Why hasn't that Bundy guy and his goats shown up to protect land owners from the govt from taking their land for Keysto?

[Frank DeForrest]

Wow look at the liberals all of the sudden concerned about private property rights

[EinsteinsGhost]

Originally Posted by Frank DeForrest

Wow look at the liberals all of the sudden concerned about private property rights

Eh, this thread is about a drama queen that was dubbed a hero not too long ago on the subject. Where is that nut case?

[TrexDigit]

Originally Posted by Frank DeForrest

Wow look at the liberals all of the sudden concerned about private property rights

And look at all the cons being hypocrites.

Imagine that.

[T-310]

Originally Posted by TrexDigit

And what if a landowner isn't ok with it?

Since they're pursuing eminent domain in Nebraska, the OP's question stands.

Where's all the Bundy group outrage at land grabs by foreign companies on US soil?

*Laws enacted in Nebraska in 2012 require that we begin proceedings to acquire any outstanding easements within two years of the January 2013 approval of the Keystone XL Pipeline route. - See more at: Easements | Keystone XL Pipeline

Nebraska law is why eminent domain is used.

[Frank DeForrest]

Originally Posted by TrexDigit

And look at all the cons being hypocrites.

Imagine that.

Which cons, what hypocrisy?

[TrexDigit]

Originally Posted by T-310

*Laws enacted in Nebraska in 2012 require that we begin proceedings to acquire any outstanding easements within two years of the January 2013 approval of the Keystone XL Pipeline route. - See more at: Easements | Keystone XL Pipeline

Nebraska law is why eminent domain is used.

O Canada.....

Siding with a Canadian company over US landowners. Shame.

Senate just today canned 1 amendment.

Conversely, the Senate rejected an amendment that actually would have prevented TransCanada from seizing property owners’ land in Nebraska. Sen. Bob Menendez’s (D-NJ) amendment would have ensured private property could not be seized under eminent domain for the financial gain of a foreign-owned company.

[TrexDigit]

Originally Posted by Frank DeForrest

Which cons, what hypocrisy?

Didn't think you were that dense.

Here's a hint.

Read the title of the thread you're currently viewing.

Repeat.

[Ih2puo]

Originally Posted by TrexDigit

And what if a landowner isn't ok with it?

Since they're pursuing eminent domain in Nebraska, the OP's question stands.

Where's all the Bundy group outrage at land grabs by foreign companies on US soil?

You will be the same ones yelling about racists militia gun nuts if anyone showed up to stop the governments attempts to take land for this corporate handout so do everyone a favor and ****.

[T-310]

Originally Posted by TrexDigit

O Canada.....

Siding with a Canadian company over US landowners. Shame.

Senate just today canned 1 amendment.

I have no interest if the pipeline is built or not. Currently I am one of a select few driving mile long train loads of Canadian oil. So whether it goes under ground or above ground is immaterial to me. I am just pointing out alternatives to your argument watching you build yourself into a lather of faux outrage.

Nebraska law works counter to the people of Nebraska. Look to the idiots that passed that law.

Pipelines are in existence with landowners apparently okay with them.

Chill out.

[middle-aged mom]

Originally Posted by thefragile

And if you as a landowner want no part of that?

As I understand it, those states along the pipeline have removed legal barriers to allow the easement by eminent domain.

In some locations, the easements may be up to 50' wide and give Trans Canada the right to add more pipeline in the future.

i thought everyone , except Obama, was in favor of the pipeline.