Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Location: Just transplanted to FL from the N GA mountains
3,997 posts, read 4,143,759 times
Reputation: 2677
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
Temporary jobs only, and not all at once, and I would also point out that those jobs require a unique skill set that few in the population have.
An unemployed factory worker is not going to get hired, and neither is the mother of three who lost her job as human resource manager.
Those are mostly welders, heavy equipment operators, crane operators and other skilled jobs that require training, certification, licensing and experience.
This is correct... Although the contractors scheduled to build will hire from the local union halls as they are all union pipeline contractors so a lot of local people will benefit. Not to mention, the financial benefit when the rest of the spread rolls in...
Quote:
Haliburton will be the one doing the work, because, well, that's what oil service companies do, build, maintain and repair oil and natural gas infrastructure.
I find it more than odd given the number of threads on this that no one has even mentioned Haliburton.
Haliburton is NOT one of the usual contractors who actually "build" these kind of pipelines. Sheehan, Price/Gregory, US, Associated, Michaels, Rockford... are some of the largest of the main-line contractors....
So what you're saying is that you're arguing with me, over and over, because the way this played out doesn't fit your world view? I'm no Obama fan, but the truth is the truth. Obama was point blank told that NE was going to block it, so to save face, they shifted into "review after the election mode." They have zero decision making power on how the line is sited--they only get to decide if they're going to build it at all. NE has the final say on location, and they're blocking the plan through the Sandhills. It all has to go back to the drawing board now. If you're saying that's an emotional response--not based on science--by every republican elected leader in the state, and a broad array of university and state geologists and soil scientists, then you're the one making that claim, not me.
Yep. I'm saying that the part about your federal government being accused of receiving back-handers from Keystone or others is hyperbole born of emotion on the issue.
What would their motives be if as you say they ignored the Nebraska republican leaders, university and state geologists who I'm sure published their findings but were probably refuted by other geologists and soil scientists of equal standing.
Would they simply have wanted to agree to the chosen route because it was cheaper for Keystone? I don't get that and would have to wonder at the stupidity of any government who would have no other motive but to collude with a foreign entity to save them money. If this is what indeed happened, then you're in far bigger trouble down there than you realize.
The view I have of world events is fairly simple; a leader who indicates you've got a deal, who then reneges on that deal is showing himself to be a man of very low integrity.
Were the tables turned; what do you think your MSM and Obummer's response would be towards Canada?
It's a rhetorical question so don't bother answering.
I do think it is odd that Obama touted active environmentalism during his campaign only to go AGAINST environmental issues he championed only a few years ago... He is not ignoring them, he is actually going against them... I wonder what he knows to make him change his mind... he keeps talking the rhetoric of environmentalism but I suspect that it is too keep them as a core group for the liberals even if their science is bunk... but those are only suspicions... something is not adding up.... if CO2 is destroying the planet like he says, why would he promote it while paying lip service so the environmentalists to vote Democrat... he knows something... the truth perhaps? And there would be political fallout for the Democrats if the truth ever came out that they were wrong... Perhaps? Conspiracy theories, conspiracy theories... where does the truth lie...
Yep. I'm saying that the part about your federal government being accused of receiving back-handers from Keystone or others is hyperbole born of emotion on the issue.
What would their motives be if as you say they ignored the Nebraska republican leaders, university and state geologists who I'm sure published their findings but were probably refuted by other geologists and soil scientists of equal standing.
Would they simply have wanted to agree to the chosen route because it was cheaper for Keystone? I don't get that and would have to wonder at the stupidity of any government who would have no other motive but to collude with a foreign entity to save them money. If this is what indeed happened, then you're in far bigger trouble down there than you realize.
The view I have of world events is fairly simple; a leader who indicates you've got a deal, who then reneges on that deal is showing himself to be a man of very low integrity.
Were the tables turned; what do you think your MSM and Obummer's response would be towards Canada?
It's a rhetorical question so don't bother answering.
I take it you're Canadian--welcome to the corruption and stupidity that is American politics. This is one of the few examples that I can note recently where democrats and republicans (or at least the R members of the great plains congressional delegation and Nebraska's R governor) are all working together and calling out a rat on this one--they want to know if there was conflict of interest, undue influence or plain old incompetence in getting initial approval, because it makes zero sense to run this thing through the Sand Hills. Why do you think we have both the tea party and OWS screaming about our government? If you read the links, particularly the first one, it becomes clear that the appropriate federal regulatory agencies DID NOT give this plan the all clear.
Crude oil is sold on the world market, it will only be sold overseas if they get a higher price for it than the refineries on the gulf coast will pay. you *******s need to learn how the process works instead of making stupid statements on the internet.
You make me laugh calling people *******s while you yourself don't have a clue.
If you had any idea about the terms of the free trade agreement between the USA and Canada You would realize the stupidity of your post. Canada is obliged to sell X% of production to the USA irregardless of the price. In other words if some other customer comes to Canada and says, "We will buy 100% of your export production of oil and we will pay a 25% premium for it over the prevailing world price". Canada would have to say, "No can do, X% of our production goes to the USA at world price, period. That's the deal we made and Canada unlike some other countries keeps it's agreements".
In conclusion I can only say that it's not the "*******s" whoever they might be, that need to learn before they make fools of themselves on the internet but you who don't have a clue about what you are saying!!!
Look, we could increase the number of well paying jobs in this country if Obama wasn't such an ass.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
