DOE) reveals solar energy accounts for the largest proportion of employers in the Electric Power Generation sector, with wind energy the third largest, while the coal industries have declined in the past 10 years.
> 
> Solar energy employed 374,000 people over the year 2015-2016, making up 43 per cent of the sector’s workforce, while the traditional fossil fuels combined employed 187,117, making up just 22 per cent of the workforce, according to the report.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's wrong with construction jobs?
> 
> Also even if the pipeline itself doesn't add a lot of jobs, it's still jobs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most of that pipeline is already completed. Can you name one report where those jobs had any noticeable effect on employment? What makes you think the last part will? We could add a few jobs by tearing down all our bridges, but that probably isn't a good enough reason to do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Most is completed just 4 months after Trump approved construction?
> 
> Is there anything Trump can't do?
Click to expand...

Don't be an idiot, The southern half was completed a couple of years ago. Most of the northern half was completed shortly after.


----------



## martybegan

Wry Catcher said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Keystone XL pipeline would only create 35 permanent jobs
> 
> And Obama's Green and Renewable fiasco:
> 
> US solar power employs more people than oil, coal and gas combined
> 
> and,
> 
> U.S. Clean Energy Jobs Surpass Fossil Fuel Employment
> 
> Solar energy in the US employs more people than traditional coal, gas and oil combined, a report has found, in a revelation that could undermine Donald Trump’s argument that green energy isn’t good for the economy.
> 
> The latest report from the US Department of Energy (DOE) reveals solar energy accounts for the largest proportion of employers in the Electric Power Generation sector, with wind energy the third largest, while the coal industries have declined in the past 10 years.
> 
> Solar energy employed 374,000 people over the year 2015-2016, making up 43 per cent of the sector’s workforce, while the traditional fossil fuels combined employed 187,117, making up just 22 per cent of the workforce, according to the report.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's wrong with construction jobs?
> 
> Also even if the pipeline itself doesn't add a lot of jobs, it's still jobs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Less jobs than a busy McDonald fast food restaurant?
Click to expand...


Does it count the jobs at the ends of the pipeline for loading an unloading? does it count the jobs from the additional shipping from the pipeline and transport to the pipeline? Does it count the jobs from the increased drilling and pumping of oil for the pipeline?

Yes, pipelines are manpower efficient, that's what makes them such a great idea along with the lower risk of incidents compared to rail tanker movement. 

And again, the construction jobs are nothing to cry about.


----------



## martybegan

BULLDOG said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Keystone XL pipeline would only create 35 permanent jobs
> 
> And Obama's Green and Renewable fiasco:
> 
> US solar power employs more people than oil, coal and gas combined
> 
> and,
> 
> U.S. Clean Energy Jobs Surpass Fossil Fuel Employment
> 
> Solar energy in the US employs more people than traditional coal, gas and oil combined, a report has found, in a revelation that could undermine Donald Trump’s argument that green energy isn’t good for the economy.
> 
> The latest report from the US Department of Energy (DOE) reveals solar energy accounts for the largest proportion of employers in the Electric Power Generation sector, with wind energy the third largest, while the coal industries have declined in the past 10 years.
> 
> Solar energy employed 374,000 people over the year 2015-2016, making up 43 per cent of the sector’s workforce, while the traditional fossil fuels combined employed 187,117, making up just 22 per cent of the workforce, according to the report.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's wrong with construction jobs?
> 
> Also even if the pipeline itself doesn't add a lot of jobs, it's still jobs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most of that pipeline is already completed. Can you name one report where those jobs had any noticeable effect on employment? What makes you think the last part will? We could add a few jobs by tearing down all our bridges, but that probably isn't a good enough reason to do it.
Click to expand...


Non-valid comparison. And again, there are other variables at play, as I stated in my response to Wry.


----------



## Wry Catcher

martybegan said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Keystone XL pipeline would only create 35 permanent jobs
> 
> And Obama's Green and Renewable fiasco:
> 
> US solar power employs more people than oil, coal and gas combined
> 
> and,
> 
> U.S. Clean Energy Jobs Surpass Fossil Fuel Employment
> 
> Solar energy in the US employs more people than traditional coal, gas and oil combined, a report has found, in a revelation that could undermine Donald Trump’s argument that green energy isn’t good for the economy.
> 
> The latest report from the US Department of Energy (DOE) reveals solar energy accounts for the largest proportion of employers in the Electric Power Generation sector, with wind energy the third largest, while the coal industries have declined in the past 10 years.
> 
> Solar energy employed 374,000 people over the year 2015-2016, making up 43 per cent of the sector’s workforce, while the traditional fossil fuels combined employed 187,117, making up just 22 per cent of the workforce, according to the report.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's wrong with construction jobs?
> 
> Also even if the pipeline itself doesn't add a lot of jobs, it's still jobs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most of that pipeline is already completed. Can you name one report where those jobs had any noticeable effect on employment? What makes you think the last part will? We could add a few jobs by tearing down all our bridges, but that probably isn't a good enough reason to do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Non-valid comparison. And again, there are other variables at play, as I stated in my response to Wry.
Click to expand...


There is nothing wrong with construction jobs, what is built determines the number of permanent jobs created.


----------



## martybegan

Wry Catcher said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Keystone XL pipeline would only create 35 permanent jobs
> 
> And Obama's Green and Renewable fiasco:
> 
> US solar power employs more people than oil, coal and gas combined
> 
> and,
> 
> U.S. Clean Energy Jobs Surpass Fossil Fuel Employment
> 
> Solar energy in the US employs more people than traditional coal, gas and oil combined, a report has found, in a revelation that could undermine Donald Trump’s argument that green energy isn’t good for the economy.
> 
> The latest report from the US Department of Energy (DOE) reveals solar energy accounts for the largest proportion of employers in the Electric Power Generation sector, with wind energy the third largest, while the coal industries have declined in the past 10 years.
> 
> Solar energy employed 374,000 people over the year 2015-2016, making up 43 per cent of the sector’s workforce, while the traditional fossil fuels combined employed 187,117, making up just 22 per cent of the workforce, according to the report.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's wrong with construction jobs?
> 
> Also even if the pipeline itself doesn't add a lot of jobs, it's still jobs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most of that pipeline is already completed. Can you name one report where those jobs had any noticeable effect on employment? What makes you think the last part will? We could add a few jobs by tearing down all our bridges, but that probably isn't a good enough reason to do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Non-valid comparison. And again, there are other variables at play, as I stated in my response to Wry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is nothing wrong with construction jobs, what is built determines the number of permanent jobs created.
Click to expand...


And?


----------



## BULLDOG

martybegan said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Keystone XL pipeline would only create 35 permanent jobs
> 
> And Obama's Green and Renewable fiasco:
> 
> US solar power employs more people than oil, coal and gas combined
> 
> and,
> 
> U.S. Clean Energy Jobs Surpass Fossil Fuel Employment
> 
> Solar energy in the US employs more people than traditional coal, gas and oil combined, a report has found, in a revelation that could undermine Donald Trump’s argument that green energy isn’t good for the economy.
> 
> The latest report from the US Department of Energy (DOE) reveals solar energy accounts for the largest proportion of employers in the Electric Power Generation sector, with wind energy the third largest, while the coal industries have declined in the past 10 years.
> 
> Solar energy employed 374,000 people over the year 2015-2016, making up 43 per cent of the sector’s workforce, while the traditional fossil fuels combined employed 187,117, making up just 22 per cent of the workforce, according to the report.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's wrong with construction jobs?
> 
> Also even if the pipeline itself doesn't add a lot of jobs, it's still jobs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Less jobs than a busy McDonald fast food restaurant?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Does it count the jobs at the ends of the pipeline for loading an unloading? does it count the jobs from the additional shipping from the pipeline and transport to the pipeline? Does it count the jobs from the increased drilling and pumping of oil for the pipeline?
> 
> Yes, pipelines are manpower efficient, that's what makes them such a great idea along with the lower risk of incidents compared to rail tanker movement.
> 
> And again, the construction jobs are nothing to cry about.
Click to expand...


1.) Do you think the stuff is manually packed into the line by hand? No. It is heated and mixed with liquid so the sludge is thin enough to flow though the line. It's an automated process and is done at the bitumen mining location. 
2.) The pipeline ends at the refineries where an automated valve releases the diluted bitumen directly into a distillation tower, or storage area, just like refineries have always done.
3.)Bitumen is not drilled. It is mined, similar to coal. Since the mining facility, along with the heating, and all other preparation for pumping  is done at the mining facility location in Canada, how could that possibly have any effect on our employment numbers.
4.) Since the bitumen/added oil slurry is pumped with conventional pumps, what possible need could there be for additional manpower?

You have been lied to from the start about how many jobs that line would add, and any benefit our county might get from it. The fact remains that the multi-national, multi-million dollar oil companies are the only ones to get anything from that line, and we, as a nation now have all the liability of a potential spill. With the use of another give away to oil companies, something called "Free Trade Zones" they won't even have to pay taxes on the billions of dollars earned by the refineries for distilling that Canadian sludge and shipping it directly to other countries for sale. The large majority of it will never be used here.


----------



## BULLDOG

martybegan said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Keystone XL pipeline would only create 35 permanent jobs
> 
> And Obama's Green and Renewable fiasco:
> 
> US solar power employs more people than oil, coal and gas combined
> 
> and,
> 
> U.S. Clean Energy Jobs Surpass Fossil Fuel Employment
> 
> Solar energy in the US employs more people than traditional coal, gas and oil combined, a report has found, in a revelation that could undermine Donald Trump’s argument that green energy isn’t good for the economy.
> 
> The latest report from the US Department of Energy (DOE) reveals solar energy accounts for the largest proportion of employers in the Electric Power Generation sector, with wind energy the third largest, while the coal industries have declined in the past 10 years.
> 
> Solar energy employed 374,000 people over the year 2015-2016, making up 43 per cent of the sector’s workforce, while the traditional fossil fuels combined employed 187,117, making up just 22 per cent of the workforce, according to the report.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's wrong with construction jobs?
> 
> Also even if the pipeline itself doesn't add a lot of jobs, it's still jobs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most of that pipeline is already completed. Can you name one report where those jobs had any noticeable effect on employment? What makes you think the last part will? We could add a few jobs by tearing down all our bridges, but that probably isn't a good enough reason to do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Non-valid comparison. And again, there are other variables at play, as I stated in my response to Wry.
Click to expand...


Please list any variables that might be of some benefit to this country in any way.


----------



## BULLDOG

martybegan said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Keystone XL pipeline would only create 35 permanent jobs
> 
> And Obama's Green and Renewable fiasco:
> 
> US solar power employs more people than oil, coal and gas combined
> 
> and,
> 
> U.S. Clean Energy Jobs Surpass Fossil Fuel Employment
> 
> Solar energy in the US employs more people than traditional coal, gas and oil combined, a report has found, in a revelation that could undermine Donald Trump’s argument that green energy isn’t good for the economy.
> 
> The latest report from the US Department of Energy (DOE) reveals solar energy accounts for the largest proportion of employers in the Electric Power Generation sector, with wind energy the third largest, while the coal industries have declined in the past 10 years.
> 
> Solar energy employed 374,000 people over the year 2015-2016, making up 43 per cent of the sector’s workforce, while the traditional fossil fuels combined employed 187,117, making up just 22 per cent of the workforce, according to the report.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's wrong with construction jobs?
> 
> Also even if the pipeline itself doesn't add a lot of jobs, it's still jobs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most of that pipeline is already completed. Can you name one report where those jobs had any noticeable effect on employment? What makes you think the last part will? We could add a few jobs by tearing down all our bridges, but that probably isn't a good enough reason to do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Non-valid comparison. And again, there are other variables at play, as I stated in my response to Wry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is nothing wrong with construction jobs, what is built determines the number of permanent jobs created.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And?
Click to expand...


Other than the few extremely temporary jobs in construction, most will be 6-8 months or less. That's little more than a summer job for a school kid. What else have you got as far as benefit to OUR country?


----------



## martybegan

BULLDOG said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Keystone XL pipeline would only create 35 permanent jobs
> 
> And Obama's Green and Renewable fiasco:
> 
> US solar power employs more people than oil, coal and gas combined
> 
> and,
> 
> U.S. Clean Energy Jobs Surpass Fossil Fuel Employment
> 
> Solar energy in the US employs more people than traditional coal, gas and oil combined, a report has found, in a revelation that could undermine Donald Trump’s argument that green energy isn’t good for the economy.
> 
> The latest report from the US Department of Energy (DOE) reveals solar energy accounts for the largest proportion of employers in the Electric Power Generation sector, with wind energy the third largest, while the coal industries have declined in the past 10 years.
> 
> Solar energy employed 374,000 people over the year 2015-2016, making up 43 per cent of the sector’s workforce, while the traditional fossil fuels combined employed 187,117, making up just 22 per cent of the workforce, according to the report.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's wrong with construction jobs?
> 
> Also even if the pipeline itself doesn't add a lot of jobs, it's still jobs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Less jobs than a busy McDonald fast food restaurant?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Does it count the jobs at the ends of the pipeline for loading an unloading? does it count the jobs from the additional shipping from the pipeline and transport to the pipeline? Does it count the jobs from the increased drilling and pumping of oil for the pipeline?
> 
> Yes, pipelines are manpower efficient, that's what makes them such a great idea along with the lower risk of incidents compared to rail tanker movement.
> 
> And again, the construction jobs are nothing to cry about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1.) Do you think the stuff is manually packed into the line by hand? No. It is heated and mixed with liquid so the sludge is thin enough to flow though the line. It's an automated process and is done at the bitumen mining location.
> 2.) The pipeline ends at the refineries where an automated valve releases the diluted bitumen directly into a distillation tower, or storage area, just like refineries have always done.
> 3.)Bitumen is not drilled. It is mined, similar to coal. Since the mining facility, along with the heating, and all other preparation for pumping  is done at the mining facility location in Canada, how could that possibly have any effect on our employment numbers.
> 4.) Since the bitumen/added oil slurry is pumped with conventional pumps, what possible need could there be for additional manpower?
> 
> You have been lied to from the start about how many jobs that line would add, and any benefit our county might get from it. The fact remains that the multi-national, multi-million dollar oil companies are the only ones to get anything from that line, and we, as a nation now have all the liability of a potential spill. With the use of another give away to oil companies, something called "Free Trade Zones" they won't even have to pay taxes on the billions of dollars earned by the refineries for distilling that Canadian sludge and shipping it directly to other countries for sale. The large majority of it will never be used here.
Click to expand...


people have to maintain this equipment, and the people doing it are usually very well skilled, and make good $$. Plus people have to operate the equipment, and if keystone makes moving the stuff easier, one would think more of it would be extracted. 

People work for these "multi-million" companies, stockholders like pension funds invest in them. 

And this isn't sludge, sludge is a waste product. The stuff remaining could be called sludge.


----------



## martybegan

BULLDOG said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's wrong with construction jobs?
> 
> Also even if the pipeline itself doesn't add a lot of jobs, it's still jobs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most of that pipeline is already completed. Can you name one report where those jobs had any noticeable effect on employment? What makes you think the last part will? We could add a few jobs by tearing down all our bridges, but that probably isn't a good enough reason to do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Non-valid comparison. And again, there are other variables at play, as I stated in my response to Wry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is nothing wrong with construction jobs, what is built determines the number of permanent jobs created.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Other than the few extremely temporary jobs in construction, most will be 6-8 months or less. That's little more than a summer job for a school kid. What else have you got as far as benefit to OUR country?
Click to expand...


Construction jobs are always temporary in nature. it's amazing how much you guys keep moving the goalposts.

It makes no jobs!
It makes too few jobs!!!
The jobs it makes are only temporary!
Machines will do the work!

You put the blinders on when it suits your political interests.


----------



## BULLDOG

martybegan said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Keystone XL pipeline would only create 35 permanent jobs
> 
> And Obama's Green and Renewable fiasco:
> 
> US solar power employs more people than oil, coal and gas combined
> 
> and,
> 
> U.S. Clean Energy Jobs Surpass Fossil Fuel Employment
> 
> Solar energy in the US employs more people than traditional coal, gas and oil combined, a report has found, in a revelation that could undermine Donald Trump’s argument that green energy isn’t good for the economy.
> 
> The latest report from the US Department of Energy (DOE) reveals solar energy accounts for the largest proportion of employers in the Electric Power Generation sector, with wind energy the third largest, while the coal industries have declined in the past 10 years.
> 
> Solar energy employed 374,000 people over the year 2015-2016, making up 43 per cent of the sector’s workforce, while the traditional fossil fuels combined employed 187,117, making up just 22 per cent of the workforce, according to the report.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's wrong with construction jobs?
> 
> Also even if the pipeline itself doesn't add a lot of jobs, it's still jobs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Less jobs than a busy McDonald fast food restaurant?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Does it count the jobs at the ends of the pipeline for loading an unloading? does it count the jobs from the additional shipping from the pipeline and transport to the pipeline? Does it count the jobs from the increased drilling and pumping of oil for the pipeline?
> 
> Yes, pipelines are manpower efficient, that's what makes them such a great idea along with the lower risk of incidents compared to rail tanker movement.
> 
> And again, the construction jobs are nothing to cry about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1.) Do you think the stuff is manually packed into the line by hand? No. It is heated and mixed with liquid so the sludge is thin enough to flow though the line. It's an automated process and is done at the bitumen mining location.
> 2.) The pipeline ends at the refineries where an automated valve releases the diluted bitumen directly into a distillation tower, or storage area, just like refineries have always done.
> 3.)Bitumen is not drilled. It is mined, similar to coal. Since the mining facility, along with the heating, and all other preparation for pumping  is done at the mining facility location in Canada, how could that possibly have any effect on our employment numbers.
> 4.) Since the bitumen/added oil slurry is pumped with conventional pumps, what possible need could there be for additional manpower?
> 
> You have been lied to from the start about how many jobs that line would add, and any benefit our county might get from it. The fact remains that the multi-national, multi-million dollar oil companies are the only ones to get anything from that line, and we, as a nation now have all the liability of a potential spill. With the use of another give away to oil companies, something called "Free Trade Zones" they won't even have to pay taxes on the billions of dollars earned by the refineries for distilling that Canadian sludge and shipping it directly to other countries for sale. The large majority of it will never be used here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> people have to maintain this equipment, and the people doing it are usually very well skilled, and make good $$. Plus people have to operate the equipment, and if keystone makes moving the stuff easier, one would think more of it would be extracted.
> 
> People work for these "multi-million" companies, stockholders like pension funds invest in them.
> 
> And this isn't sludge, sludge is a waste product. The stuff remaining could be called sludge.
Click to expand...


bi·tu·men
bəˈt(y)o͞omən,bīˈt(y)o͞omən/
_noun_

a black viscous mixture of hydrocarbons obtained naturally or as a residue from petroleum distillation. It is used for road surfacing and roofing.
If you don't like that definition, feel free to google another. They are all basically the same with slight changes in the wording. 

