Interesting take on the situation from a Conservative Canadian talking head

Yes, if you find idiots and liars interesting.

Ezra opens the show by calling Obama "Barack Hussein Obama". Then he says that Obama prefers "thug oil" over Canadian oil. Then he ridicules the Ogallala aquifer which is one of the largest in the word and supplies water to crops and people in the Midwest. Ezra calls it a fake excuse, even though Nebraskans and Nebraska's Republican Gov say otherwise.

But then he spews his biggest lie of all. He claims that Nebrasksa's legislature, both chambers, has approved the new pipeline which is a flat out lie (@5.00 min of vid). Ezra claims that TransCanada agreed to a new route last year and that both Dems and Reps of Nebraska endorsed the new pipeline route. He says that everyone wants this pipeline to go now...except Hugo Chavez, he says. I can't watch this douchebag anymore. Ezra is dumber than Glenn Beck, and I didn't think that was possible.

I can't believe you posted that garbage. I think all that tar sands toxicity up there might be affecting your judgment. So Canada has their own Glenn Beck/RushLimbaugh look alike/sound alike/lie alike, right-wing moron? No wonder you got Harper.

At any rate, you should watch this video sebbb posted above. It's a must see imo.

You are ok with trashing your country like that?

I honestly doubt that kind of wholesale destruction would fly here in the USA, though North Dakotans have their own shale oil mines, but it's nowhere near as huge as the tar sands operations.

That video points out that Canada was one of the first signers of the Kyoto Accord in 1991. Canada withdrew from Kyoto last month, Dec 12th, becoming the first country that signed and ratified to do so. Canada blamed the economy. Ya, right.

The USA withdrew from Kyoto involvement in 2001, as soon as Bush took office. Bush blamed the bad economic situation too, even though we had a budget surplus then. Oh that's right, Bush is from Texas, and ran an oil company, and so did his father.

The USA, however, never signed and ratified Kyoto. Canada did. Does Canada's signature and word mean nothing?

And Canadian PM Harper says that he is "profoundly disappointed" with the US's pipeline decision. Boo hoo. Cry me a river of oil.

I guess it's cool if you want to trash your own country, but don't expect to lay your oil pipeline anywhere you want, especially over this nation's Breadbasket.

I'm hoping they do some quality research on how the Alberta tar sands operations are impacting the economy, environment and climate here. From what I understand, TransCanada recommended the same firm that conducted previous impact studies for TransCanada. Hardly independent. Apparently, Harper is concerned that people from south of those tar sands pits want to be involved in the debate up north. Yeah, just let your tar sands pollute our northern border.

I don't get why you don't just build a pipeline over the Canadian Rockies and then ship the oil down the coast to refineries on the West Coast. I'll tell you why. Because Canadians don't want to take the environmental risk in BC. Or why don't you build 100 nuke reactors and sell us the electricity? Because Canadians don't want to take the environmental risk.

I was curious how many of the YES votes in this thread's poll were cast by Canadians.

The Canadian image of the harmless nice guys is a thing of the past. I'm serious about this. It's great marketing, but it is BS. If you don't believe me, just check out the videos of the Vancouver riots when they merely lost a hockey game, when the Bruins spanked the Canucks.

I think a Petro Canada gas truck ran over Klinker's dog a few years ago.

I loved that dog tho

lol

By the way Klinker, I think the vast majority of Canadians (especially those not living out west) don't really give a **** about the Keystone pipeline. Most of us recognize that it won't really effect us one way or the other. The oil is coming out of the Tar Sands regardless of where it ends up and the refined oil isn't going to end up near us so its not going to effect prices much at all.

In terms of the environmental impact - a pipeline seems the best way to transport the oil, but whatever.

And then there's just the lols at a situation where its better politically to reject the pipeline from Canada then to reject the oil from the Middle East/Venezuela.

You realize that the state of Nebraska was dead set against it, right?

That they passed legislation to bar it and would have gone to federal court.

Draw up a new plan and try again.

Either that or build 100 nukes plants, or lay aluminum foil across all of Alberta and make a giant solar panel or something.

And stop clubbing baby seals.

Wait, I missed that.

Yeah, that's the problem huh. People who actually live where the pipeline is intended to run, out west in BC, Canada, object to the risks.

Does that sound familiar?

Except - by "dead set against it" you just mean - is for it in a different route: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...7AL1M120111122.

I have no problem with this. It seems sensible. It's funny that for all your trolling it seems like everyone pretty much agrees that its going to happen - just not along the original route.

Dude, once again you don't know anything about Canada - there are no plans for the Keystone pipeline to go through BC.

The people in Alberta have done pretty well from oil. I'm not feeling super sympathetic for them. It's like people that object to dumps and prisons. Everybody acknowledges we need them but nobody wants them within 10 miles of them.

Yes, I mean "dead set against" the permit that was in Washington, the one that got denied.

Like I said, draw up a new route, a new plan, and a new permit and we'll see what happens.

Pipeline construction won't begin until 2014 anyway, and Alberta won't be able to fill it and all their other pipelines until 2030, so we will have plenty of time to find alternatives.

Except with all your stupid trolling about nuclear plants and comments about keeping the oil, companies not paying taxes, etc. etc. it's pretty clear that there is no route you think is worth it.


Source? I'm pretty sure what you mean is that it won't be at full capacity until 2030. And obviously when you build a major piece of infrastructure you don't build in such a way that you can max out its capacity immediately. That's just silly.

