Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Eminent Domain is a more descriptive term as opposed to "land grab". The KXL debate has been blown way out of proportion by environmentalists, land-rights activists, and anyone with a soap box upon which to stand. Obama can't take the pressure so he's taking the easy way out (as usual) by opposing a pipeline the likes of which he previously approved.
Several years ago, the Alberta Clipper pipeline was approved with the only fanfare coming from the State Department itself.
It's almost an identical project to the KXL.
Permit for Alberta Clipper Pipeline Issued
So tell me... why does the following statement apply to the Alberta Clipper but not the KXL:
The Department found that the addition of crude oil pipeline capacity between Canada and the United States will advance a number of strategic interests of the United States. These included increasing the diversity of available supplies among the United States’ worldwide crude oil sources in a time of considerable political tension in other major oil producing countries and regions; shortening the transportation pathway for crude oil supplies; and increasing crude oil supplies from a major non-Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries producer. Canada is a stable and reliable ally and trading partner of the United States, with which we have free trade agreements which augment the security of this energy supply.
The Alberta Clipper project wasn't without its own eminent domain controversies, yet the project prevailed. Again, I think it's a relatively minor aspect of the KXL project, that yes in fact is being blown out of proportion by detractors. As to the "foreign company" component, I'm confident that has been addresses from a legal standpoint and neither you or I have enough information at our disposal to even debate it.Eminent Domain is a more descriptive term as opposed to "land grab". The KXL debate has been blown way out of proportion by environmentalists, land-rights activists, and anyone with a soap box upon which to stand. Obama can't take the pressure so he's taking the easy way out (as usual) by opposing a pipeline the likes of which he previously approved.
Several years ago, the Alberta Clipper pipeline was approved with the only fanfare coming from the State Department itself.
It's almost an identical project to the KXL.
Permit for Alberta Clipper Pipeline Issued
So tell me... why does the following statement apply to the Alberta Clipper but not the KXL:
The Department found that the addition of crude oil pipeline capacity between Canada and the United States will advance a number of strategic interests of the United States. These included increasing the diversity of available supplies among the United States’ worldwide crude oil sources in a time of considerable political tension in other major oil producing countries and regions; shortening the transportation pathway for crude oil supplies; and increasing crude oil supplies from a major non-Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries producer. Canada is a stable and reliable ally and trading partner of the United States, with which we have free trade agreements which augment the security of this energy supply.
The people who own the land cannot blow this out of proportion as far as the fact of being forced to sell their land rights to a private company from foreign country. It is the environmentalist's views that you are against? Drink dirty water.
When and how did
Obama change his mind? (We know he is NOT running for elective office)
difference: by case basis? and you quite a state dept analysis as if it were the word of god. It does NOT address taking the land of American citizens by eminent domain and selling it to a Foreign national company
We will disagree. methinks you have an ideological argument and not an honest argumentThe Alberta Clipper project wasn't without its own eminent domain controversies, yet the project prevailed. Again, I think it's a relatively minor aspect of the KXL project, that yes in fact is being blown out of proportion by detractors. As to the "foreign company" component, I'm confident that has been addresses from a legal standpoint and neither you or I have enough information at our disposal to even debate it.Eminent Domain is a more descriptive term as opposed to "land grab". The KXL debate has been blown way out of proportion by environmentalists, land-rights activists, and anyone with a soap box upon which to stand. Obama can't take the pressure so he's taking the easy way out (as usual) by opposing a pipeline the likes of which he previously approved.
Several years ago, the Alberta Clipper pipeline was approved with the only fanfare coming from the State Department itself.
It's almost an identical project to the KXL.
Permit for Alberta Clipper Pipeline Issued
So tell me... why does the following statement apply to the Alberta Clipper but not the KXL:
The Department found that the addition of crude oil pipeline capacity between Canada and the United States will advance a number of strategic interests of the United States. These included increasing the diversity of available supplies among the United States’ worldwide crude oil sources in a time of considerable political tension in other major oil producing countries and regions; shortening the transportation pathway for crude oil supplies; and increasing crude oil supplies from a major non-Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries producer. Canada is a stable and reliable ally and trading partner of the United States, with which we have free trade agreements which augment the security of this energy supply.