Yes, the equipment does have to be run and maintained.  All the preparation to make the sludge capable of flowing though a pipe, not possible in it's freshly mined natural form,  is done in Canada. Maintenance and control of that equipment is also done in Canada by Canadian workers. All that good $$ will be paid to those Canadian workers too. Don't worry, it's all automated, and only needs a couple of guys at a control panel to make everything hum. On the refinery end, everything is automated, and requires no additional people to handle flow from Keystone. Again, just a couple people at a control panel. Yes, people work for those "multi-million" companies just like they always have. On this end, there will be no change in the number of people who work for them. In  fact, all the  automation that was put in place to handle the heavy sludge reduced the number of plant operators needed to run the entire plant. Aramco, in Pt. Arthur Tx. our county's  largest refinery,  became 100% under the control of the Saudis this year and  can now run it's entire plant with just 3 or 4 plant operators. No additional jobs there.
I know it's hard for you to accept that all the crap they told you about Keystone is bullshit, but it wouldn't take much research for yourself to see I'm right. Don't believe me? Google it yourself.


----------



## martybegan

BULLDOG said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's wrong with construction jobs?
> 
> Also even if the pipeline itself doesn't add a lot of jobs, it's still jobs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Less jobs than a busy McDonald fast food restaurant?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Does it count the jobs at the ends of the pipeline for loading an unloading? does it count the jobs from the additional shipping from the pipeline and transport to the pipeline? Does it count the jobs from the increased drilling and pumping of oil for the pipeline?
> 
> Yes, pipelines are manpower efficient, that's what makes them such a great idea along with the lower risk of incidents compared to rail tanker movement.
> 
> And again, the construction jobs are nothing to cry about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1.) Do you think the stuff is manually packed into the line by hand? No. It is heated and mixed with liquid so the sludge is thin enough to flow though the line. It's an automated process and is done at the bitumen mining location.
> 2.) The pipeline ends at the refineries where an automated valve releases the diluted bitumen directly into a distillation tower, or storage area, just like refineries have always done.
> 3.)Bitumen is not drilled. It is mined, similar to coal. Since the mining facility, along with the heating, and all other preparation for pumping  is done at the mining facility location in Canada, how could that possibly have any effect on our employment numbers.
> 4.) Since the bitumen/added oil slurry is pumped with conventional pumps, what possible need could there be for additional manpower?
> 
> You have been lied to from the start about how many jobs that line would add, and any benefit our county might get from it. The fact remains that the multi-national, multi-million dollar oil companies are the only ones to get anything from that line, and we, as a nation now have all the liability of a potential spill. With the use of another give away to oil companies, something called "Free Trade Zones" they won't even have to pay taxes on the billions of dollars earned by the refineries for distilling that Canadian sludge and shipping it directly to other countries for sale. The large majority of it will never be used here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> people have to maintain this equipment, and the people doing it are usually very well skilled, and make good $$. Plus people have to operate the equipment, and if keystone makes moving the stuff easier, one would think more of it would be extracted.
> 
> People work for these "multi-million" companies, stockholders like pension funds invest in them.
> 
> And this isn't sludge, sludge is a waste product. The stuff remaining could be called sludge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> bi·tu·men
> bəˈt(y)o͞omən,bīˈt(y)o͞omən/
> _noun_
> 
> a black viscous mixture of hydrocarbons obtained naturally or as a residue from petroleum distillation. It is used for road surfacing and roofing.
> If you don't like that definition, feel free to google another. They are all basically the same with slight changes in the wording.
> 
> Yes, the equipment does have to be run and maintained.  All the preparation to make the sludge capable of flowing though a pipe, not possible in it's freshly mined natural form,  is done in Canada. Maintenance and control of that equipment is also done in Canada by Canadian workers. All that good $$ will be paid to those Canadian workers too. Don't worry, it's all automated, and only needs a couple of guys at a control panel to make everything hum. On the refinery end, everything is automated, and requires no additional people to handle flow from Keystone. Again, just a couple people at a control panel. Yes, people work for those "multi-million" companies just like they always have. On this end, there will be no change in the number of people who work for them. In  fact, all the  automation that was put in place to handle the heavy sludge reduced the number of plant operators needed to run the entire plant. Aramco, in Pt. Arthur Tx. our county's  largest refinery,  became 100% under the control of the Saudis this year and  can now run it's entire plant with just 3 or 4 plant operators. No additional jobs there.
> I know it's hard for you to accept that all the crap they told you about Keystone is bullshit, but it wouldn't take much research for yourself to see I'm right. Don't believe me? Google it yourself.
Click to expand...


I know what Bitumen is. you don't call it sludge unless it is a waste product. 

And any new jobs are still new jobs. plus the additional flow would mean keeping the existing ones is other sources of flow peter out. 

And why should we not help our Canadian brethren? Maybe the new workers will buy a nice Ford or Chevy and pay us back.


----------



## BULLDOG

martybegan said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most of that pipeline is already completed. Can you name one report where those jobs had any noticeable effect on employment? What makes you think the last part will? We could add a few jobs by tearing down all our bridges, but that probably isn't a good enough reason to do it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Non-valid comparison. And again, there are other variables at play, as I stated in my response to Wry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is nothing wrong with construction jobs, what is built determines the number of permanent jobs created.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Other than the few extremely temporary jobs in construction, most will be 6-8 months or less. That's little more than a summer job for a school kid. What else have you got as far as benefit to OUR country?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Construction jobs are always temporary in nature. it's amazing how much you guys keep moving the goalposts.
> 
> It makes no jobs!
> It makes too few jobs!!!
> The jobs it makes are only temporary!
> Machines will do the work!
> 
> You put the blinders on when it suits your political interests.
Click to expand...


You put on the rose colored glasses when it suits yours. I worked in oil and pipeline construction for years. I know what this does and doesn't amount to.


----------



## BULLDOG

martybegan said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Less jobs than a busy McDonald fast food restaurant?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does it count the jobs at the ends of the pipeline for loading an unloading? does it count the jobs from the additional shipping from the pipeline and transport to the pipeline? Does it count the jobs from the increased drilling and pumping of oil for the pipeline?
> 
> Yes, pipelines are manpower efficient, that's what makes them such a great idea along with the lower risk of incidents compared to rail tanker movement.
> 
> And again, the construction jobs are nothing to cry about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1.) Do you think the stuff is manually packed into the line by hand? No. It is heated and mixed with liquid so the sludge is thin enough to flow though the line. It's an automated process and is done at the bitumen mining location.
> 2.) The pipeline ends at the refineries where an automated valve releases the diluted bitumen directly into a distillation tower, or storage area, just like refineries have always done.
> 3.)Bitumen is not drilled. It is mined, similar to coal. Since the mining facility, along with the heating, and all other preparation for pumping  is done at the mining facility location in Canada, how could that possibly have any effect on our employment numbers.
> 4.) Since the bitumen/added oil slurry is pumped with conventional pumps, what possible need could there be for additional manpower?
> 
> You have been lied to from the start about how many jobs that line would add, and any benefit our county might get from it. The fact remains that the multi-national, multi-million dollar oil companies are the only ones to get anything from that line, and we, as a nation now have all the liability of a potential spill. With the use of another give away to oil companies, something called "Free Trade Zones" they won't even have to pay taxes on the billions of dollars earned by the refineries for distilling that Canadian sludge and shipping it directly to other countries for sale. The large majority of it will never be used here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> people have to maintain this equipment, and the people doing it are usually very well skilled, and make good $$. Plus people have to operate the equipment, and if keystone makes moving the stuff easier, one would think more of it would be extracted.
> 
> People work for these "multi-million" companies, stockholders like pension funds invest in them.
> 
> And this isn't sludge, sludge is a waste product. The stuff remaining could be called sludge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> bi·tu·men
> bəˈt(y)o͞omən,bīˈt(y)o͞omən/
> _noun_
> 
> a black viscous mixture of hydrocarbons obtained naturally or as a residue from petroleum distillation. It is used for road surfacing and roofing.
> If you don't like that definition, feel free to google another. They are all basically the same with slight changes in the wording.
> 
> Yes, the equipment does have to be run and maintained.  All the preparation to make the sludge capable of flowing though a pipe, not possible in it's freshly mined natural form,  is done in Canada. Maintenance and control of that equipment is also done in Canada by Canadian workers. All that good $$ will be paid to those Canadian workers too. Don't worry, it's all automated, and only needs a couple of guys at a control panel to make everything hum. On the refinery end, everything is automated, and requires no additional people to handle flow from Keystone. Again, just a couple people at a control panel. Yes, people work for those "multi-million" companies just like they always have. On this end, there will be no change in the number of people who work for them. In  fact, all the  automation that was put in place to handle the heavy sludge reduced the number of plant operators needed to run the entire plant. Aramco, in Pt. Arthur Tx. our county's  largest refinery,  became 100% under the control of the Saudis this year and  can now run it's entire plant with just 3 or 4 plant operators. No additional jobs there.
> I know it's hard for you to accept that all the crap they told you about Keystone is bullshit, but it wouldn't take much research for yourself to see I'm right. Don't believe me? Google it yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know what Bitumen is. you don't call it sludge unless it is a waste product.
> 
> And any new jobs are still new jobs. plus the additional flow would mean keeping the existing ones is other sources of flow peter out.
> 
> And why should we not help our Canadian brethren? Maybe the new workers will buy a nice Ford or Chevy and pay us back.
Click to expand...


That's what it comes down to for you?  We should take the potential of MASSIVE ecological disaster to help Canadian workers?  I won't even bother calling that nuts. It goes without saying.


----------



## Markle

Wry Catcher said:


> Solar energy employed 374,000 people over the year 2015-2016, making up 43 per cent of the sector’s workforce, while the traditional fossil fuels combined employed 187,117, making up just 22 per cent of the workforce, according to the report.



Good to see that you agree that solar energy is economically unfeasible due to their being so labor intensive.

Yes, the pipeline will generate few PERMANENT jobs.  How may permanent jobs do 1,000 miles of expressway provide?  How about the Sunshine Skyway over Tampa Bay?  They are CONSTRUCTION JOBS.  They move on to other construction jobs.

What part of that is confusing to you?


----------



## martybegan

BULLDOG said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Non-valid comparison. And again, there are other variables at play, as I stated in my response to Wry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing wrong with construction jobs, what is built determines the number of permanent jobs created.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Other than the few extremely temporary jobs in construction, most will be 6-8 months or less. That's little more than a summer job for a school kid. What else have you got as far as benefit to OUR country?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Construction jobs are always temporary in nature. it's amazing how much you guys keep moving the goalposts.
> 
> It makes no jobs!
> It makes too few jobs!!!
> The jobs it makes are only temporary!
> Machines will do the work!
> 
> You put the blinders on when it suits your political interests.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You put on the rose colored glasses when it suits yours. I worked in oil and pipeline construction for years. I know what this does and doesn't amount to.
Click to expand...


And I work in construction as well, and have a degree in ChemE, but unlike you i don't make up shit to cover my political goals.


----------



## martybegan

BULLDOG said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does it count the jobs at the ends of the pipeline for loading an unloading? does it count the jobs from the additional shipping from the pipeline and transport to the pipeline? Does it count the jobs from the increased drilling and pumping of oil for the pipeline?
> 
> Yes, pipelines are manpower efficient, that's what makes them such a great idea along with the lower risk of incidents compared to rail tanker movement.
> 
> And again, the construction jobs are nothing to cry about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.) Do you think the stuff is manually packed into the line by hand? No. It is heated and mixed with liquid so the sludge is thin enough to flow though the line. It's an automated process and is done at the bitumen mining location.
> 2.) The pipeline ends at the refineries where an automated valve releases the diluted bitumen directly into a distillation tower, or storage area, just like refineries have always done.
> 3.)Bitumen is not drilled. It is mined, similar to coal. Since the mining facility, along with the heating, and all other preparation for pumping  is done at the mining facility location in Canada, how could that possibly have any effect on our employment numbers.
> 4.) Since the bitumen/added oil slurry is pumped with conventional pumps, what possible need could there be for additional manpower?
> 
> You have been lied to from the start about how many jobs that line would add, and any benefit our county might get from it. The fact remains that the multi-national, multi-million dollar oil companies are the only ones to get anything from that line, and we, as a nation now have all the liability of a potential spill. With the use of another give away to oil companies, something called "Free Trade Zones" they won't even have to pay taxes on the billions of dollars earned by the refineries for distilling that Canadian sludge and shipping it directly to other countries for sale. The large majority of it will never be used here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> people have to maintain this equipment, and the people doing it are usually very well skilled, and make good $$. Plus people have to operate the equipment, and if keystone makes moving the stuff easier, one would think more of it would be extracted.
> 
> People work for these "multi-million" companies, stockholders like pension funds invest in them.
> 
> And this isn't sludge, sludge is a waste product. The stuff remaining could be called sludge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> bi·tu·men
> bəˈt(y)o͞omən,bīˈt(y)o͞omən/
> _noun_
> 
> a black viscous mixture of hydrocarbons obtained naturally or as a residue from petroleum distillation. It is used for road surfacing and roofing.
> If you don't like that definition, feel free to google another. They are all basically the same with slight changes in the wording.
> 
> Yes, the equipment does have to be run and maintained.  All the preparation to make the sludge capable of flowing though a pipe, not possible in it's freshly mined natural form,  is done in Canada. Maintenance and control of that equipment is also done in Canada by Canadian workers. All that good $$ will be paid to those Canadian workers too. Don't worry, it's all automated, and only needs a couple of guys at a control panel to make everything hum. On the refinery end, everything is automated, and requires no additional people to handle flow from Keystone. Again, just a couple people at a control panel. Yes, people work for those "multi-million" companies just like they always have. On this end, there will be no change in the number of people who work for them. In  fact, all the  automation that was put in place to handle the heavy sludge reduced the number of plant operators needed to run the entire plant. Aramco, in Pt. Arthur Tx. our county's  largest refinery,  became 100% under the control of the Saudis this year and  can now run it's entire plant with just 3 or 4 plant operators. No additional jobs there.
> I know it's hard for you to accept that all the crap they told you about Keystone is bullshit, but it wouldn't take much research for yourself to see I'm right. Don't believe me? Google it yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know what Bitumen is. you don't call it sludge unless it is a waste product.
> 
> And any new jobs are still new jobs. plus the additional flow would mean keeping the existing ones is other sources of flow peter out.
> 
> And why should we not help our Canadian brethren? Maybe the new workers will buy a nice Ford or Chevy and pay us back.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's what it comes down to for you?  We should take the potential of MASSIVE ecological disaster to help Canadian workers?  I won't even bother calling that nuts. It goes without saying.
Click to expand...


Considering that pipelines are the safest way to move this stuff, and sooner or later someone is going to move it anyway, your MASSIVE (see I can do caps too!) disaster is more likely to happen with other modes of transport. 

Methinks you again let your political views impact your view on reality.


----------



## BULLDOG

Markle said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Solar energy employed 374,000 people over the year 2015-2016, making up 43 per cent of the sector’s workforce, while the traditional fossil fuels combined employed 187,117, making up just 22 per cent of the workforce, according to the report.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good to see that you agree that solar energy is economically unfeasible due to their being so labor intensive.
> 
> Yes, the pipeline will generate few PERMANENT jobs.  How may permanent jobs do 1,000 miles of expressway provide?  How about the Sunshine Skyway over Tampa Bay?  They are CONSTRUCTION JOBS.  They move on to other construction jobs.
> 
> What part of that is confusing to you?
Click to expand...


Yes, and the benefit to the country from the projects you mention is enjoyed for a long time. What benefit does Keystone give to the country? The oil companies will make a fortune, but what about the people?


----------



## Markle

Weatherman2020 said:


> Obama built dog parks and the left cheered at his job creating skills.



Don't forget the TURTLE TUNNEL we got going under U.S. 27N between two parts of Lake Jackson.  $3.2 MILLION.  A restaurant on the East side of the road approaching the stretch with a sign outside saying "YOU ARE NOW APPROACHING A $3.2 MILLION TURTLE TUNNEL.

As with the law of unintended consequences dictates, the tunnel has become a sort of fast food restaurant for alligators on each side as not only turtles but also other critters run through the tunnel.