Why are nuke plants stupid and pipelines are not? Why are oil companies not paying taxes, stupid? Canadian tar sands oil bankrolls almost all of Canadian Universal Health Care, no? That's how a Canadian described it to me once, anyway. And keeping the oil in the states is stupid? You don't think it makes sense to use the pipeline to get oil companies onboard with paying their share of taxes and selling the oil right here? Everything I said makes sense to consider and negotiate, yet you whine that I am trolling you. Are you just mad b/c your oil and pipeline will not be able to fund a sweeter life for you right away?


Why would you ask a "troll" for a source? You know how to use google.

At any rate, then you agree that using the pipeline's potential capacity to make arguments that it will increase oil supplies immediately is stupid when that capacity won't be reached for decades.

Unless you can come up with more creative namecalling, I'm probably done with you. The Canadian Petro Truck running over my dog was pretty funny though.

One more question: Are you from Montreal?

Because none of that has to do with the current discussion. It's all irrelevant to whether the Keystone pipeline is a good thing. And of course, you like to make dishonest arguments like "The Governor of Nebraska agrees with me!" - except he only agrees with one very small part of your argument.

Lol, what? Alberta is by far the richest province in Canada because of the oil. The Universal Health Care system is doing pretty well and our finances are in better shape than almost all other developed countries. Stop getting your information and opinions from some random person (who probably is part of your conspiracy newsletter).

Perfect example of a trolling statement. Since I've made clear my beliefs many times.

Cause that's how this forum works. You make a claim you have to back it up.

Of course. But it's just as stupid to do what you do and pretend like there are no benefits until the pipeline is at full capacity.

Of course not. Because Canadians opposed that idea from the get go. But there is also no existing plan for a U.S. pipeline. Your point?

Please show me on a map how a pipeline to the refineries in the Gulf would go through BC. It has nothing to do with Canadians opposed to the idea - it's just simple geography.

Edit: Not to mention there is still, very much, a plan for a US pipeline. Just because its no longer at the stage where its seeking final approval from the US Federal Government doesn't mean there isn't a plan.

Who said anything about a pipeline to the refineries on the Gulf going through BC?? Did I just imagine that TransCanada wanted to build a pipeline across the Rockies but gave up on that idea because of Canadian opposition and then decided on a to-the-Gulf option?

Hint: "the pipeline" refers to the Keystone pipeline - since that's what we're talking about.

Learn to read. Then jump into the conversation.

I'm not quite sure how this pipeline would raise oil prices for farmers(not too mention fly in the face of all economics ever), but here is an interesting article on what the oil boom in the middle of this country has done to energy prices.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-0...e-finance.html

You are becoming unhinged. Your post makes little logical sense.

He only agrees on a small part? um, he agree that the permit should be denied. And it was. I'd say that is not only the biggest part, it's the whole part. Oh, are you making the argument that this thread was not about the permit in DC, but the pipeline in general? Well, that makes no sense either, b/c this proposed pipeline is the pipeline right now. When TransCanada comes up with a new one, that will be a different pipeline, but I suppose it will still be called XL Pipeline, but only by the media and general public. It will have a different name on the actual permit.



Lol wut? I said this:

You say that Alberta is freaking rich b/c of oil, which is why I said that oil is bankrolling your country. Then you say I'm a conspiratard? I mean, again, lol wut? Oil bankrolls your country and the loonie. That is a fact, not a conspiracy.

You call your beliefs clear, I call them gibberish, which I did in my first post about your murky explanation of how the pipeline would and would not significantly raise prices in the Midwest, which you first denied would be significant and then agreed would be.


At some point, I think you lose your right to start telling someone how the forum works after you've called them a troll (which is a forum rule violation) a dozen times.

I only see benefits accruing to Canadians and US oil companies, and a few thousand temporary jobs.

I see the potential for higher oil and food prices and an almost guaranteed pipeline rupture and leak that may contaminate a large aquifer and croplands which would send food prices skyrocketing.

At any rate, this permit is denied.

Please resubmit.

Thank you for not answering either question.

This.

Yes, and all that oil in the Midwest will be diverted to the Gulf for export to other countries thus raising fuel prices in the Midwest and other parts of the country.

I've said this like 10 times itt. I'm done with this thread for awhile.

Show me where it says KEYSTONE in what you quoted?

It doesn't. I know Keystone does not run through BC, and you know I that.

Like I said, you are becoming unhinged.



I mean, really:

You were in that other thread and this one shilling like a madman for the Canadian Oil Empire. I was like **** that noise. And now that the permit got denied you are making even more noise.

I guess that the Vancouver riots have moved to the Alberta Tar Sands pits.

I suggest that you flood the tar sands pit with water, get your skates on, and play some fricking hockey and chill out.

Then resubmit you permit to pollute the Earth. Good Luck with that by the way.

My bad, I read it as "bankrupts". However some quick googling will show you that even that claim is ridiculous since expenses for health care are about 4-5 times more than the revenue derived from the oil sands. And of course a lot of that revenue is spent on costs associated with the oil sands and not all directed to health care costs.

Ah, I see why you're confused.

I'm saying that BC residents don't give a **** about the XL Pipeline because it won't run through BC. But BC residents don't want Enbridge's Northern Gateway pipeline heading over the Canadian Rockies and to the BC shores.

Why would BC people be ok with the XL pipeline and not Northern Gateway?

It's not that hard.