The people who own the land cannot blow this out of proportion as far as the fact of being forced to sell their land rights to a private company from foreign country. It is the environmentalist's views that you are against? Drink dirty water.
When and how did
Obama change his mind? (We know he is NOT running for elective office)
difference: by case basis? and you quite a state dept analysis as if it were the word of god. It does NOT address taking the land of American citizens by eminent domain and selling it to a Foreign national company
Obama "changed his mind" sometime between the approval of the Alberta Clipper and KXL projects. They are practically identical. One gets approved while the other is portrayed as a national catastrophe.
I'm against the environmental aspects of the KXL project being skewed and inflated. "It has no net-neutral carbon footprint"? What a bunch of bullshit. This is much needed infrastructure bringing much needed crude into our country to displace other non-friendly sources, and the KXL will also act as a conduit to move bloated and stranded inventories of domestic production to market.
Obama's own State Department sees no reason not to build it. Neither do I. Oh well, I guess we'll just have to leave it up to the politicians to take it from here.We will disagree. methinks you have an ideological argument and not an honest argumentThe Alberta Clipper project wasn't without its own eminent domain controversies, yet the project prevailed. Again, I think it's a relatively minor aspect of the KXL project, that yes in fact is being blown out of proportion by detractors. As to the "foreign company" component, I'm confident that has been addresses from a legal standpoint and neither you or I have enough information at our disposal to even debate it.Eminent Domain is a more descriptive term as opposed to "land grab". The KXL debate has been blown way out of proportion by environmentalists, land-rights activists, and anyone with a soap box upon which to stand. Obama can't take the pressure so he's taking the easy way out (as usual) by opposing a pipeline the likes of which he previously approved.
Several years ago, the Alberta Clipper pipeline was approved with the only fanfare coming from the State Department itself.
It's almost an identical project to the KXL.
Permit for Alberta Clipper Pipeline Issued
So tell me... why does the following statement apply to the Alberta Clipper but not the KXL:
The Department found that the addition of crude oil pipeline capacity between Canada and the United States will advance a number of strategic interests of the United States. These included increasing the diversity of available supplies among the United States’ worldwide crude oil sources in a time of considerable political tension in other major oil producing countries and regions; shortening the transportation pathway for crude oil supplies; and increasing crude oil supplies from a major non-Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries producer. Canada is a stable and reliable ally and trading partner of the United States, with which we have free trade agreements which augment the security of this energy supply.
The people who own the land cannot blow this out of proportion as far as the fact of being forced to sell their land rights to a private company from foreign country. It is the environmentalist's views that you are against? Drink dirty water.
When and how did
Obama change his mind? (We know he is NOT running for elective office)
difference: by case basis? and you quite a state dept analysis as if it were the word of god. It does NOT address taking the land of American citizens by eminent domain and selling it to a Foreign national company
Obama "changed his mind" sometime between the approval of the Alberta Clipper and KXL projects. They are practically identical. One gets approved while the other is portrayed as a national catastrophe.
I'm against the environmental aspects of the KXL project being skewed and inflated. "It has no net-neutral carbon footprint"? What a bunch of bullshit. This is much needed infrastructure bringing much needed crude into our country to displace other non-friendly sources, and the KXL will also act as a conduit to move bloated and stranded inventories of domestic production to market.
it's always a political decision.Obama's own State Department sees no reason not to build it. Neither do I. Oh well, I guess we'll just have to leave it up to the politicians to take it from here.We will disagree. methinks you have an ideological argument and not an honest argumentThe Alberta Clipper project wasn't without its own eminent domain controversies, yet the project prevailed. Again, I think it's a relatively minor aspect of the KXL project, that yes in fact is being blown out of proportion by detractors. As to the "foreign company" component, I'm confident that has been addresses from a legal standpoint and neither you or I have enough information at our disposal to even debate it.Eminent Domain is a more descriptive term as opposed to "land grab". The KXL debate has been blown way out of proportion by environmentalists, land-rights activists, and anyone with a soap box upon which to stand. Obama can't take the pressure so he's taking the easy way out (as usual) by opposing a pipeline the likes of which he previously approved.
Several years ago, the Alberta Clipper pipeline was approved with the only fanfare coming from the State Department itself.
It's almost an identical project to the KXL.