----------



## BULLDOG

martybegan said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing wrong with construction jobs, what is built determines the number of permanent jobs created.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Other than the few extremely temporary jobs in construction, most will be 6-8 months or less. That's little more than a summer job for a school kid. What else have you got as far as benefit to OUR country?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Construction jobs are always temporary in nature. it's amazing how much you guys keep moving the goalposts.
> 
> It makes no jobs!
> It makes too few jobs!!!
> The jobs it makes are only temporary!
> Machines will do the work!
> 
> You put the blinders on when it suits your political interests.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You put on the rose colored glasses when it suits yours. I worked in oil and pipeline construction for years. I know what this does and doesn't amount to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I work in construction as well, and have a degree in ChemE, but unlike you i don't make up shit to cover my political goals.
Click to expand...


Care to point at any shit you think I made up?


----------



## Weatherman2020

BULLDOG said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Solar energy employed 374,000 people over the year 2015-2016, making up 43 per cent of the sector’s workforce, while the traditional fossil fuels combined employed 187,117, making up just 22 per cent of the workforce, according to the report.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good to see that you agree that solar energy is economically unfeasible due to their being so labor intensive.
> 
> Yes, the pipeline will generate few PERMANENT jobs.  How may permanent jobs do 1,000 miles of expressway provide?  How about the Sunshine Skyway over Tampa Bay?  They are CONSTRUCTION JOBS.  They move on to other construction jobs.
> 
> What part of that is confusing to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, and the benefit to the country from the projects you mention is enjoyed for a long time. What benefit does Keystone give to the country? The oil companies will make a fortune, but what about the people?
Click to expand...

It's America.  Americans have a right to do what they want to prosper.  We don't need you homo commies standing in our way.


----------



## BULLDOG

martybegan said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1.) Do you think the stuff is manually packed into the line by hand? No. It is heated and mixed with liquid so the sludge is thin enough to flow though the line. It's an automated process and is done at the bitumen mining location.
> 2.) The pipeline ends at the refineries where an automated valve releases the diluted bitumen directly into a distillation tower, or storage area, just like refineries have always done.
> 3.)Bitumen is not drilled. It is mined, similar to coal. Since the mining facility, along with the heating, and all other preparation for pumping  is done at the mining facility location in Canada, how could that possibly have any effect on our employment numbers.
> 4.) Since the bitumen/added oil slurry is pumped with conventional pumps, what possible need could there be for additional manpower?
> 
> You have been lied to from the start about how many jobs that line would add, and any benefit our county might get from it. The fact remains that the multi-national, multi-million dollar oil companies are the only ones to get anything from that line, and we, as a nation now have all the liability of a potential spill. With the use of another give away to oil companies, something called "Free Trade Zones" they won't even have to pay taxes on the billions of dollars earned by the refineries for distilling that Canadian sludge and shipping it directly to other countries for sale. The large majority of it will never be used here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> people have to maintain this equipment, and the people doing it are usually very well skilled, and make good $$. Plus people have to operate the equipment, and if keystone makes moving the stuff easier, one would think more of it would be extracted.
> 
> People work for these "multi-million" companies, stockholders like pension funds invest in them.
> 
> And this isn't sludge, sludge is a waste product. The stuff remaining could be called sludge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> bi·tu·men
> bəˈt(y)o͞omən,bīˈt(y)o͞omən/
> _noun_
> 
> a black viscous mixture of hydrocarbons obtained naturally or as a residue from petroleum distillation. It is used for road surfacing and roofing.
> If you don't like that definition, feel free to google another. They are all basically the same with slight changes in the wording.
> 
> Yes, the equipment does have to be run and maintained.  All the preparation to make the sludge capable of flowing though a pipe, not possible in it's freshly mined natural form,  is done in Canada. Maintenance and control of that equipment is also done in Canada by Canadian workers. All that good $$ will be paid to those Canadian workers too. Don't worry, it's all automated, and only needs a couple of guys at a control panel to make everything hum. On the refinery end, everything is automated, and requires no additional people to handle flow from Keystone. Again, just a couple people at a control panel. Yes, people work for those "multi-million" companies just like they always have. On this end, there will be no change in the number of people who work for them. In  fact, all the  automation that was put in place to handle the heavy sludge reduced the number of plant operators needed to run the entire plant. Aramco, in Pt. Arthur Tx. our county's  largest refinery,  became 100% under the control of the Saudis this year and  can now run it's entire plant with just 3 or 4 plant operators. No additional jobs there.
> I know it's hard for you to accept that all the crap they told you about Keystone is bullshit, but it wouldn't take much research for yourself to see I'm right. Don't believe me? Google it yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know what Bitumen is. you don't call it sludge unless it is a waste product.
> 
> And any new jobs are still new jobs. plus the additional flow would mean keeping the existing ones is other sources of flow peter out.
> 
> And why should we not help our Canadian brethren? Maybe the new workers will buy a nice Ford or Chevy and pay us back.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's what it comes down to for you?  We should take the potential of MASSIVE ecological disaster to help Canadian workers?  I won't even bother calling that nuts. It goes without saying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Considering that pipelines are the safest way to move this stuff, and sooner or later someone is going to move it anyway, your MASSIVE (see I can do caps too!) disaster is more likely to happen with other modes of transport.
> 
> Methinks you again let your political views impact your view on reality.
Click to expand...


OK, it will be moved, but nobody has come up with a rational reason why we should allow it to be moved across our country when we get no benefit from it. They have ports in Canada.


----------



## Markle

Wry Catcher said:


> Most schools have solar panels which staff and students old enough to drive park under:



Lie


----------



## Markle

BULLDOG said:


> OK, it will be moved, but nobody has come up with a rational reason why we should allow it to be moved across our country when we get no benefit from it. They have ports in Canada.



There are no employees at our refineries on our Gulf Coast?  Who knew?


----------



## Markle

BULLDOG said:


> Other than the few extremely temporary jobs in construction, most will be 6-8 months or less. That's little more than a summer job for a school kid. What else have you got as far as benefit to OUR country?



What construction jobs last "forever"?  Does a man working for a roofing company work on the same house of building for decades or does he move from one job to another?


----------



## martybegan

BULLDOG said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> And?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Other than the few extremely temporary jobs in construction, most will be 6-8 months or less. That's little more than a summer job for a school kid. What else have you got as far as benefit to OUR country?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Construction jobs are always temporary in nature. it's amazing how much you guys keep moving the goalposts.
> 
> It makes no jobs!
> It makes too few jobs!!!
> The jobs it makes are only temporary!
> Machines will do the work!
> 
> You put the blinders on when it suits your political interests.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You put on the rose colored glasses when it suits yours. I worked in oil and pipeline construction for years. I know what this does and doesn't amount to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I work in construction as well, and have a degree in ChemE, but unlike you i don't make up shit to cover my political goals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Care to point at any shit you think I made up?
Click to expand...


You constantly downplay any economic impact because you don't like icky fossil fuels. The simple fact is this stuff is going to be used, and even more so if prices go up again to make it more profitable.

A pipeline is the safest way to do it, and while it isn't a lot of jobs, its still jobs, plus the subsequent economic improvements, be it in Canada, at the end of the line near a port facility, or at the local truck stand where the pipeline maintenance guy stops by for lunch 3 times a week while he does his inspections.


----------



## martybegan

BULLDOG said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> people have to maintain this equipment, and the people doing it are usually very well skilled, and make good $$. Plus people have to operate the equipment, and if keystone makes moving the stuff easier, one would think more of it would be extracted.
> 
> People work for these "multi-million" companies, stockholders like pension funds invest in them.
> 
> And this isn't sludge, sludge is a waste product. The stuff remaining could be called sludge.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bi·tu·men
> bəˈt(y)o͞omən,bīˈt(y)o͞omən/
> _noun_
> 
> a black viscous mixture of hydrocarbons obtained naturally or as a residue from petroleum distillation. It is used for road surfacing and roofing.
> If you don't like that definition, feel free to google another. They are all basically the same with slight changes in the wording.
> 
> Yes, the equipment does have to be run and maintained.  All the preparation to make the sludge capable of flowing though a pipe, not possible in it's freshly mined natural form,  is done in Canada. Maintenance and control of that equipment is also done in Canada by Canadian workers. All that good $$ will be paid to those Canadian workers too. Don't worry, it's all automated, and only needs a couple of guys at a control panel to make everything hum. On the refinery end, everything is automated, and requires no additional people to handle flow from Keystone. Again, just a couple people at a control panel. Yes, people work for those "multi-million" companies just like they always have. On this end, there will be no change in the number of people who work for them. In  fact, all the  automation that was put in place to handle the heavy sludge reduced the number of plant operators needed to run the entire plant. Aramco, in Pt. Arthur Tx. our county's  largest refinery,  became 100% under the control of the Saudis this year and  can now run it's entire plant with just 3 or 4 plant operators. No additional jobs there.
> I know it's hard for you to accept that all the crap they told you about Keystone is bullshit, but it wouldn't take much research for yourself to see I'm right. Don't believe me? Google it yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know what Bitumen is. you don't call it sludge unless it is a waste product.
> 
> And any new jobs are still new jobs. plus the additional flow would mean keeping the existing ones is other sources of flow peter out.
> 
> And why should we not help our Canadian brethren? Maybe the new workers will buy a nice Ford or Chevy and pay us back.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's what it comes down to for you?  We should take the potential of MASSIVE ecological disaster to help Canadian workers?  I won't even bother calling that nuts. It goes without saying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Considering that pipelines are the safest way to move this stuff, and sooner or later someone is going to move it anyway, your MASSIVE (see I can do caps too!) disaster is more likely to happen with other modes of transport.
> 
> Methinks you again let your political views impact your view on reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK, it will be moved, but nobody has come up with a rational reason why we should allow it to be moved across our country when we get no benefit from it. They have ports in Canada.
Click to expand...


And why should our ports not get in on the action?


----------



## BULLDOG

Markle said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK, it will be moved, but nobody has come up with a rational reason why we should allow it to be moved across our country when we get no benefit from it. They have ports in Canada.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are no employees at our refineries on our Gulf Coast?  Who knew?
Click to expand...

Yes, there are employees there. The same amount that are needed with or without Keystone. There have been and will be no new hires because of keystone.


----------



## BULLDOG

Markle said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> Other than the few extremely temporary jobs in construction, most will be 6-8 months or less. That's little more than a summer job for a school kid. What else have you got as far as benefit to OUR country?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What construction jobs last "forever"?  Does a man working for a roofing company work on the same house of building for decades or does he move from one job to another?
Click to expand...


Yes construction jobs are usually temporary. I'm not the one saying a few temporary jobs would have a noticable effect on out employment numbers


----------



## BULLDOG

martybegan said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> Other than the few extremely temporary jobs in construction, most will be 6-8 months or less. That's little more than a summer job for a school kid. What else have you got as far as benefit to OUR country?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Construction jobs are always temporary in nature. it's amazing how much you guys keep moving the goalposts.
> 
> It makes no jobs!
> It makes too few jobs!!!
> The jobs it makes are only temporary!
> Machines will do the work!
> 
> You put the blinders on when it suits your political interests.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You put on the rose colored glasses when it suits yours. I worked in oil and pipeline construction for years. I know what this does and doesn't amount to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I work in construction as well, and have a degree in ChemE, but unlike you i don't make up shit to cover my political goals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Care to point at any shit you think I made up?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You constantly downplay any economic impact because you don't like icky fossil fuels. The simple fact is this stuff is going to be used, and even more so if prices go up again to make it more profitable.
> 
> A pipeline is the safest way to do it, and while it isn't a lot of jobs, its still jobs, plus the subsequent economic improvements, be it in Canada, at the end of the line near a port facility, or at the local truck stand where the pipeline maintenance guy stops by for lunch 3 times a week while he does his inspections.
Click to expand...


Won't be used here.


----------



## BULLDOG

martybegan said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> bi·tu·men
> bəˈt(y)o͞omən,bīˈt(y)o͞omən/
> _noun_
> 
> a black viscous mixture of hydrocarbons obtained naturally or as a residue from petroleum distillation. It is used for road surfacing and roofing.
> If you don't like that definition, feel free to google another. They are all basically the same with slight changes in the wording.
> 
> Yes, the equipment does have to be run and maintained.  All the preparation to make the sludge capable of flowing though a pipe, not possible in it's freshly mined natural form,  is done in Canada. Maintenance and control of that equipment is also done in Canada by Canadian workers. All that good $$ will be paid to those Canadian workers too. Don't worry, it's all automated, and only needs a couple of guys at a control panel to make everything hum. On the refinery end, everything is automated, and requires no additional people to handle flow from Keystone. Again, just a couple people at a control panel. Yes, people work for those "multi-million" companies just like they always have. On this end, there will be no change in the number of people who work for them. In  fact, all the  automation that was put in place to handle the heavy sludge reduced the number of plant operators needed to run the entire plant. Aramco, in Pt. Arthur Tx. our county's  largest refinery,  became 100% under the control of the Saudis this year and  can now run it's entire plant with just 3 or 4 plant operators. No additional jobs there.
> I know it's hard for you to accept that all the crap they told you about Keystone is bullshit, but it wouldn't take much research for yourself to see I'm right. Don't believe me? Google it yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know what Bitumen is. you don't call it sludge unless it is a waste product.
> 
> And any new jobs are still new jobs. plus the additional flow would mean keeping the existing ones is other sources of flow peter out.
> 
> And why should we not help our Canadian brethren? Maybe the new workers will buy a nice Ford or Chevy and pay us back.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's what it comes down to for you?  We should take the potential of MASSIVE ecological disaster to help Canadian workers?  I won't even bother calling that nuts. It goes without saying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Considering that pipelines are the safest way to move this stuff, and sooner or later someone is going to move it anyway, your MASSIVE (see I can do caps too!) disaster is more likely to happen with other modes of transport.
> 
> Methinks you again let your political views impact your view on reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK, it will be moved, but nobody has come up with a rational reason why we should allow it to be moved across our country when we get no benefit from it. They have ports in Canada.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And why should our ports not get in on the action?
Click to expand...


Our ports won't. Refineries have their own docks. Any money made will stay with the refinery owners, who will not hire any more people.


----------



## martybegan

BULLDOG said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Construction jobs are always temporary in nature. it's amazing how much you guys keep moving the goalposts.
> 
> It makes no jobs!
> It makes too few jobs!!!
> The jobs it makes are only temporary!
> Machines will do the work!
> 
> You put the blinders on when it suits your political interests.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You put on the rose colored glasses when it suits yours. I worked in oil and pipeline construction for years. I know what this does and doesn't amount to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I work in construction as well, and have a degree in ChemE, but unlike you i don't make up shit to cover my political goals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Care to point at any shit you think I made up?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You constantly downplay any economic impact because you don't like icky fossil fuels. The simple fact is this stuff is going to be used, and even more so if prices go up again to make it more profitable.
> 
> A pipeline is the safest way to do it, and while it isn't a lot of jobs, its still jobs, plus the subsequent economic improvements, be it in Canada, at the end of the line near a port facility, or at the local truck stand where the pipeline maintenance guy stops by for lunch 3 times a week while he does his inspections.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Won't be used here.
Click to expand...


Who cares? if we can make $$ off moving it, we make $$ off moving it.


----------



## martybegan

BULLDOG said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know what Bitumen is. you don't call it sludge unless it is a waste product.
> 
> And any new jobs are still new jobs. plus the additional flow would mean keeping the existing ones is other sources of flow peter out.
> 
> And why should we not help our Canadian brethren? Maybe the new workers will buy a nice Ford or Chevy and pay us back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's what it comes down to for you?  We should take the potential of MASSIVE ecological disaster to help Canadian workers?  I won't even bother calling that nuts. It goes without saying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Considering that pipelines are the safest way to move this stuff, and sooner or later someone is going to move it anyway, your MASSIVE (see I can do caps too!) disaster is more likely to happen with other modes of transport.
> 
> Methinks you again let your political views impact your view on reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK, it will be moved, but nobody has come up with a rational reason why we should allow it to be moved across our country when we get no benefit from it. They have ports in Canada.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And why should our ports not get in on the action?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Our ports won't. Refineries have their own docks. Any money made will stay with the refinery owners, who will not hire any more people.
Click to expand...


And who works in refineries?


----------



## Wry Catcher

Weatherman2020 said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Markle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Solar energy employed 374,000 people over the year 2015-2016, making up 43 per cent of the sector’s workforce, while the traditional fossil fuels combined employed 187,117, making up just 22 per cent of the workforce, according to the report.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good to see that you agree that solar energy is economically unfeasible due to their being so labor intensive.
> 
> Yes, the pipeline will generate few PERMANENT jobs.  How may permanent jobs do 1,000 miles of expressway provide?  How about the Sunshine Skyway over Tampa Bay?  They are CONSTRUCTION JOBS.  They move on to other construction jobs.
> 
> What part of that is confusing to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, and the benefit to the country from the projects you mention is enjoyed for a long time. What benefit does Keystone give to the country? The oil companies will make a fortune, but what about the people?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's America.  Americans have a right to do what they want to prosper.  We don't need you homo commies standing in our way.
Click to expand...


Why do you go out of your way to prove you're a bigot and an asshole?


----------



## Weatherman2020

Wry Catcher said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Markle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Solar energy employed 374,000 people over the year 2015-2016, making up 43 per cent of the sector’s workforce, while the traditional fossil fuels combined employed 187,117, making up just 22 per cent of the workforce, according to the report.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good to see that you agree that solar energy is economically unfeasible due to their being so labor intensive.
> 
> Yes, the pipeline will generate few PERMANENT jobs.  How may permanent jobs do 1,000 miles of expressway provide?  How about the Sunshine Skyway over Tampa Bay?  They are CONSTRUCTION JOBS.  They move on to other construction jobs.
> 
> What part of that is confusing to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, and the benefit to the country from the projects you mention is enjoyed for a long time. What benefit does Keystone give to the country? The oil companies will make a fortune, but what about the people?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's America.  Americans have a right to do what they want to prosper.  We don't need you homo commies standing in our way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you go out of your way to prove you're a bigot and an asshole?
Click to expand...

Says the dufus who whines at people because they have a successful business. 
You loons don't even know which bathroom to use and think people can change sex on a whim mood.


----------



## Weatherman2020

BULLDOG said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> Other than the few extremely temporary jobs in construction, most will be 6-8 months or less. That's little more than a summer job for a school kid. What else have you got as far as benefit to OUR country?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What construction jobs last "forever"?  Does a man working for a roofing company work on the same house of building for decades or does he move from one job to another?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes construction jobs are usually temporary. I'm not the one saying a few temporary jobs would have a noticable effect on out employment numbers
Click to expand...

That's funny. The construction company my wife has worked at for the last 27 years has many of the same employees it did when she hired on.

Again, you know nothing about what you rant about.

If a company wishes to do something, that is their business, not yours, you homo commie who wants to dictate to everyone.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Markle said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most schools have solar panels which staff and students old enough to drive park under:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lie
Click to expand...


I posted dozens of pictures offering proof; one dishonest word from you is at least as telling as my post.  It tells the reader I posted evidence and you posted bull shit.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Weatherman2020 said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Markle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Solar energy employed 374,000 people over the year 2015-2016, making up 43 per cent of the sector’s workforce, while the traditional fossil fuels combined employed 187,117, making up just 22 per cent of the workforce, according to the report.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good to see that you agree that solar energy is economically unfeasible due to their being so labor intensive.
> 
> Yes, the pipeline will generate few PERMANENT jobs.  How may permanent jobs do 1,000 miles of expressway provide?  How about the Sunshine Skyway over Tampa Bay?  They are CONSTRUCTION JOBS.  They move on to other construction jobs.
> 
> What part of that is confusing to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, and the benefit to the country from the projects you mention is enjoyed for a long time. What benefit does Keystone give to the country? The oil companies will make a fortune, but what about the people?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's America.  Americans have a right to do what they want to prosper.  We don't need you homo commies standing in our way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you go out of your way to prove you're a bigot and an asshole?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says the dufus who whines at people because they have a successful business.
> You loons don't even know which bathroom to use and think people can change sex on a whim mood.
Click to expand...


You not only prove you're an asshole, you prove yourself to be a special kind - a stupid asshole.


----------



## Weatherman2020

Wry Catcher said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Markle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good to see that you agree that solar energy is economically unfeasible due to their being so labor intensive.
> 
> Yes, the pipeline will generate few PERMANENT jobs.  How may permanent jobs do 1,000 miles of expressway provide?  How about the Sunshine Skyway over Tampa Bay?  They are CONSTRUCTION JOBS.  They move on to other construction jobs.
> 
> What part of that is confusing to you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, and the benefit to the country from the projects you mention is enjoyed for a long time. What benefit does Keystone give to the country? The oil companies will make a fortune, but what about the people?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's America.  Americans have a right to do what they want to prosper.  We don't need you homo commies standing in our way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you go out of your way to prove you're a bigot and an asshole?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says the dufus who whines at people because they have a successful business.
> You loons don't even know which bathroom to use and think people can change sex on a whim mood.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You not only prove you're an asshole, you prove yourself to be a special kind - a stupid asshole.
Click to expand...

Poor baby.  Don't like it when people feed you your own bullshit, do you?


----------



## BULLDOG

martybegan said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> You put on the rose colored glasses when it suits yours. I worked in oil and pipeline construction for years. I know what this does and doesn't amount to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I work in construction as well, and have a degree in ChemE, but unlike you i don't make up shit to cover my political goals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Care to point at any shit you think I made up?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You constantly downplay any economic impact because you don't like icky fossil fuels. The simple fact is this stuff is going to be used, and even more so if prices go up again to make it more profitable.
> 
> A pipeline is the safest way to do it, and while it isn't a lot of jobs, its still jobs, plus the subsequent economic improvements, be it in Canada, at the end of the line near a port facility, or at the local truck stand where the pipeline maintenance guy stops by for lunch 3 times a week while he does his inspections.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Won't be used here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who cares? if we can make $$ off moving it, we make $$ off moving it.
Click to expand...


We? We won't make a penny off moving it. The same people who own a large amount of the mining facility in Canada also own a large part of the refineries on the Gulf coast. Those people will make a fortune, and since the Gulf coast refineries are classified as Free Trade Zones, they won't even pay taxes on the profit from transport or refining. They keep it all. We get nothing but a few temporary jobs. A circus that stays a little longer than usual would probably supply more temporary jobs.


----------



## BULLDOG

martybegan said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's what it comes down to for you?  We should take the potential of MASSIVE ecological disaster to help Canadian workers?  I won't even bother calling that nuts. It goes without saying.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Considering that pipelines are the safest way to move this stuff, and sooner or later someone is going to move it anyway, your MASSIVE (see I can do caps too!) disaster is more likely to happen with other modes of transport.
> 
> Methinks you again let your political views impact your view on reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK, it will be moved, but nobody has come up with a rational reason why we should allow it to be moved across our country when we get no benefit from it. They have ports in Canada.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And why should our ports not get in on the action?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Our ports won't. Refineries have their own docks. Any money made will stay with the refinery owners, who will not hire any more people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And who works in refineries?
Click to expand...


The exact same people who would would work in refineries without Keystone. No more people......no less people.


----------



## BULLDOG

Weatherman2020 said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Markle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> Other than the few extremely temporary jobs in construction, most will be 6-8 months or less. That's little more than a summer job for a school kid. What else have you got as far as benefit to OUR country?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What construction jobs last "forever"?  Does a man working for a roofing company work on the same house of building for decades or does he move from one job to another?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes construction jobs are usually temporary. I'm not the one saying a few temporary jobs would have a noticable effect on out employment numbers
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's funny. The construction company my wife has worked at for the last 27 years has many of the same employees it did when she hired on.
> 
> Again, you know nothing about what you rant about.
> 
> If a company wishes to do something, that is their business, not yours, you homo commie who wants to dictate to everyone.
Click to expand...


You dumb ass. Are you trying to say the final phase of Keystone will last 27 years? Your wife's company didn't work on the same project for that long.


----------



## Weatherman2020

BULLDOG said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Markle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> Other than the few extremely temporary jobs in construction, most will be 6-8 months or less. That's little more than a summer job for a school kid. What else have you got as far as benefit to OUR country?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What construction jobs last "forever"?  Does a man working for a roofing company work on the same house of building for decades or does he move from one job to another?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes construction jobs are usually temporary. I'm not the one saying a few temporary jobs would have a noticable effect on out employment numbers
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's funny. The construction company my wife has worked at for the last 27 years has many of the same employees it did when she hired on.
> 
> Again, you know nothing about what you rant about.
> 
> If a company wishes to do something, that is their business, not yours, you homo commie who wants to dictate to everyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You dumb ass. Are you trying to say the final phase of Keystone will last 27 years? Your wife's company didn't work on the same project for that long.
Click to expand...

Dumbass. You think construction workers get layers off after something is built? My wife's company has jobs lined up for the next 2 years. 
Stop displaying your ignorance, you're even making me feel pity for you.


----------



## Weatherman2020

BULLDOG said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Markle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> Other than the few extremely temporary jobs in construction, most will be 6-8 months or less. That's little more than a summer job for a school kid. What else have you got as far as benefit to OUR country?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What construction jobs last "forever"?  Does a man working for a roofing company work on the same house of building for decades or does he move from one job to another?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes construction jobs are usually temporary. I'm not the one saying a few temporary jobs would have a noticable effect on out employment numbers
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's funny. The construction company my wife has worked at for the last 27 years has many of the same employees it did when she hired on.
> 
> Again, you know nothing about what you rant about.
> 
> If a company wishes to do something, that is their business, not yours, you homo commie who wants to dictate to everyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You dumb ass. Are you trying to say the final phase of Keystone will last 27 years? Your wife's company didn't work on the same project for that long.
Click to expand...

Do you think every flight crew gets layed off after the plane lands?


----------



## BULLDOG

Weatherman2020 said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Markle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> Other than the few extremely temporary jobs in construction, most will be 6-8 months or less. That's little more than a summer job for a school kid. What else have you got as far as benefit to OUR country?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What construction jobs last "forever"?  Does a man working for a roofing company work on the same house of building for decades or does he move from one job to another?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes construction jobs are usually temporary. I'm not the one saying a few temporary jobs would have a noticable effect on out employment numbers
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's funny. The construction company my wife has worked at for the last 27 years has many of the same employees it did when she hired on.
> 
> Again, you know nothing about what you rant about.
> 
> If a company wishes to do something, that is their business, not yours, you homo commie who wants to dictate to everyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You dumb ass. Are you trying to say the final phase of Keystone will last 27 years? Your wife's company didn't work on the same project for that long.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dumbass. You think construction workers get layers off after something is built? My wife's company has jobs lined up for the next 2 years.
> Stop displaying your ignorance, you're even making me feel pity for you.
Click to expand...


Yes, I know. We aren't talking about how construction workers often have a new construction project to start on as the old ones end. We're talking about the effect that Keystone, by its self, might have on our unemployment rates.


----------



## Weatherman2020

BULLDOG said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Markle said:
> 
> 
> 
> What construction jobs last "forever"?  Does a man working for a roofing company work on the same house of building for decades or does he move from one job to another?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes construction jobs are usually temporary. I'm not the one saying a few temporary jobs would have a noticable effect on out employment numbers
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's funny. The construction company my wife has worked at for the last 27 years has many of the same employees it did when she hired on.
> 
> Again, you know nothing about what you rant about.
> 
> If a company wishes to do something, that is their business, not yours, you homo commie who wants to dictate to everyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You dumb ass. Are you trying to say the final phase of Keystone will last 27 years? Your wife's company didn't work on the same project for that long.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dumbass. You think construction workers get layers off after something is built? My wife's company has jobs lined up for the next 2 years.
> Stop displaying your ignorance, you're even making me feel pity for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I know. We aren't talking about how construction workers often have a new construction project to start on as the old ones end. We're talking about the effect that Keystone, by its self, might have on our unemployment rates.
Click to expand...

Better than building Obamas job creating dog parks.


----------



## BULLDOG

Weatherman2020 said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Markle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> Other than the few extremely temporary jobs in construction, most will be 6-8 months or less. That's little more than a summer job for a school kid. What else have you got as far as benefit to OUR country?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What construction jobs last "forever"?  Does a man working for a roofing company work on the same house of building for decades or does he move from one job to another?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes construction jobs are usually temporary. I'm not the one saying a few temporary jobs would have a noticable effect on out employment numbers
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's funny. The construction company my wife has worked at for the last 27 years has many of the same employees it did when she hired on.
> 
> Again, you know nothing about what you rant about.
> 
> If a company wishes to do something, that is their business, not yours, you homo commie who wants to dictate to everyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You dumb ass. Are you trying to say the final phase of Keystone will last 27 years? Your wife's company didn't work on the same project for that long.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you think every flight crew gets layed off after the plane lands?
Click to expand...


Still confused about the subject?


----------



## Weatherman2020

BULLDOG said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Markle said:
> 
> 
> 
> What construction jobs last "forever"?  Does a man working for a roofing company work on the same house of building for decades or does he move from one job to another?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes construction jobs are usually temporary. I'm not the one saying a few temporary jobs would have a noticable effect on out employment numbers
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's funny. The construction company my wife has worked at for the last 27 years has many of the same employees it did when she hired on.
> 
> Again, you know nothing about what you rant about.
> 
> If a company wishes to do something, that is their business, not yours, you homo commie who wants to dictate to everyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You dumb ass. Are you trying to say the final phase of Keystone will last 27 years? Your wife's company didn't work on the same project for that long.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you think every flight crew gets layed off after the plane lands?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still confused about the subject?
Click to expand...

The only thing confusing is why anyone is ignorant about your communist desire to tell companies how to operate decades after communism proved itself to be a failure.


----------



## martybegan

BULLDOG said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> And I work in construction as well, and have a degree in ChemE, but unlike you i don't make up shit to cover my political goals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care to point at any shit you think I made up?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You constantly downplay any economic impact because you don't like icky fossil fuels. The simple fact is this stuff is going to be used, and even more so if prices go up again to make it more profitable.
> 
> A pipeline is the safest way to do it, and while it isn't a lot of jobs, its still jobs, plus the subsequent economic improvements, be it in Canada, at the end of the line near a port facility, or at the local truck stand where the pipeline maintenance guy stops by for lunch 3 times a week while he does his inspections.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Won't be used here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who cares? if we can make $$ off moving it, we make $$ off moving it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We? We won't make a penny off moving it. The same people who own a large amount of the mining facility in Canada also own a large part of the refineries on the Gulf coast. Those people will make a fortune, and since the Gulf coast refineries are classified as Free Trade Zones, they won't even pay taxes on the profit from transport or refining. They keep it all. We get nothing but a few temporary jobs. A circus that stays a little longer than usual would probably supply more temporary jobs.
Click to expand...


So Skynet runs the refineries?

Good to know.


----------



## martybegan

BULLDOG said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Considering that pipelines are the safest way to move this stuff, and sooner or later someone is going to move it anyway, your MASSIVE (see I can do caps too!) disaster is more likely to happen with other modes of transport.
> 
> Methinks you again let your political views impact your view on reality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK, it will be moved, but nobody has come up with a rational reason why we should allow it to be moved across our country when we get no benefit from it. They have ports in Canada.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And why should our ports not get in on the action?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Our ports won't. Refineries have their own docks. Any money made will stay with the refinery owners, who will not hire any more people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And who works in refineries?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The exact same people who would would work in refineries without Keystone. No more people......no less people.
Click to expand...


Well now they have another source of feed stock, so if one other source goes away, they get to keep their jobs instead of layoffs. 

And how do you know the increased feed flow won't lead to more shifts or more process streams being put online, and thus need more people?


----------



## BULLDOG

Weatherman2020 said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes construction jobs are usually temporary. I'm not the one saying a few temporary jobs would have a noticable effect on out employment numbers
> 
> 
> 
> That's funny. The construction company my wife has worked at for the last 27 years has many of the same employees it did when she hired on.
> 
> Again, you know nothing about what you rant about.
> 
> If a company wishes to do something, that is their business, not yours, you homo commie who wants to dictate to everyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You dumb ass. Are you trying to say the final phase of Keystone will last 27 years? Your wife's company didn't work on the same project for that long.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you think every flight crew gets layed off after the plane lands?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still confused about the subject?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The only thing confusing is why anyone is ignorant about your communist desire to tell companies how to operate decades after communism proved itself to be a failure.
Click to expand...


Now I'm confused about how you think communism might have anything to do with what is being discussed. No worries though. I'm sure most are confused by the way your RWNJ mind works.


----------



## Weatherman2020

BULLDOG said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's funny. The construction company my wife has worked at for the last 27 years has many of the same employees it did when she hired on.
> 
> Again, you know nothing about what you rant about.
> 
> If a company wishes to do something, that is their business, not yours, you homo commie who wants to dictate to everyone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You dumb ass. Are you trying to say the final phase of Keystone will last 27 years? Your wife's company didn't work on the same project for that long.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you think every flight crew gets layed off after the plane lands?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still confused about the subject?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The only thing confusing is why anyone is ignorant about your communist desire to tell companies how to operate decades after communism proved itself to be a failure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now I'm confused about how you think communism might have anything to do with what is being discussed. No worries though. I'm sure most are confused by the way your RWNJ mind works.
Click to expand...

You're so blind you can't even see the forest thru the trees. Building infrastructure is good, especially when it's paid for by private companies. Keep your claws out of their business.


----------



## BULLDOG

martybegan said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> Care to point at any shit you think I made up?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You constantly downplay any economic impact because you don't like icky fossil fuels. The simple fact is this stuff is going to be used, and even more so if prices go up again to make it more profitable.
> 
> A pipeline is the safest way to do it, and while it isn't a lot of jobs, its still jobs, plus the subsequent economic improvements, be it in Canada, at the end of the line near a port facility, or at the local truck stand where the pipeline maintenance guy stops by for lunch 3 times a week while he does his inspections.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Won't be used here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who cares? if we can make $$ off moving it, we make $$ off moving it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We? We won't make a penny off moving it. The same people who own a large amount of the mining facility in Canada also own a large part of the refineries on the Gulf coast. Those people will make a fortune, and since the Gulf coast refineries are classified as Free Trade Zones, they won't even pay taxes on the profit from transport or refining. They keep it all. We get nothing but a few temporary jobs. A circus that stays a little longer than usual would probably supply more temporary jobs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So Skynet runs the refineries?
> 
> Good to know.
Click to expand...


No. A very precise set of programs run the refineries with minimal input from the very few plant operators. The first Apollo mission into space had less computer ability than is found on most modern smart phones.  Computers have taken over much of the operation of everything from commercial airlines to refrigerators. Refineries have taken advantages of those advantages as well.