Permit for Alberta Clipper Pipeline Issued
So tell me... why does the following statement apply to the Alberta Clipper but not the KXL:
The Department found that the addition of crude oil pipeline capacity between Canada and the United States will advance a number of strategic interests of the United States. These included increasing the diversity of available supplies among the United States’ worldwide crude oil sources in a time of considerable political tension in other major oil producing countries and regions; shortening the transportation pathway for crude oil supplies; and increasing crude oil supplies from a major non-Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries producer. Canada is a stable and reliable ally and trading partner of the United States, with which we have free trade agreements which augment the security of this energy supply.
The people who own the land cannot blow this out of proportion as far as the fact of being forced to sell their land rights to a private company from foreign country. It is the environmentalist's views that you are against? Drink dirty water.
When and how did
Obama change his mind? (We know he is NOT running for elective office)
difference: by case basis? and you quite a state dept analysis as if it were the word of god. It does NOT address taking the land of American citizens by eminent domain and selling it to a Foreign national company
Obama "changed his mind" sometime between the approval of the Alberta Clipper and KXL projects. They are practically identical. One gets approved while the other is portrayed as a national catastrophe.
I'm against the environmental aspects of the KXL project being skewed and inflated. "It has no net-neutral carbon footprint"? What a bunch of bullshit. This is much needed infrastructure bringing much needed crude into our country to displace other non-friendly sources, and the KXL will also act as a conduit to move bloated and stranded inventories of domestic production to market.
I've worked in the petroleum industry for over 37 years. Don't you read my posts?it's always a political decision.Obama's own State Department sees no reason not to build it. Neither do I. Oh well, I guess we'll just have to leave it up to the politicians to take it from here.We will disagree. methinks you have an ideological argument and not an honest argumentThe Alberta Clipper project wasn't without its own eminent domain controversies, yet the project prevailed. Again, I think it's a relatively minor aspect of the KXL project, that yes in fact is being blown out of proportion by detractors. As to the "foreign company" component, I'm confident that has been addresses from a legal standpoint and neither you or I have enough information at our disposal to even debate it.Eminent Domain is a more descriptive term as opposed to "land grab". The KXL debate has been blown way out of proportion by environmentalists, land-rights activists, and anyone with a soap box upon which to stand. Obama can't take the pressure so he's taking the easy way out (as usual) by opposing a pipeline the likes of which he previously approved.
Several years ago, the Alberta Clipper pipeline was approved with the only fanfare coming from the State Department itself.
It's almost an identical project to the KXL.
Permit for Alberta Clipper Pipeline Issued
So tell me... why does the following statement apply to the Alberta Clipper but not the KXL:
The Department found that the addition of crude oil pipeline capacity between Canada and the United States will advance a number of strategic interests of the United States. These included increasing the diversity of available supplies among the United States’ worldwide crude oil sources in a time of considerable political tension in other major oil producing countries and regions; shortening the transportation pathway for crude oil supplies; and increasing crude oil supplies from a major non-Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries producer. Canada is a stable and reliable ally and trading partner of the United States, with which we have free trade agreements which augment the security of this energy supply.
The people who own the land cannot blow this out of proportion as far as the fact of being forced to sell their land rights to a private company from foreign country. It is the environmentalist's views that you are against? Drink dirty water.
When and how did
Obama change his mind? (We know he is NOT running for elective office)
difference: by case basis? and you quite a state dept analysis as if it were the word of god. It does NOT address taking the land of American citizens by eminent domain and selling it to a Foreign national company
Obama "changed his mind" sometime between the approval of the Alberta Clipper and KXL projects. They are practically identical. One gets approved while the other is portrayed as a national catastrophe.
I'm against the environmental aspects of the KXL project being skewed and inflated. "It has no net-neutral carbon footprint"? What a bunch of bullshit. This is much needed infrastructure bringing much needed crude into our country to displace other non-friendly sources, and the KXL will also act as a conduit to move bloated and stranded inventories of domestic production to market.