----------



## martybegan

BULLDOG said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> You constantly downplay any economic impact because you don't like icky fossil fuels. The simple fact is this stuff is going to be used, and even more so if prices go up again to make it more profitable.
> 
> A pipeline is the safest way to do it, and while it isn't a lot of jobs, its still jobs, plus the subsequent economic improvements, be it in Canada, at the end of the line near a port facility, or at the local truck stand where the pipeline maintenance guy stops by for lunch 3 times a week while he does his inspections.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Won't be used here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who cares? if we can make $$ off moving it, we make $$ off moving it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We? We won't make a penny off moving it. The same people who own a large amount of the mining facility in Canada also own a large part of the refineries on the Gulf coast. Those people will make a fortune, and since the Gulf coast refineries are classified as Free Trade Zones, they won't even pay taxes on the profit from transport or refining. They keep it all. We get nothing but a few temporary jobs. A circus that stays a little longer than usual would probably supply more temporary jobs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So Skynet runs the refineries?
> 
> Good to know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. A very precise set of programs run the refineries with minimal input from the very few plant operators. The first Apollo mission into space had less computer ability than is found on most modern smart phones.  Computers have taken over much of the operation of everything from commercial airlines to refrigerators. Refineries have taken advantages of those advantages as well.
Click to expand...


So computers repair pipes? Computers change out parts on those computers? Computers direct the various process requirements at a refinery?

Plus these are really good paying jobs, not the McJobs you try to get people paid $10 an hour more than they are worth.


----------



## Weatherman2020

BULLDOG said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> You constantly downplay any economic impact because you don't like icky fossil fuels. The simple fact is this stuff is going to be used, and even more so if prices go up again to make it more profitable.
> 
> A pipeline is the safest way to do it, and while it isn't a lot of jobs, its still jobs, plus the subsequent economic improvements, be it in Canada, at the end of the line near a port facility, or at the local truck stand where the pipeline maintenance guy stops by for lunch 3 times a week while he does his inspections.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Won't be used here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who cares? if we can make $$ off moving it, we make $$ off moving it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We? We won't make a penny off moving it. The same people who own a large amount of the mining facility in Canada also own a large part of the refineries on the Gulf coast. Those people will make a fortune, and since the Gulf coast refineries are classified as Free Trade Zones, they won't even pay taxes on the profit from transport or refining. They keep it all. We get nothing but a few temporary jobs. A circus that stays a little longer than usual would probably supply more temporary jobs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So Skynet runs the refineries?
> 
> Good to know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. A very precise set of programs run the refineries with minimal input from the very few plant operators. The first Apollo mission into space had less computer ability than is found on most modern smart phones.  Computers have taken over much of the operation of everything from commercial airlines to refrigerators. Refineries have taken advantages of those advantages as well.
Click to expand...

1200 people work at the Richmond refinery.  High paying jobs. 

Chevron Richmond Refinery - Wikipedia


----------



## BULLDOG

martybegan said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK, it will be moved, but nobody has come up with a rational reason why we should allow it to be moved across our country when we get no benefit from it. They have ports in Canada.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And why should our ports not get in on the action?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Our ports won't. Refineries have their own docks. Any money made will stay with the refinery owners, who will not hire any more people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And who works in refineries?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The exact same people who would would work in refineries without Keystone. No more people......no less people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well now they have another source of feed stock, so if one other source goes away, they get to keep their jobs instead of layoffs.
> 
> And how do you know the increased feed flow won't lead to more shifts or more process streams being put online, and thus need more people?
Click to expand...


Because I live in the Beaumont/ Pt.Arthur area. Refineries are what we do. Most everyone I know either works in a refinery, or has worked in one.


----------



## martybegan

BULLDOG said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> And why should our ports not get in on the action?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Our ports won't. Refineries have their own docks. Any money made will stay with the refinery owners, who will not hire any more people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And who works in refineries?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The exact same people who would would work in refineries without Keystone. No more people......no less people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well now they have another source of feed stock, so if one other source goes away, they get to keep their jobs instead of layoffs.
> 
> And how do you know the increased feed flow won't lead to more shifts or more process streams being put online, and thus need more people?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because I live in the Beaumont/ Pt.Arthur area. Refineries are what we do. Most everyone I know either works in a refinery, or has worked in one.
Click to expand...


That didn't answer the question.


----------



## BULLDOG

martybegan said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> Won't be used here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who cares? if we can make $$ off moving it, we make $$ off moving it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We? We won't make a penny off moving it. The same people who own a large amount of the mining facility in Canada also own a large part of the refineries on the Gulf coast. Those people will make a fortune, and since the Gulf coast refineries are classified as Free Trade Zones, they won't even pay taxes on the profit from transport or refining. They keep it all. We get nothing but a few temporary jobs. A circus that stays a little longer than usual would probably supply more temporary jobs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So Skynet runs the refineries?
> 
> Good to know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. A very precise set of programs run the refineries with minimal input from the very few plant operators. The first Apollo mission into space had less computer ability than is found on most modern smart phones.  Computers have taken over much of the operation of everything from commercial airlines to refrigerators. Refineries have taken advantages of those advantages as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So computers repair pipes? Computers change out parts on those computers? Computers direct the various process requirements at a refinery?
> 
> Plus these are really good paying jobs, not the McJobs you try to get people paid $10 an hour more than they are worth.
Click to expand...


No. Computers don't repair pipes. A very efficient maintenance crew along with constant inspection allows those pipes to be changed at a convenient time and pace before  failure is expected. There are still rare unexpected problems, but with precise records and inspections, those unexpected events happen much less often than was even hoped for just a few years ago. There is no real need to boost personnel to handle Keystone.


----------



## martybegan

BULLDOG said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who cares? if we can make $$ off moving it, we make $$ off moving it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We? We won't make a penny off moving it. The same people who own a large amount of the mining facility in Canada also own a large part of the refineries on the Gulf coast. Those people will make a fortune, and since the Gulf coast refineries are classified as Free Trade Zones, they won't even pay taxes on the profit from transport or refining. They keep it all. We get nothing but a few temporary jobs. A circus that stays a little longer than usual would probably supply more temporary jobs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So Skynet runs the refineries?
> 
> Good to know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. A very precise set of programs run the refineries with minimal input from the very few plant operators. The first Apollo mission into space had less computer ability than is found on most modern smart phones.  Computers have taken over much of the operation of everything from commercial airlines to refrigerators. Refineries have taken advantages of those advantages as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So computers repair pipes? Computers change out parts on those computers? Computers direct the various process requirements at a refinery?
> 
> Plus these are really good paying jobs, not the McJobs you try to get people paid $10 an hour more than they are worth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. Computers don't repair pipes. A very efficient maintenance crew along with constant inspection allows those pipes to be changed at a convenient time and pace before  failure is expected. There are still rare unexpected problems, but with precise records and inspections, those unexpected events happen much less often than was even hoped for just a few years ago. There is no real need to boost personnel to handle Keystone.
Click to expand...


Says you.


----------



## BULLDOG

martybegan said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our ports won't. Refineries have their own docks. Any money made will stay with the refinery owners, who will not hire any more people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And who works in refineries?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The exact same people who would would work in refineries without Keystone. No more people......no less people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well now they have another source of feed stock, so if one other source goes away, they get to keep their jobs instead of layoffs.
> 
> And how do you know the increased feed flow won't lead to more shifts or more process streams being put online, and thus need more people?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because I live in the Beaumont/ Pt.Arthur area. Refineries are what we do. Most everyone I know either works in a refinery, or has worked in one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That didn't answer the question.
Click to expand...


People I know work in almost every part of refinery operations. Everything from mowing grass to planning and purchasing. They say they are good. There are always a few people being hired to replace people who are fired, quit, retire, die, or otherwise leave, but hiring practices or numbers haven't changed, and aren't expected to change any time soon.


----------



## BULLDOG

martybegan said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> We? We won't make a penny off moving it. The same people who own a large amount of the mining facility in Canada also own a large part of the refineries on the Gulf coast. Those people will make a fortune, and since the Gulf coast refineries are classified as Free Trade Zones, they won't even pay taxes on the profit from transport or refining. They keep it all. We get nothing but a few temporary jobs. A circus that stays a little longer than usual would probably supply more temporary jobs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So Skynet runs the refineries?
> 
> Good to know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. A very precise set of programs run the refineries with minimal input from the very few plant operators. The first Apollo mission into space had less computer ability than is found on most modern smart phones.  Computers have taken over much of the operation of everything from commercial airlines to refrigerators. Refineries have taken advantages of those advantages as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So computers repair pipes? Computers change out parts on those computers? Computers direct the various process requirements at a refinery?
> 
> Plus these are really good paying jobs, not the McJobs you try to get people paid $10 an hour more than they are worth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. Computers don't repair pipes. A very efficient maintenance crew along with constant inspection allows those pipes to be changed at a convenient time and pace before  failure is expected. There are still rare unexpected problems, but with precise records and inspections, those unexpected events happen much less often than was even hoped for just a few years ago. There is no real need to boost personnel to handle Keystone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says you.
Click to expand...


You could easily check the employment records for Pt. Arthur or Beaumont if you want to. I know the answer, so I don't have a need to do that.


----------



## martybegan

BULLDOG said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> And who works in refineries?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The exact same people who would would work in refineries without Keystone. No more people......no less people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well now they have another source of feed stock, so if one other source goes away, they get to keep their jobs instead of layoffs.
> 
> And how do you know the increased feed flow won't lead to more shifts or more process streams being put online, and thus need more people?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because I live in the Beaumont/ Pt.Arthur area. Refineries are what we do. Most everyone I know either works in a refinery, or has worked in one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That didn't answer the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People I know work in almost every part of refinery operations. Everything from mowing grass to planning and purchasing. They say they are good. There are always a few people being hired to replace people who are fired, quit, retire, die, or otherwise leave, but hiring practices or numbers haven't changed, and aren't expected to change any time soon.
Click to expand...


And that would change if sources of feed stock dried up. All the keystone extensions do is make more sources available, and add more flexibility to the pathways of feed stock to the refineries.


----------



## martybegan

BULLDOG said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> So Skynet runs the refineries?
> 
> Good to know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. A very precise set of programs run the refineries with minimal input from the very few plant operators. The first Apollo mission into space had less computer ability than is found on most modern smart phones.  Computers have taken over much of the operation of everything from commercial airlines to refrigerators. Refineries have taken advantages of those advantages as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So computers repair pipes? Computers change out parts on those computers? Computers direct the various process requirements at a refinery?
> 
> Plus these are really good paying jobs, not the McJobs you try to get people paid $10 an hour more than they are worth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. Computers don't repair pipes. A very efficient maintenance crew along with constant inspection allows those pipes to be changed at a convenient time and pace before  failure is expected. There are still rare unexpected problems, but with precise records and inspections, those unexpected events happen much less often than was even hoped for just a few years ago. There is no real need to boost personnel to handle Keystone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You could easily check the employment records for Pt. Arthur or Beaumont if you want to. I know the answer, so I don't have a need to do that.
Click to expand...


Bullshit.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

BULLDOG said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Construction jobs are always temporary in nature. it's amazing how much you guys keep moving the goalposts.
> 
> It makes no jobs!
> It makes too few jobs!!!
> The jobs it makes are only temporary!
> Machines will do the work!
> 
> You put the blinders on when it suits your political interests.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You put on the rose colored glasses when it suits yours. I worked in oil and pipeline construction for years. I know what this does and doesn't amount to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I work in construction as well, and have a degree in ChemE, but unlike you i don't make up shit to cover my political goals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Care to point at any shit you think I made up?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You constantly downplay any economic impact because you don't like icky fossil fuels. The simple fact is this stuff is going to be used, and even more so if prices go up again to make it more profitable.
> 
> A pipeline is the safest way to do it, and while it isn't a lot of jobs, its still jobs, plus the subsequent economic improvements, be it in Canada, at the end of the line near a port facility, or at the local truck stand where the pipeline maintenance guy stops by for lunch 3 times a week while he does his inspections.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Won't be used here.
Click to expand...


It'll be exported? Sounds like something that earns a profit.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

BULLDOG said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know what Bitumen is. you don't call it sludge unless it is a waste product.
> 
> And any new jobs are still new jobs. plus the additional flow would mean keeping the existing ones is other sources of flow peter out.
> 
> And why should we not help our Canadian brethren? Maybe the new workers will buy a nice Ford or Chevy and pay us back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's what it comes down to for you?  We should take the potential of MASSIVE ecological disaster to help Canadian workers?  I won't even bother calling that nuts. It goes without saying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Considering that pipelines are the safest way to move this stuff, and sooner or later someone is going to move it anyway, your MASSIVE (see I can do caps too!) disaster is more likely to happen with other modes of transport.
> 
> Methinks you again let your political views impact your view on reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK, it will be moved, but nobody has come up with a rational reason why we should allow it to be moved across our country when we get no benefit from it. They have ports in Canada.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And why should our ports not get in on the action?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Our ports won't. Refineries have their own docks. Any money made will stay with the refinery owners, who will not hire any more people.
Click to expand...

*
Any money made will stay with the refinery owners*

That's awful!
And the taxes they pay?


----------



## Old Rocks

Billy_Kinetta said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Keystone XL pipeline would only create 35 permanent jobs
> 
> And Obama's Green and Renewable fiasco:
> 
> US solar power employs more people than oil, coal and gas combined
> 
> and,
> 
> U.S. Clean Energy Jobs Surpass Fossil Fuel Employment
> 
> Solar energy in the US employs more people than traditional coal, gas and oil combined, a report has found, in a revelation that could undermine Donald Trump’s argument that green energy isn’t good for the economy.
> 
> The latest report from the US Department of Energy (DOE) reveals solar energy accounts for the largest proportion of employers in the Electric Power Generation sector, with wind energy the third largest, while the coal industries have declined in the past 10 years.
> 
> Solar energy employed 374,000 people over the year 2015-2016, making up 43 per cent of the sector’s workforce, while the traditional fossil fuels combined employed 187,117, making up just 22 per cent of the workforce, according to the report.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you can run your car on solar, let us know.
Click to expand...

Can you say EV.


----------



## BULLDOG

Toddsterpatriot said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> You put on the rose colored glasses when it suits yours. I worked in oil and pipeline construction for years. I know what this does and doesn't amount to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I work in construction as well, and have a degree in ChemE, but unlike you i don't make up shit to cover my political goals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Care to point at any shit you think I made up?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You constantly downplay any economic impact because you don't like icky fossil fuels. The simple fact is this stuff is going to be used, and even more so if prices go up again to make it more profitable.
> 
> A pipeline is the safest way to do it, and while it isn't a lot of jobs, its still jobs, plus the subsequent economic improvements, be it in Canada, at the end of the line near a port facility, or at the local truck stand where the pipeline maintenance guy stops by for lunch 3 times a week while he does his inspections.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Won't be used here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It'll be exported? Sounds like something that earns a profit.
Click to expand...


Sure, for the oi; companies/ They will make a fortune while we assume the potential danger of a spill.


----------



## BULLDOG

Toddsterpatriot said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's what it comes down to for you?  We should take the potential of MASSIVE ecological disaster to help Canadian workers?  I won't even bother calling that nuts. It goes without saying.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Considering that pipelines are the safest way to move this stuff, and sooner or later someone is going to move it anyway, your MASSIVE (see I can do caps too!) disaster is more likely to happen with other modes of transport.
> 
> Methinks you again let your political views impact your view on reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK, it will be moved, but nobody has come up with a rational reason why we should allow it to be moved across our country when we get no benefit from it. They have ports in Canada.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And why should our ports not get in on the action?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Our ports won't. Refineries have their own docks. Any money made will stay with the refinery owners, who will not hire any more people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> Any money made will stay with the refinery owners*
> 
> That's awful!
> And the taxes they pay?
Click to expand...


The refineries are free trade zones, so none of the profit from refining is taxable.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

BULLDOG said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> And I work in construction as well, and have a degree in ChemE, but unlike you i don't make up shit to cover my political goals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care to point at any shit you think I made up?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You constantly downplay any economic impact because you don't like icky fossil fuels. The simple fact is this stuff is going to be used, and even more so if prices go up again to make it more profitable.
> 
> A pipeline is the safest way to do it, and while it isn't a lot of jobs, its still jobs, plus the subsequent economic improvements, be it in Canada, at the end of the line near a port facility, or at the local truck stand where the pipeline maintenance guy stops by for lunch 3 times a week while he does his inspections.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Won't be used here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It'll be exported? Sounds like something that earns a profit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, for the oi; companies/ They will make a fortune while we assume the potential danger of a spill.
Click to expand...


*Sure, for the oi; companies/*

Yes, oil companies will make a profit. If only some of us received dividends from oil companies.

*They will make a fortune while we assume the potential danger of a spill.*

Pretty sure pipelines are safer than oil tankers, oil trains and oil trucks.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

BULLDOG said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Considering that pipelines are the safest way to move this stuff, and sooner or later someone is going to move it anyway, your MASSIVE (see I can do caps too!) disaster is more likely to happen with other modes of transport.
> 
> Methinks you again let your political views impact your view on reality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK, it will be moved, but nobody has come up with a rational reason why we should allow it to be moved across our country when we get no benefit from it. They have ports in Canada.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And why should our ports not get in on the action?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Our ports won't. Refineries have their own docks. Any money made will stay with the refinery owners, who will not hire any more people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> Any money made will stay with the refinery owners*
> 
> That's awful!
> And the taxes they pay?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The refineries are free trade zones, so none of the profit from refining is taxable.
Click to expand...


*The refineries are free trade zones, so none of the profit from refining is taxable.*

Can you prove your claim?


----------



## Wyatt earp

BULLDOG said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> And I work in construction as well, and have a degree in ChemE, but unlike you i don't make up shit to cover my political goals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care to point at any shit you think I made up?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You constantly downplay any economic impact because you don't like icky fossil fuels. The simple fact is this stuff is going to be used, and even more so if prices go up again to make it more profitable.
> 
> A pipeline is the safest way to do it, and while it isn't a lot of jobs, its still jobs, plus the subsequent economic improvements, be it in Canada, at the end of the line near a port facility, or at the local truck stand where the pipeline maintenance guy stops by for lunch 3 times a week while he does his inspections.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Won't be used here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It'll be exported? Sounds like something that earns a profit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, for the oi; companies/ They will make a fortune while we assume the potential danger of a spill.
Click to expand...




WTF , you acr like a pipeline is a new concept, just admit it already ...obozo didn't like it , so you don't like it sheep




.


----------



## BULLDOG

Toddsterpatriot said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> Care to point at any shit you think I made up?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You constantly downplay any economic impact because you don't like icky fossil fuels. The simple fact is this stuff is going to be used, and even more so if prices go up again to make it more profitable.
> 
> A pipeline is the safest way to do it, and while it isn't a lot of jobs, its still jobs, plus the subsequent economic improvements, be it in Canada, at the end of the line near a port facility, or at the local truck stand where the pipeline maintenance guy stops by for lunch 3 times a week while he does his inspections.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Won't be used here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It'll be exported? Sounds like something that earns a profit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, for the oi; companies/ They will make a fortune while we assume the potential danger of a spill.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Sure, for the oi; companies/*
> 
> Yes, oil companies will make a profit. If only some of us received dividends from oil companies.
> 
> *They will make a fortune while we assume the potential danger of a spill.*
> 
> Pretty sure pipelines are safer than oil tankers, oil trains and oil trucks.
Click to expand...

 
Yes, but since the country will gain no benefit or advantage from transporting that sludge all the way from the northern border to the Gulf coast. There is no reason to do it at all.


----------



## BULLDOG

Toddsterpatriot said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK, it will be moved, but nobody has come up with a rational reason why we should allow it to be moved across our country when we get no benefit from it. They have ports in Canada.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And why should our ports not get in on the action?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Our ports won't. Refineries have their own docks. Any money made will stay with the refinery owners, who will not hire any more people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> Any money made will stay with the refinery owners*
> 
> That's awful!
> And the taxes they pay?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The refineries are free trade zones, so none of the profit from refining is taxable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *The refineries are free trade zones, so none of the profit from refining is taxable.*
> 
> Can you prove your claim?
Click to expand...


Of course
Free-trade zone - Wikipedia

http://enforcement.trade.gov/ftzpage/letters/ftzlist-map.html#texas


----------



## BULLDOG

bear513 said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> Care to point at any shit you think I made up?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You constantly downplay any economic impact because you don't like icky fossil fuels. The simple fact is this stuff is going to be used, and even more so if prices go up again to make it more profitable.
> 
> A pipeline is the safest way to do it, and while it isn't a lot of jobs, its still jobs, plus the subsequent economic improvements, be it in Canada, at the end of the line near a port facility, or at the local truck stand where the pipeline maintenance guy stops by for lunch 3 times a week while he does his inspections.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Won't be used here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It'll be exported? Sounds like something that earns a profit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, for the oi; companies/ They will make a fortune while we assume the potential danger of a spill.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WTF , you acr like a pipeline is a new concept, just admit it already ...obozo didn't like it , so you don't like it sheep
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Pipelines are great if there is a rational purpose for them. I made lots of money working on lots of lines.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

BULLDOG said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> You constantly downplay any economic impact because you don't like icky fossil fuels. The simple fact is this stuff is going to be used, and even more so if prices go up again to make it more profitable.
> 
> A pipeline is the safest way to do it, and while it isn't a lot of jobs, its still jobs, plus the subsequent economic improvements, be it in Canada, at the end of the line near a port facility, or at the local truck stand where the pipeline maintenance guy stops by for lunch 3 times a week while he does his inspections.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Won't be used here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It'll be exported? Sounds like something that earns a profit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, for the oi; companies/ They will make a fortune while we assume the potential danger of a spill.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Sure, for the oi; companies/*
> 
> Yes, oil companies will make a profit. If only some of us received dividends from oil companies.
> 
> *They will make a fortune while we assume the potential danger of a spill.*
> 
> Pretty sure pipelines are safer than oil tankers, oil trains and oil trucks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, but since the country will gain no benefit or advantage from transporting that sludge all the way from the northern border to the Gulf coast. There is no reason to do it at all.
Click to expand...


The oil is coming in now. The pipeline is safer than other transportation methods. That's a benefit.
A safer, more secure source of oil from a friendly  nation is a benefit.
More profit for US based companies paying US with US workers  and US shareholders is a benefit.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

BULLDOG said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> And why should our ports not get in on the action?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Our ports won't. Refineries have their own docks. Any money made will stay with the refinery owners, who will not hire any more people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> Any money made will stay with the refinery owners*
> 
> That's awful!
> And the taxes they pay?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The refineries are free trade zones, so none of the profit from refining is taxable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *The refineries are free trade zones, so none of the profit from refining is taxable.*
> 
> Can you prove your claim?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course
> Free-trade zone - Wikipedia
> 
> http://enforcement.trade.gov/ftzpage/letters/ftzlist-map.html#texas
Click to expand...


Thanks.

_In the United States, FTZs provide Customs-related advantages as well as exemptions from state and local inventory taxes.
_
Now, do you have a source that actually proves your claim?

*The refineries are free trade zones, so none of the profit from refining is taxable.*

Or have you noticed your error?


----------



## BULLDOG

Toddsterpatriot said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> Won't be used here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It'll be exported? Sounds like something that earns a profit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, for the oi; companies/ They will make a fortune while we assume the potential danger of a spill.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Sure, for the oi; companies/*
> 
> Yes, oil companies will make a profit. If only some of us received dividends from oil companies.
> 
> *They will make a fortune while we assume the potential danger of a spill.*
> 
> Pretty sure pipelines are safer than oil tankers, oil trains and oil trucks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, but since the country will gain no benefit or advantage from transporting that sludge all the way from the northern border to the Gulf coast. There is no reason to do it at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The oil is coming in now. The pipeline is safer than other transportation methods. That's a benefit.
> A safer, more secure source of oil from a friendly  nation is a benefit.
> More profit for US based companies paying US with US workers  and US shareholders is a benefit.
Click to expand...


A source that was never intended to be used here. We are self sufficient, but that's because of recent fracking advances, and advances in alternative energy. That sludge from Canada is not part of that sufficiency. The profit goes to multi-national corporations who hold no more allegiance to us than to the other countries where they make money, and will not pay any additional taxes on their massive profit increase. They have US workers who won't make a dime more or work an hour more to process Canadian Bitumen instead of crude. I guess they might hire a few more workers along the way, but no more than would be needed for an average big box store, and certainly not as many as would be needed for another super Walmart.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

BULLDOG said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> It'll be exported? Sounds like something that earns a profit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, for the oi; companies/ They will make a fortune while we assume the potential danger of a spill.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Sure, for the oi; companies/*
> 
> Yes, oil companies will make a profit. If only some of us received dividends from oil companies.
> 
> *They will make a fortune while we assume the potential danger of a spill.*
> 
> Pretty sure pipelines are safer than oil tankers, oil trains and oil trucks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, but since the country will gain no benefit or advantage from transporting that sludge all the way from the northern border to the Gulf coast. There is no reason to do it at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The oil is coming in now. The pipeline is safer than other transportation methods. That's a benefit.
> A safer, more secure source of oil from a friendly  nation is a benefit.
> More profit for US based companies paying US with US workers  and US shareholders is a benefit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A source that was never intended to be used here. We are self sufficient, but that's because of recent fracking advances, and advances in alternative energy. That sludge from Canada is not part of that sufficiency. The profit goes to multi-national corporations who hold no more allegiance to us than to the other countries where they make money, and will not pay any additional taxes on their massive profit increase. They have US workers who won't make a dime more or work an hour more to process Canadian Bitumen instead of crude. I guess they might hire a few more workers along the way, but no more than would be needed for an average big box store, and certainly not as many as would be needed for another super Walmart.
Click to expand...

*
A source that was never intended to be used here. We are self sufficient*

Really? Net oil imports are zero? When did that happen?


----------



## BULLDOG

Toddsterpatriot said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our ports won't. Refineries have their own docks. Any money made will stay with the refinery owners, who will not hire any more people.
> 
> 
> 
> *
> Any money made will stay with the refinery owners*
> 
> That's awful!
> And the taxes they pay?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The refineries are free trade zones, so none of the profit from refining is taxable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *The refineries are free trade zones, so none of the profit from refining is taxable.*
> 
> Can you prove your claim?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course
> Free-trade zone - Wikipedia
> 
> http://enforcement.trade.gov/ftzpage/letters/ftzlist-map.html#texas
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> _In the United States, FTZs provide Customs-related advantages as well as exemptions from state and local inventory taxes.
> _
> Now, do you have a source that actually proves your claim?
> 
> *The refineries are free trade zones, so none of the profit from refining is taxable.*
> 
> Or have you noticed your error?
Click to expand...


Obviously you didn't read all of both the links. Free trade zones for each state are listed in the 2nd one


----------



## jon_berzerk

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Keystone XL pipeline would only create 35 permanent jobs
> 
> And Obama's Green and Renewable fiasco:
> 
> US solar power employs more people than oil, coal and gas combined
> 
> and,
> 
> U.S. Clean Energy Jobs Surpass Fossil Fuel Employment
> 
> Solar energy in the US employs more people than traditional coal, gas and oil combined, a report has found, in a revelation that could undermine Donald Trump’s argument that green energy isn’t good for the economy.
> 
> The latest report from the US Department of Energy (DOE) reveals solar energy accounts for the largest proportion of employers in the Electric Power Generation sector, with wind energy the third largest, while the coal industries have declined in the past 10 years.
> 
> Solar energy employed 374,000 people over the year 2015-2016, making up 43 per cent of the sector’s workforce, while the traditional fossil fuels combined employed 187,117, making up just 22 per cent of the workforce, according to the report.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *US solar power employs more people than oil, coal and gas combined*
> 
> Excellent! I enjoy proof of the low productivity of solar.
> 
> *Solar energy employed 374,000 people over the year 2015-2016, making up 43 per cent of the sector’s workforce, while the traditional fossil fuels combined employed 187,117*
> 
> Solar, 1.4% of our electricity generation takes more than twice as many workers as the fossil fuels, gas and coal, that generate over 64% of our electricity.
> 
> What is U.S. electricity generation by energy source? - FAQ - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)
Click to expand...


that is just crazy 

--LOL


----------



## BULLDOG

Toddsterpatriot said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, for the oi; companies/ They will make a fortune while we assume the potential danger of a spill.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Sure, for the oi; companies/*
> 
> Yes, oil companies will make a profit. If only some of us received dividends from oil companies.
> 
> *They will make a fortune while we assume the potential danger of a spill.*
> 
> Pretty sure pipelines are safer than oil tankers, oil trains and oil trucks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, but since the country will gain no benefit or advantage from transporting that sludge all the way from the northern border to the Gulf coast. There is no reason to do it at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The oil is coming in now. The pipeline is safer than other transportation methods. That's a benefit.
> A safer, more secure source of oil from a friendly  nation is a benefit.
> More profit for US based companies paying US with US workers  and US shareholders is a benefit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A source that was never intended to be used here. We are self sufficient, but that's because of recent fracking advances, and advances in alternative energy. That sludge from Canada is not part of that sufficiency. The profit goes to multi-national corporations who hold no more allegiance to us than to the other countries where they make money, and will not pay any additional taxes on their massive profit increase. They have US workers who won't make a dime more or work an hour more to process Canadian Bitumen instead of crude. I guess they might hire a few more workers along the way, but no more than would be needed for an average big box store, and certainly not as many as would be needed for another super Walmart.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> A source that was never intended to be used here. We are self sufficient*
> 
> Really? Net oil imports are zero? When did that happen?
Click to expand...


Just to be clear, are you backing off on all those silly claims of massive job increases? That is after all what was used to sell the project.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

BULLDOG said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Any money made will stay with the refinery owners*
> 
> That's awful!
> And the taxes they pay?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The refineries are free trade zones, so none of the profit from refining is taxable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *The refineries are free trade zones, so none of the profit from refining is taxable.*
> 
> Can you prove your claim?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course
> Free-trade zone - Wikipedia
> 
> http://enforcement.trade.gov/ftzpage/letters/ftzlist-map.html#texas
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> _In the United States, FTZs provide Customs-related advantages as well as exemptions from state and local inventory taxes.
> _
> Now, do you have a source that actually proves your claim?
> 
> *The refineries are free trade zones, so none of the profit from refining is taxable.*
> 
> Or have you noticed your error?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obviously you didn't read all of both the links. Free trade zones for each state are listed in the 2nd one
Click to expand...


*Obviously you didn't read all of both the links.*

Neither link backed up your claim.

*The refineries are free trade zones, so none of the profit from refining is taxable.*

Try again?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

BULLDOG said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Sure, for the oi; companies/*
> 
> Yes, oil companies will make a profit. If only some of us received dividends from oil companies.
> 
> *They will make a fortune while we assume the potential danger of a spill.*
> 
> Pretty sure pipelines are safer than oil tankers, oil trains and oil trucks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, but since the country will gain no benefit or advantage from transporting that sludge all the way from the northern border to the Gulf coast. There is no reason to do it at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The oil is coming in now. The pipeline is safer than other transportation methods. That's a benefit.
> A safer, more secure source of oil from a friendly  nation is a benefit.
> More profit for US based companies paying US with US workers  and US shareholders is a benefit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A source that was never intended to be used here. We are self sufficient, but that's because of recent fracking advances, and advances in alternative energy. That sludge from Canada is not part of that sufficiency. The profit goes to multi-national corporations who hold no more allegiance to us than to the other countries where they make money, and will not pay any additional taxes on their massive profit increase. They have US workers who won't make a dime more or work an hour more to process Canadian Bitumen instead of crude. I guess they might hire a few more workers along the way, but no more than would be needed for an average big box store, and certainly not as many as would be needed for another super Walmart.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> A source that was never intended to be used here. We are self sufficient*
> 
> Really? Net oil imports are zero? When did that happen?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just to be clear, are you backing off on all those silly claims of massive job increases? That is after all what was used to sell the project.
Click to expand...


Sorry, where did I claim there would be massive job increases?
I know there'll be plenty of construction jobs while it's being built.
A few jobs when it's completed as well as a safer way to get the oil to the refineries.
All good things.
No different than any of the other thousands of miles of US oil pipelines.


----------



## BULLDOG

Toddsterpatriot said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, but since the country will gain no benefit or advantage from transporting that sludge all the way from the northern border to the Gulf coast. There is no reason to do it at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The oil is coming in now. The pipeline is safer than other transportation methods. That's a benefit.
> A safer, more secure source of oil from a friendly  nation is a benefit.
> More profit for US based companies paying US with US workers  and US shareholders is a benefit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A source that was never intended to be used here. We are self sufficient, but that's because of recent fracking advances, and advances in alternative energy. That sludge from Canada is not part of that sufficiency. The profit goes to multi-national corporations who hold no more allegiance to us than to the other countries where they make money, and will not pay any additional taxes on their massive profit increase. They have US workers who won't make a dime more or work an hour more to process Canadian Bitumen instead of crude. I guess they might hire a few more workers along the way, but no more than would be needed for an average big box store, and certainly not as many as would be needed for another super Walmart.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> A source that was never intended to be used here. We are self sufficient*
> 
> Really? Net oil imports are zero? When did that happen?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just to be clear, are you backing off on all those silly claims of massive job increases? That is after all what was used to sell the project.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, where did I claim there would be massive job increases?
> I know there'll be plenty of construction jobs while it's being built.
> A few jobs when it's completed as well as a safer way to get the oil to the refineries.
> All good things.
> No different than any of the other thousands of miles of US oil pipelines.
Click to expand...


Perhaps you didn't claim lots  of jobs, but it was among the main claims of Keystone supporters.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

BULLDOG said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> The oil is coming in now. The pipeline is safer than other transportation methods. That's a benefit.
> A safer, more secure source of oil from a friendly  nation is a benefit.
> More profit for US based companies paying US with US workers  and US shareholders is a benefit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A source that was never intended to be used here. We are self sufficient, but that's because of recent fracking advances, and advances in alternative energy. That sludge from Canada is not part of that sufficiency. The profit goes to multi-national corporations who hold no more allegiance to us than to the other countries where they make money, and will not pay any additional taxes on their massive profit increase. They have US workers who won't make a dime more or work an hour more to process Canadian Bitumen instead of crude. I guess they might hire a few more workers along the way, but no more than would be needed for an average big box store, and certainly not as many as would be needed for another super Walmart.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> A source that was never intended to be used here. We are self sufficient*
> 
> Really? Net oil imports are zero? When did that happen?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just to be clear, are you backing off on all those silly claims of massive job increases? That is after all what was used to sell the project.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, where did I claim there would be massive job increases?
> I know there'll be plenty of construction jobs while it's being built.
> A few jobs when it's completed as well as a safer way to get the oil to the refineries.
> All good things.
> No different than any of the other thousands of miles of US oil pipelines.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps you didn't claim lots  of jobs, but it was among the main claims of Keystone supporters.
Click to expand...


How many construction jobs were involved?


----------



## BULLDOG

Toddsterpatriot said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> A source that was never intended to be used here. We are self sufficient, but that's because of recent fracking advances, and advances in alternative energy. That sludge from Canada is not part of that sufficiency. The profit goes to multi-national corporations who hold no more allegiance to us than to the other countries where they make money, and will not pay any additional taxes on their massive profit increase. They have US workers who won't make a dime more or work an hour more to process Canadian Bitumen instead of crude. I guess they might hire a few more workers along the way, but no more than would be needed for an average big box store, and certainly not as many as would be needed for another super Walmart.
> 
> 
> 
> *
> A source that was never intended to be used here. We are self sufficient*
> 
> Really? Net oil imports are zero? When did that happen?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just to be clear, are you backing off on all those silly claims of massive job increases? That is after all what was used to sell the project.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, where did I claim there would be massive job increases?
> I know there'll be plenty of construction jobs while it's being built.
> A few jobs when it's completed as well as a safer way to get the oil to the refineries.
> All good things.
> No different than any of the other thousands of miles of US oil pipelines.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps you didn't claim lots  of jobs, but it was among the main claims of Keystone supporters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many construction jobs were involved?
Click to expand...