You support taking land away from Americans in order to line the pockets of Canadian companies? You must have worked for the petrol industry
I've worked in the petroleum industry for over 37 years. Don't you read my posts?it's always a political decision.Obama's own State Department sees no reason not to build it. Neither do I. Oh well, I guess we'll just have to leave it up to the politicians to take it from here.We will disagree. methinks you have an ideological argument and not an honest argumentThe Alberta Clipper project wasn't without its own eminent domain controversies, yet the project prevailed. Again, I think it's a relatively minor aspect of the KXL project, that yes in fact is being blown out of proportion by detractors. As to the "foreign company" component, I'm confident that has been addresses from a legal standpoint and neither you or I have enough information at our disposal to even debate it.The people who own the land cannot blow this out of proportion as far as the fact of being forced to sell their land rights to a private company from foreign country. It is the environmentalist's views that you are against? Drink dirty water.
When and how did
Obama change his mind? (We know he is NOT running for elective office)
difference: by case basis? and you quite a state dept analysis as if it were the word of god. It does NOT address taking the land of American citizens by eminent domain and selling it to a Foreign national company
Obama "changed his mind" sometime between the approval of the Alberta Clipper and KXL projects. They are practically identical. One gets approved while the other is portrayed as a national catastrophe.
I'm against the environmental aspects of the KXL project being skewed and inflated. "It has no net-neutral carbon footprint"? What a bunch of bullshit. This is much needed infrastructure bringing much needed crude into our country to displace other non-friendly sources, and the KXL will also act as a conduit to move bloated and stranded inventories of domestic production to market.
You support taking land away from Americans in order to line the pockets of Canadian companies? You must have worked for the petrol industry
I'm informed enough to know that these very complex matters just don't simply boil themselves down to "taking land away from Americans in order to line the pockets of Canadian companies". Catchy slogans like that are left up to folks such as yourself.
Well, as I alluded to previously... the devil is in the details. None of which seem to have been made available in this thread.I've worked in the petroleum industry for over 37 years. Don't you read my posts?it's always a political decision.Obama's own State Department sees no reason not to build it. Neither do I. Oh well, I guess we'll just have to leave it up to the politicians to take it from here.We will disagree. methinks you have an ideological argument and not an honest argumentThe Alberta Clipper project wasn't without its own eminent domain controversies, yet the project prevailed. Again, I think it's a relatively minor aspect of the KXL project, that yes in fact is being blown out of proportion by detractors. As to the "foreign company" component, I'm confident that has been addresses from a legal standpoint and neither you or I have enough information at our disposal to even debate it.
Obama "changed his mind" sometime between the approval of the Alberta Clipper and KXL projects. They are practically identical. One gets approved while the other is portrayed as a national catastrophe.
I'm against the environmental aspects of the KXL project being skewed and inflated. "It has no net-neutral carbon footprint"? What a bunch of bullshit. This is much needed infrastructure bringing much needed crude into our country to displace other non-friendly sources, and the KXL will also act as a conduit to move bloated and stranded inventories of domestic production to market.
You support taking land away from Americans in order to line the pockets of Canadian companies? You must have worked for the petrol industry
I'm informed enough to know that these very complex matters just don't simply boil themselves down to "taking land away from Americans in order to line the pockets of Canadian companies". Catchy slogans like that are left up to folks such as yourself.
I thought so, but I forget or am not always sure about personal stuff online.
"taking land away from Americans in order to line the pockets of Canadian companies". is not a catchy slogan, it is the gawd's honest truth
Well, as I alluded to previously... the devil is in the details. None of which seem to have been made available in this thread.I've worked in the petroleum industry for over 37 years. Don't you read my posts?it's always a political decision.Obama's own State Department sees no reason not to build it. Neither do I. Oh well, I guess we'll just have to leave it up to the politicians to take it from here.We will disagree. methinks you have an ideological argument and not an honest argument
You support taking land away from Americans in order to line the pockets of Canadian companies? You must have worked for the petrol industry
I'm informed enough to know that these very complex matters just don't simply boil themselves down to "taking land away from Americans in order to line the pockets of Canadian companies". Catchy slogans like that are left up to folks such as yourself.
I thought so, but I forget or am not always sure about personal stuff online.
"taking land away from Americans in order to line the pockets of Canadian companies". is not a catchy slogan, it is the gawd's honest truth
And the details undoubtedly encompass reams and reams of technical and legal data. None of which I'm willing to peruse.
It's much easier to just resort to "you're an idiot, and I'm right".