Many proponents, like TransCanada CEO Russ Girling, said the project would create 42,000 jobs. Girling said these jobs would be "ongoing, enduring. Obviously he meant those 42,000 were beyond the relitively few construction jobs.You can't weasel out of the false claims of large job growth by  keystone.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

BULLDOG said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *A source that was never intended to be used here. We are self sufficient*
> 
> Really? Net oil imports are zero? When did that happen?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just to be clear, are you backing off on all those silly claims of massive job increases? That is after all what was used to sell the project.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, where did I claim there would be massive job increases?
> I know there'll be plenty of construction jobs while it's being built.
> A few jobs when it's completed as well as a safer way to get the oil to the refineries.
> All good things.
> No different than any of the other thousands of miles of US oil pipelines.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps you didn't claim lots  of jobs, but it was among the main claims of Keystone supporters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many construction jobs were involved?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Many proponents, like TransCanada CEO Russ Girling, said the project would create 42,000 jobs. Girling said these jobs would be "ongoing, enduring. Obviously he meant those 42,000 were beyond the relitively few construction jobs.You can't weasel out of the false claims of large job growth by  keystone.
Click to expand...

*
Many proponents, like TransCanada CEO Russ Girling, said the project would create 42,000 jobs.*

How many construction jobs were actually created?


----------



## BULLDOG

Toddsterpatriot said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just to be clear, are you backing off on all those silly claims of massive job increases? That is after all what was used to sell the project.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, where did I claim there would be massive job increases?
> I know there'll be plenty of construction jobs while it's being built.
> A few jobs when it's completed as well as a safer way to get the oil to the refineries.
> All good things.
> No different than any of the other thousands of miles of US oil pipelines.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps you didn't claim lots  of jobs, but it was among the main claims of Keystone supporters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many construction jobs were involved?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Many proponents, like TransCanada CEO Russ Girling, said the project would create 42,000 jobs. Girling said these jobs would be "ongoing, enduring. Obviously he meant those 42,000 were beyond the relitively few construction jobs.You can't weasel out of the false claims of large job growth by  keystone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> Many proponents, like TransCanada CEO Russ Girling, said the project would create 42,000 jobs.*
> 
> How many construction jobs were actually created?
Click to expand...


Can't say, but certainly much fewer than were claimed. Again, large job growth was one of the top claims by proponents. If desired, I can link multiple videos of Trump making that claim.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

BULLDOG said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, where did I claim there would be massive job increases?
> I know there'll be plenty of construction jobs while it's being built.
> A few jobs when it's completed as well as a safer way to get the oil to the refineries.
> All good things.
> No different than any of the other thousands of miles of US oil pipelines.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps you didn't claim lots  of jobs, but it was among the main claims of Keystone supporters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many construction jobs were involved?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Many proponents, like TransCanada CEO Russ Girling, said the project would create 42,000 jobs. Girling said these jobs would be "ongoing, enduring. Obviously he meant those 42,000 were beyond the relitively few construction jobs.You can't weasel out of the false claims of large job growth by  keystone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> Many proponents, like TransCanada CEO Russ Girling, said the project would create 42,000 jobs.*
> 
> How many construction jobs were actually created?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can't say, but certainly much fewer than were claimed. Again, large job growth was one of the top claims by proponents. If desired, I can link multiple videos of Trump making that claim.
Click to expand...


_A State Department report on the pipeline that was issued under the Obama administration found that there would be 3,900 direct construction jobs if it was built over one year, or 1,950 if the work was spread over two years.

Keystone pipeline: How many jobs it would really create
_
CNN says 3900 jobs. Sounds good to me.
Get 'er done!


----------



## Luddly Neddite

Billy_Kinetta said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Keystone XL pipeline would only create 35 permanent jobs
> 
> And Obama's Green and Renewable fiasco:
> 
> US solar power employs more people than oil, coal and gas combined
> 
> and,
> 
> U.S. Clean Energy Jobs Surpass Fossil Fuel Employment
> 
> Solar energy in the US employs more people than traditional coal, gas and oil combined, a report has found, in a revelation that could undermine Donald Trump’s argument that green energy isn’t good for the economy.
> 
> The latest report from the US Department of Energy (DOE) reveals solar energy accounts for the largest proportion of employers in the Electric Power Generation sector, with wind energy the third largest, while the coal industries have declined in the past 10 years.
> 
> Solar energy employed 374,000 people over the year 2015-2016, making up 43 per cent of the sector’s workforce, while the traditional fossil fuels combined employed 187,117, making up just 22 per cent of the workforce, according to the report.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you can run your car on solar, let us know.
Click to expand...


US gets no oil from the pipeline.

The US gets nothing and we hear the brunt of enormous costs.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Luddly Neddite said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Keystone XL pipeline would only create 35 permanent jobs
> 
> And Obama's Green and Renewable fiasco:
> 
> US solar power employs more people than oil, coal and gas combined
> 
> and,
> 
> U.S. Clean Energy Jobs Surpass Fossil Fuel Employment
> 
> Solar energy in the US employs more people than traditional coal, gas and oil combined, a report has found, in a revelation that could undermine Donald Trump’s argument that green energy isn’t good for the economy.
> 
> The latest report from the US Department of Energy (DOE) reveals solar energy accounts for the largest proportion of employers in the Electric Power Generation sector, with wind energy the third largest, while the coal industries have declined in the past 10 years.
> 
> Solar energy employed 374,000 people over the year 2015-2016, making up 43 per cent of the sector’s workforce, while the traditional fossil fuels combined employed 187,117, making up just 22 per cent of the workforce, according to the report.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you can run your car on solar, let us know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> US gets no oil from the pipeline.
> 
> The US gets nothing and we hear the brunt of enormous costs.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com
Click to expand...


*US gets no oil from the pipeline.*

Why do you feel that?

*we hear the brunt of enormous costs.*

What costs?


----------



## Luddly Neddite

Weatherman2020 said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Keystone XL pipeline would only create 35 permanent jobs
> 
> And Obama's Green and Renewable fiasco:
> 
> US solar power employs more people than oil, coal and gas combined
> 
> and,
> 
> U.S. Clean Energy Jobs Surpass Fossil Fuel Employment
> 
> Solar energy in the US employs more people than traditional coal, gas and oil combined, a report has found, in a revelation that could undermine Donald Trump’s argument that green energy isn’t good for the economy.
> 
> The latest report from the US Department of Energy (DOE) reveals solar energy accounts for the largest proportion of employers in the Electric Power Generation sector, with wind energy the third largest, while the coal industries have declined in the past 10 years.
> 
> Solar energy employed 374,000 people over the year 2015-2016, making up 43 per cent of the sector’s workforce, while the traditional fossil fuels combined employed 187,117, making up just 22 per cent of the workforce, according to the report.
> 
> 
> 
> How many permanent jobs created by building a bridge?
> 
> You lefties keep validating why America has turned its back on you.
Click to expand...



Good question - unlike this idiotic pipeline, thousands and thousands of Americans would benefit from infrastructure repairs and maintenance.

The very thing the right always fights against.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com


----------



## Luddly Neddite

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Keystone XL pipeline would only create 35 permanent jobs
> 
> And Obama's Green and Renewable fiasco:
> 
> US solar power employs more people than oil, coal and gas combined
> 
> and,
> 
> U.S. Clean Energy Jobs Surpass Fossil Fuel Employment
> 
> Solar energy in the US employs more people than traditional coal, gas and oil combined, a report has found, in a revelation that could undermine Donald Trump’s argument that green energy isn’t good for the economy.
> 
> The latest report from the US Department of Energy (DOE) reveals solar energy accounts for the largest proportion of employers in the Electric Power Generation sector, with wind energy the third largest, while the coal industries have declined in the past 10 years.
> 
> Solar energy employed 374,000 people over the year 2015-2016, making up 43 per cent of the sector’s workforce, while the traditional fossil fuels combined employed 187,117, making up just 22 per cent of the workforce, according to the report.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you can run your car on solar, let us know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> US gets no oil from the pipeline.
> 
> The US gets nothing and we hear the brunt of enormous costs.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *US gets no oil from the pipeline.*
> 
> Why do you feel that?
> 
> *we hear the brunt of enormous costs.*
> 
> What costs?
Click to expand...



"FEEL"??

I prefer facts and the fact is, this oil go on the world market. It will actually lower our oil profit.

Why do RWNJs refuse to educate themselves? Why do you ALWAYS have to be spoon fed?

Especially since you ALWAYS go right back to fake  news sites and ALWAYS go right back to spouting lies.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com


----------



## Cellblock2429

Wry Catcher said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Keystone XL pipeline would only create 35 permanent jobs
> 
> And Obama's Green and Renewable fiasco:
> 
> US solar power employs more people than oil, coal and gas combined
> 
> and,
> 
> U.S. Clean Energy Jobs Surpass Fossil Fuel Employment
> 
> Solar energy in the US employs more people than traditional coal, gas and oil combined, a report has found, in a revelation that could undermine Donald Trump’s argument that green energy isn’t good for the economy.
> 
> The latest report from the US Department of Energy (DOE) reveals solar energy accounts for the largest proportion of employers in the Electric Power Generation sector, with wind energy the third largest, while the coal industries have declined in the past 10 years.
> 
> Solar energy employed 374,000 people over the year 2015-2016, making up 43 per cent of the sector’s workforce, while the traditional fossil fuels combined employed 187,117, making up just 22 per cent of the workforce, according to the report.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you can run your car on solar, let us know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I run my electric bike on solar.  In my community we see many Tesla's and lots of solar panels on roofs heating swimming pools.
Click to expand...


/---- Research the environmental damage created in the production of electric car batteries and get back to us. TIA


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com


----------



## Cellblock2429

Wry Catcher said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many permanent jobs created by building a bridge?
> 
> You lefties keep validating why America has turned its back on you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh is he going to redo the bridges? When is that?  Sometime , we will be shocked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obama fixed the infrastructure in his 8 years didn't he?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope, didn't you hear, Republicans passed the budget and their number 2 goal was to not allow Obama to fix anything.  Oh, you want to know what their #1 goal was?  What it has always been, to keep their pt job and continue to be paid FT wages, have great benefits and all kinds of perks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What was the vote that allowed Obama to ship billions to Iran in cold cash?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> NON SEQUITUR
Click to expand...


/---- it is a valid question 


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com


----------



## BULLDOG

Toddsterpatriot said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps you didn't claim lots  of jobs, but it was among the main claims of Keystone supporters.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many construction jobs were involved?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Many proponents, like TransCanada CEO Russ Girling, said the project would create 42,000 jobs. Girling said these jobs would be "ongoing, enduring. Obviously he meant those 42,000 were beyond the relitively few construction jobs.You can't weasel out of the false claims of large job growth by  keystone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> Many proponents, like TransCanada CEO Russ Girling, said the project would create 42,000 jobs.*
> 
> How many construction jobs were actually created?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can't say, but certainly much fewer than were claimed. Again, large job growth was one of the top claims by proponents. If desired, I can link multiple videos of Trump making that claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _A State Department report on the pipeline that was issued under the Obama administration found that there would be 3,900 direct construction jobs if it was built over one year, or 1,950 if the work was spread over two years.
> 
> Keystone pipeline: How many jobs it would really create
> _
> CNN says 3900 jobs. Sounds good to me.
> Get 'er done!
Click to expand...

 Nowhere close to 42,000 jobs. Most of it is already done anyway so I would guess about 3 or 4 hundred at most, and that would include all the extra added at motels and convenience stores that would service the pipeline workers. They lied about almost every aspect of the pipeline. Just admit it.


----------



## Cellblock2429

Luddly Neddite said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Keystone XL pipeline would only create 35 permanent jobs
> 
> And Obama's Green and Renewable fiasco:
> 
> US solar power employs more people than oil, coal and gas combined
> 
> and,
> 
> U.S. Clean Energy Jobs Surpass Fossil Fuel Employment
> 
> Solar energy in the US employs more people than traditional coal, gas and oil combined, a report has found, in a revelation that could undermine Donald Trump’s argument that green energy isn’t good for the economy.
> 
> The latest report from the US Department of Energy (DOE) reveals solar energy accounts for the largest proportion of employers in the Electric Power Generation sector, with wind energy the third largest, while the coal industries have declined in the past 10 years.
> 
> Solar energy employed 374,000 people over the year 2015-2016, making up 43 per cent of the sector’s workforce, while the traditional fossil fuels combined employed 187,117, making up just 22 per cent of the workforce, according to the report.
> 
> 
> 
> How many permanent jobs created by building a bridge?
> 
> You lefties keep validating why America has turned its back on you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Good question - unlike this idiotic pipeline, thousands and thousands of Americans would benefit from infrastructure repairs and maintenance.
> 
> The very thing the right always fights against.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com
Click to expand...

 /----- What was the results of Oboz's StimuLESS packages. Did they build anything other than the Union pensions?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Luddly Neddite said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Keystone XL pipeline would only create 35 permanent jobs
> 
> And Obama's Green and Renewable fiasco:
> 
> US solar power employs more people than oil, coal and gas combined
> 
> and,
> 
> U.S. Clean Energy Jobs Surpass Fossil Fuel Employment
> 
> Solar energy in the US employs more people than traditional coal, gas and oil combined, a report has found, in a revelation that could undermine Donald Trump’s argument that green energy isn’t good for the economy.
> 
> The latest report from the US Department of Energy (DOE) reveals solar energy accounts for the largest proportion of employers in the Electric Power Generation sector, with wind energy the third largest, while the coal industries have declined in the past 10 years.
> 
> Solar energy employed 374,000 people over the year 2015-2016, making up 43 per cent of the sector’s workforce, while the traditional fossil fuels combined employed 187,117, making up just 22 per cent of the workforce, according to the report.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you can run your car on solar, let us know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> US gets no oil from the pipeline.
> 
> The US gets nothing and we hear the brunt of enormous costs.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *US gets no oil from the pipeline.*
> 
> Why do you feel that?
> 
> *we hear the brunt of enormous costs.*
> 
> What costs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "FEEL"??
> 
> I prefer facts and the fact is, this oil go on the world market. It will actually lower our oil profit.
> 
> Why do RWNJs refuse to educate themselves? Why do you ALWAYS have to be spoon fed?
> 
> Especially since you ALWAYS go right back to fake  news sites and ALWAYS go right back to spouting lies.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com
Click to expand...


*I prefer facts and the fact is, this oil go on the world market.*

You have any data on how much of this oil is exported from the Gulf region?
Versus how much is refined here? Or are you making shit up?

*It will actually lower our oil profit.*

Our oil profit? Are you an oil company?

*Why do RWNJs refuse to educate themselves?*

Post some facts. Educate me. Or continue to post your fact-free feelings.

*Why do you ALWAYS have to be spoon fed?*

I don't require feeding. Just proof of your BS claims.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

BULLDOG said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many construction jobs were involved?
> 
> 
> 
> Many proponents, like TransCanada CEO Russ Girling, said the project would create 42,000 jobs. Girling said these jobs would be "ongoing, enduring. Obviously he meant those 42,000 were beyond the relitively few construction jobs.You can't weasel out of the false claims of large job growth by  keystone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> Many proponents, like TransCanada CEO Russ Girling, said the project would create 42,000 jobs.*
> 
> How many construction jobs were actually created?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can't say, but certainly much fewer than were claimed. Again, large job growth was one of the top claims by proponents. If desired, I can link multiple videos of Trump making that claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _A State Department report on the pipeline that was issued under the Obama administration found that there would be 3,900 direct construction jobs if it was built over one year, or 1,950 if the work was spread over two years.
> 
> Keystone pipeline: How many jobs it would really create
> _
> CNN says 3900 jobs. Sounds good to me.
> Get 'er done!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nowhere close to 42,000 jobs. Most of it is already done anyway so I would guess about 3 or 4 hundred at most, and that would include all the extra added at motels and convenience stores that would service the pipeline workers. They lied about almost every aspect of the pipeline. Just admit it.
Click to expand...


*Nowhere close to 42,000 jobs.*

I'm happy with 3900. That's more than the 0 created when Obama rejected the pipeline. Right?

*Most of it is already done anyway*

Excellent! Glad those American workers were able to build it.


----------



## BULLDOG

Toddsterpatriot said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> Many proponents, like TransCanada CEO Russ Girling, said the project would create 42,000 jobs. Girling said these jobs would be "ongoing, enduring. Obviously he meant those 42,000 were beyond the relitively few construction jobs.You can't weasel out of the false claims of large job growth by  keystone.
> 
> 
> 
> *
> Many proponents, like TransCanada CEO Russ Girling, said the project would create 42,000 jobs.*
> 
> How many construction jobs were actually created?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can't say, but certainly much fewer than were claimed. Again, large job growth was one of the top claims by proponents. If desired, I can link multiple videos of Trump making that claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _A State Department report on the pipeline that was issued under the Obama administration found that there would be 3,900 direct construction jobs if it was built over one year, or 1,950 if the work was spread over two years.
> 
> Keystone pipeline: How many jobs it would really create
> _
> CNN says 3900 jobs. Sounds good to me.
> Get 'er done!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nowhere close to 42,000 jobs. Most of it is already done anyway so I would guess about 3 or 4 hundred at most, and that would include all the extra added at motels and convenience stores that would service the pipeline workers. They lied about almost every aspect of the pipeline. Just admit it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Nowhere close to 42,000 jobs.*
> 
> I'm happy with 3900. That's more than the 0 created when Obama rejected the pipeline. Right?
> 
> *Most of it is already done anyway*
> 
> Excellent! Glad those American workers were able to build it.
Click to expand...


Funny. I won't bother discussing your last line, but we both know how that worked out.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

BULLDOG said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Many proponents, like TransCanada CEO Russ Girling, said the project would create 42,000 jobs.*
> 
> How many construction jobs were actually created?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can't say, but certainly much fewer than were claimed. Again, large job growth was one of the top claims by proponents. If desired, I can link multiple videos of Trump making that claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _A State Department report on the pipeline that was issued under the Obama administration found that there would be 3,900 direct construction jobs if it was built over one year, or 1,950 if the work was spread over two years.
> 
> Keystone pipeline: How many jobs it would really create
> _
> CNN says 3900 jobs. Sounds good to me.
> Get 'er done!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nowhere close to 42,000 jobs. Most of it is already done anyway so I would guess about 3 or 4 hundred at most, and that would include all the extra added at motels and convenience stores that would service the pipeline workers. They lied about almost every aspect of the pipeline. Just admit it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Nowhere close to 42,000 jobs.*
> 
> I'm happy with 3900. That's more than the 0 created when Obama rejected the pipeline. Right?
> 
> *Most of it is already done anyway*
> 
> Excellent! Glad those American workers were able to build it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny. I won't bother discussing your last line, but we both know how that worked out.
Click to expand...


Infrastructure was built by American workers.
Worked out fine.


----------



## BULLDOG

Toddsterpatriot said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can't say, but certainly much fewer than were claimed. Again, large job growth was one of the top claims by proponents. If desired, I can link multiple videos of Trump making that claim.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _A State Department report on the pipeline that was issued under the Obama administration found that there would be 3,900 direct construction jobs if it was built over one year, or 1,950 if the work was spread over two years.
> 
> Keystone pipeline: How many jobs it would really create
> _
> CNN says 3900 jobs. Sounds good to me.
> Get 'er done!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nowhere close to 42,000 jobs. Most of it is already done anyway so I would guess about 3 or 4 hundred at most, and that would include all the extra added at motels and convenience stores that would service the pipeline workers. They lied about almost every aspect of the pipeline. Just admit it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Nowhere close to 42,000 jobs.*
> 
> I'm happy with 3900. That's more than the 0 created when Obama rejected the pipeline. Right?
> 
> *Most of it is already done anyway*
> 
> Excellent! Glad those American workers were able to build it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny. I won't bother discussing your last line, but we both know how that worked out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Infrastructure was built by American workers.
> Worked out fine.
Click to expand...


The pipeline wasn't.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

BULLDOG said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> _A State Department report on the pipeline that was issued under the Obama administration found that there would be 3,900 direct construction jobs if it was built over one year, or 1,950 if the work was spread over two years.
> 
> Keystone pipeline: How many jobs it would really create
> _
> CNN says 3900 jobs. Sounds good to me.
> Get 'er done!
> 
> 
> 
> Nowhere close to 42,000 jobs. Most of it is already done anyway so I would guess about 3 or 4 hundred at most, and that would include all the extra added at motels and convenience stores that would service the pipeline workers. They lied about almost every aspect of the pipeline. Just admit it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Nowhere close to 42,000 jobs.*
> 
> I'm happy with 3900. That's more than the 0 created when Obama rejected the pipeline. Right?
> 
> *Most of it is already done anyway*
> 
> Excellent! Glad those American workers were able to build it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny. I won't bother discussing your last line, but we both know how that worked out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Infrastructure was built by American workers.
> Worked out fine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The pipeline wasn't.
Click to expand...


It wasn't built?


----------



## BULLDOG

Toddsterpatriot said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nowhere close to 42,000 jobs. Most of it is already done anyway so I would guess about 3 or 4 hundred at most, and that would include all the extra added at motels and convenience stores that would service the pipeline workers. They lied about almost every aspect of the pipeline. Just admit it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Nowhere close to 42,000 jobs.*
> 
> I'm happy with 3900. That's more than the 0 created when Obama rejected the pipeline. Right?
> 
> *Most of it is already done anyway*
> 
> Excellent! Glad those American workers were able to build it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny. I won't bother discussing your last line, but we both know how that worked out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Infrastructure was built by American workers.
> Worked out fine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The pipeline wasn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It wasn't built?
Click to expand...

Most of it was.A small part is remaining. Workers on any part were not required to be American. The owners of the line refused to use only american workers.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

BULLDOG said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Nowhere close to 42,000 jobs.*
> 
> I'm happy with 3900. That's more than the 0 created when Obama rejected the pipeline. Right?
> 
> *Most of it is already done anyway*
> 
> Excellent! Glad those American workers were able to build it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny. I won't bother discussing your last line, but we both know how that worked out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Infrastructure was built by American workers.
> Worked out fine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The pipeline wasn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It wasn't built?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Most of it was.A small part is remaining. Workers on any part were not required to be American. The owners of the line refused to use only american workers.
Click to expand...


*Most of it was. A small part is remaining.*

Excellent!
Get 'er done!
*
The owners of the line refused to use only american workers.*

What percentage were furriners?


----------



## Wry Catcher

Cellblock2429 said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh is he going to redo the bridges? When is that?  Sometime , we will be shocked.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obama fixed the infrastructure in his 8 years didn't he?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope, didn't you hear, Republicans passed the budget and their number 2 goal was to not allow Obama to fix anything.  Oh, you want to know what their #1 goal was?  What it has always been, to keep their pt job and continue to be paid FT wages, have great benefits and all kinds of perks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What was the vote that allowed Obama to ship billions to Iran in cold cash?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> NON SEQUITUR
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> /---- it is a valid question
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
Click to expand...


Used batteries can be recycled, used SMOG, not so much.


----------



## Weatherman2020

Wry Catcher said:


> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama fixed the infrastructure in his 8 years didn't he?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, didn't you hear, Republicans passed the budget and their number 2 goal was to not allow Obama to fix anything.  Oh, you want to know what their #1 goal was?  What it has always been, to keep their pt job and continue to be paid FT wages, have great benefits and all kinds of perks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What was the vote that allowed Obama to ship billions to Iran in cold cash?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> NON SEQUITUR
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> /---- it is a valid question
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Used batteries can be recycled, used SMOG, not so much.
Click to expand...

What's that have to do with your claim Congress kept Obama from doing anything, yet he shipped billions to Iran in hard cash without Congress?


----------



## BULLDOG

Cellblock2429 said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh is he going to redo the bridges? When is that?  Sometime , we will be shocked.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obama fixed the infrastructure in his 8 years didn't he?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope, didn't you hear, Republicans passed the budget and their number 2 goal was to not allow Obama to fix anything.  Oh, you want to know what their #1 goal was?  What it has always been, to keep their pt job and continue to be paid FT wages, have great benefits and all kinds of perks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What was the vote that allowed Obama to ship billions to Iran in cold cash?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> NON SEQUITUR
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> /---- it is a valid question
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
Click to expand...


It's a dumb question.


----------



## Cellblock2429

BULLDOG said:


> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama fixed the infrastructure in his 8 years didn't he?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, didn't you hear, Republicans passed the budget and their number 2 goal was to not allow Obama to fix anything.  Oh, you want to know what their #1 goal was?  What it has always been, to keep their pt job and continue to be paid FT wages, have great benefits and all kinds of perks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What was the vote that allowed Obama to ship billions to Iran in cold cash?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> NON SEQUITUR
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> /---- it is a valid question
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a dumb question.
Click to expand...

/---- It's not only valid, it's an important question you can't or won't answer.


----------



## BULLDOG

Cellblock2429 said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, didn't you hear, Republicans passed the budget and their number 2 goal was to not allow Obama to fix anything.  Oh, you want to know what their #1 goal was?  What it has always been, to keep their pt job and continue to be paid FT wages, have great benefits and all kinds of perks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What was the vote that allowed Obama to ship billions to Iran in cold cash?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> NON SEQUITUR
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> /---- it is a valid question
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a dumb question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /---- It's not only valid, it's an important question you can't or won't answer.
Click to expand...


International courts required us to return their money. I know you have been told that before, but you refuse to accept reality.


----------



## Old Rocks

Billy_Kinetta said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Keystone XL pipeline would only create 35 permanent jobs
> 
> And Obama's Green and Renewable fiasco:
> 
> US solar power employs more people than oil, coal and gas combined
> 
> and,
> 
> U.S. Clean Energy Jobs Surpass Fossil Fuel Employment
> 
> Solar energy in the US employs more people than traditional coal, gas and oil combined, a report has found, in a revelation that could undermine Donald Trump’s argument that green energy isn’t good for the economy.
> 
> The latest report from the US Department of Energy (DOE) reveals solar energy accounts for the largest proportion of employers in the Electric Power Generation sector, with wind energy the third largest, while the coal industries have declined in the past 10 years.
> 
> Solar energy employed 374,000 people over the year 2015-2016, making up 43 per cent of the sector’s workforce, while the traditional fossil fuels combined employed 187,117, making up just 22 per cent of the workforce, according to the report.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you can run your car on solar, let us know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not as far away as you think.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I will expect the same performance as from a gas powered vehicle, otherwise no dice.
Click to expand...


----------



## Billy_Kinetta

Old Rocks said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Keystone XL pipeline would only create 35 permanent jobs
> 
> And Obama's Green and Renewable fiasco:
> 
> US solar power employs more people than oil, coal and gas combined
> 
> and,
> 
> U.S. Clean Energy Jobs Surpass Fossil Fuel Employment
> 
> Solar energy in the US employs more people than traditional coal, gas and oil combined, a report has found, in a revelation that could undermine Donald Trump’s argument that green energy isn’t good for the economy.
> 
> The latest report from the US Department of Energy (DOE) reveals solar energy accounts for the largest proportion of employers in the Electric Power Generation sector, with wind energy the third largest, while the coal industries have declined in the past 10 years.
> 
> Solar energy employed 374,000 people over the year 2015-2016, making up 43 per cent of the sector’s workforce, while the traditional fossil fuels combined employed 187,117, making up just 22 per cent of the workforce, according to the report.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you can run your car on solar, let us know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not as far away as you think.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I will expect the same performance as from a gas powered vehicle, otherwise no dice.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Nice.

Not solar.


----------



## Muhammed

Billy_Kinetta said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Keystone XL pipeline would only create 35 permanent jobs
> 
> And Obama's Green and Renewable fiasco:
> 
> US solar power employs more people than oil, coal and gas combined
> 
> and,
> 
> U.S. Clean Energy Jobs Surpass Fossil Fuel Employment
> 
> Solar energy in the US employs more people than traditional coal, gas and oil combined, a report has found, in a revelation that could undermine Donald Trump’s argument that green energy isn’t good for the economy.
> 
> The latest report from the US Department of Energy (DOE) reveals solar energy accounts for the largest proportion of employers in the Electric Power Generation sector, with wind energy the third largest, while the coal industries have declined in the past 10 years.
> 
> Solar energy employed 374,000 people over the year 2015-2016, making up 43 per cent of the sector’s workforce, while the traditional fossil fuels combined employed 187,117, making up just 22 per cent of the workforce, according to the report.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you can run your car on solar, let us know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not as far away as you think.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I will expect the same performance as from a gas powered vehicle, otherwise no dice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nice.
> 
> Not solar.
Click to expand...

...yet.


----------



## BULLDOG

Muhammed said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you can run your car on solar, let us know.
> 
> 
> 
> It's not as far away as you think.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I will expect the same performance as from a gas powered vehicle, otherwise no dice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nice.
> 
> Not solar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ...yet.
Click to expand...


No reason it can't be charged from a solar power plant.


----------



## Cellblock2429

BULLDOG said:


> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What was the vote that allowed Obama to ship billions to Iran in cold cash?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NON SEQUITUR
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> /---- it is a valid question
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a dumb question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /---- It's not only valid, it's an important question you can't or won't answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> International courts required us to return their money. I know you have been told that before, but you refuse to accept reality.
Click to expand...

/----- And when I was told that, I replied: The *United States* is not a participant in the *International Criminal Court* (ICC). ... Positions in the *United States* concerning the ICC vary widely. The Clinton Administration signed the Rome Statute in 2000, but did not submit it for Senate ratification. So they have ZERO power over the US.  How's that for some reality?


----------



## BULLDOG

Cellblock2429 said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> NON SEQUITUR
> 
> 
> 
> 
> /---- it is a valid question
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a dumb question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /---- It's not only valid, it's an important question you can't or won't answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> International courts required us to return their money. I know you have been told that before, but you refuse to accept reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /----- And when I was told that, I replied: The *United States* is not a participant in the *International Criminal Court* (ICC). ... Positions in the *United States* concerning the ICC vary widely. The Clinton Administration signed the Rome Statute in 2000, but did not submit it for Senate ratification. So they have ZERO power over the US.  How's that for some reality?
> View attachment 135198
Click to expand...


Sounds just plain Trumpian. Weasel out of our obligations and the moral high ground. I guess being an example to the world is no longer a priority in an orange clown led country. It's a shame that we are abandoning the integrity that made us the leader of the free world.


----------



## Cellblock2429

BULLDOG said:


> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> /---- it is a valid question
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's a dumb question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /---- It's not only valid, it's an important question you can't or won't answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> International courts required us to return their money. I know you have been told that before, but you refuse to accept reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /----- And when I was told that, I replied: The *United States* is not a participant in the *International Criminal Court* (ICC). ... Positions in the *United States* concerning the ICC vary widely. The Clinton Administration signed the Rome Statute in 2000, but did not submit it for Senate ratification. So they have ZERO power over the US.  How's that for some reality?
> View attachment 135198
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sounds just plain Trumpian. Weasel out of our obligations and the moral high ground. I guess being an example to the world is no longer a priority in an orange clown led country. It's a shame that we are abandoning the integrity that made us the leader of the free world.
Click to expand...

/----- 
1.) Why are you so keen on giving billions to a terror sponsor state like Iran? 
2.) Do you think they will use the money to open abortion clinics? Build solar and wind farms?
3.) What part of the International Court has no jurisdiction on the US do you not understand?
4.) And what does Trumpian even mean? How did he weasel out of anything? Obozo already gave them the money.


----------



## deanrd

Republicans want us to live in caves.  They seem to be terrified of the modern world, clinging to jobs that are being automated.  Jobs that aren't going overseas, they are just going away.


----------



## deanrd

Cellblock2429 said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a dumb question.
> 
> 
> 
> /---- It's not only valid, it's an important question you can't or won't answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> International courts required us to return their money. I know you have been told that before, but you refuse to accept reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /----- And when I was told that, I replied: The *United States* is not a participant in the *International Criminal Court* (ICC). ... Positions in the *United States* concerning the ICC vary widely. The Clinton Administration signed the Rome Statute in 2000, but did not submit it for Senate ratification. So they have ZERO power over the US.  How's that for some reality?
> View attachment 135198
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sounds just plain Trumpian. Weasel out of our obligations and the moral high ground. I guess being an example to the world is no longer a priority in an orange clown led country. It's a shame that we are abandoning the integrity that made us the leader of the free world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /-----
> 1.) Why are you so keen on giving billions to a terror sponsor state like Iran?
> 2.) Do you think they will use the money to open abortion clinics? Build solar and wind farms?
> 3.) What part of the International Court has no jurisdiction on the US do you not understand?
> 4.) And what does Trumpian even mean? How did he weasel out of anything? Obozo already gave them the money.
Click to expand...

Iran wasn't "given" money.  Iran's money was returned.  Keeping something not yours is theft.


----------



## Cellblock2429

deanrd said:


> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> /---- It's not only valid, it's an important question you can't or won't answer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> International courts required us to return their money. I know you have been told that before, but you refuse to accept reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /----- And when I was told that, I replied: The *United States* is not a participant in the *International Criminal Court* (ICC). ... Positions in the *United States* concerning the ICC vary widely. The Clinton Administration signed the Rome Statute in 2000, but did not submit it for Senate ratification. So they have ZERO power over the US.  How's that for some reality?
> View attachment 135198
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sounds just plain Trumpian. Weasel out of our obligations and the moral high ground. I guess being an example to the world is no longer a priority in an orange clown led country. It's a shame that we are abandoning the integrity that made us the leader of the free world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /-----
> 1.) Why are you so keen on giving billions to a terror sponsor state like Iran?
> 2.) Do you think they will use the money to open abortion clinics? Build solar and wind farms?
> 3.) What part of the International Court has no jurisdiction on the US do you not understand?
> 4.) And what does Trumpian even mean? How did he weasel out of anything? Obozo already gave them the money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Iran wasn't "given" money.  Iran's money was returned.  Keeping something not yours is theft.
Click to expand...

/---- You mean like income tax, death tax and redistribution of wealth is theft? You mean like that?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

BULLDOG said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not as far away as you think.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I will expect the same performance as from a gas powered vehicle, otherwise no dice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nice.
> 
> Not solar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ...yet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No reason it can't be charged from a solar power plant.
Click to expand...


Or a coal plant.....


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

deanrd said:


> Republicans want us to live in caves.  They seem to be terrified of the modern world, clinging to jobs that are being automated.  Jobs that aren't going overseas, they are just going away.



*Republicans want us to live in caves.* 

Caves would be the green way to live.
Reduce our standard of living....save the planet.

Oh, wait, it's Dems that want us to so that.


----------

