• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Do you support the Keystone XL pipeline?

Do you support the Keystone XL pipeline?

  • I live close by the pipeline and I do NOT support it.

    Votes: 5 7.4%

  • I live close by the pipeline and I do support it.

    Votes: 3 4.4%

  • I do not live close by the pipeline and I do NOT support it.

    Votes: 23 33.8%

  • I do not live close by the pipeline and I do support it.

    Votes: 34 50.0%

  • I am not American and I do NOT support it.

    Votes: 1 1.5%

  • I am not American and I do support it.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • I have no opinion.

    Votes: 2 2.9%
  • Total voters
    68



Which I find significant.

You are a very well informed debater and if there is so much conflicting information it means there has been some serious manipulation of the facts. Seeing that two thirds of the network have already been built, that there had been virtually no objections in the Clinton or Bush administrations I can only ask who may be responsible for the mis information.
 
jonny5 said:
They dont have the power. The pipeline has nothing to do with protecting the states from invasion. It has nothing to do with promoting freedom.
Click to expand...

100% disagree, especially with that middle sentence.
 
Unless I totally misunderstand things, this pipeline will pass through somewhere in my state (being that I live IN the "keystone state", it seems likely).
And, I will likely take little issue with it so long as the environmental impact is accounted for and prevented as much as is reasonable.
 
I don't really care about the Keystone pipeline.

But I think it is almost none of Washington's business...I think it should be almost strictly up to the state's it would pass through/very near.

How the heck is it the business of a Hawaiian Senator if an oil pipeline passes through Texas?

Answer...it ain't, IMO.
 

Well, tbh, I'm not 100% positive how I'd feel if it were in my own back yard, but I don't think it would bother me. Maybe I'm just underestimating the effects. Can you enlighten me as to why it would be awful to live near it?
 

But it's going to make everything better! Had will be 50 cents per gallon! Everybody will have jobs! It will bring peace between Israel and Palestine!
 

Here's the problem with that argument: if one state says ok, and the next state doesn't you don't have any kind of useful pipeline at all. This is what the Federal government was created for in the first place: interstate commerce.
 
Redress said:
Not sure. I know the amendment to the bill was proposed. I agree with it. Why should we let Canada ship their oil through the US, with inevitable leaks, only to have them turn around and sell it overseas?
Click to expand...

I'm Canadian and I wonder that, too. Are the jobs in the Gulf Coast refineries worth the risk?
 

Actually it does and technically the reason applies to basically every American.

The pipeline runs directly over the aquifer that feed billions of dollars of agricultural products. A serious leak has the capacity to contaminate large portions of the aquifer reducing the yields of such farm land resulting in big spikes to food products. As Hawaii (and I guess Alaska) too are the most remote states and lack land to grow their own food, food security and prices becomes an issues to them. Thus, the pipeline's route is in fact the business of basically all Senators.
 
lizzie said:
Well, tbh, I'm not 100% positive how I'd feel if it were in my own back yard, but I don't think it would bother me. Maybe I'm just underestimating the effects. Can you enlighten me as to why it would be awful to live near it?
Click to expand...

I don't think it's that big of an issue to live with it.

I think it's a bigger issue of ogallala aquifer contamination. Diehard Republican supporters of the pipeline always omit that some of the loudest opposition to the pipeline came from Republican Governors, Legislatures and Republican Congressional members of the states that would be negatively impacted from a leak contaminating their primary water source. What happens if production drops in our grain belt due to aquifer contamination? Food prices rise. Which impacts you.
 
The Keystone pipeline is a must for America and will help create jobs to repair a cripple economy. The Keystone will also solve most of our oil problems.
 
rocket88 said:
Here's the problem with that argument: if one state says ok, and the next state doesn't you don't have any kind of useful pipeline at all. This is what the Federal government was created for in the first place: interstate commerce.
Click to expand...

If a state does not want the pipeline, it should not matter what the Feds say. No state (except during a declared war) should ever be forced to accept a pipeline they do not want.

And if that kills the pipeline, tough.
 
My main issue with the pipeline is that it represents a long term investment in fossil fuels. Obviously fossil fuels are completely necessary right now but we should be reducing our dependency on them, not increasing it. Our long term focus should be moving towards nuclear and renewables.

EDIT: Can anyone educate me on the terms of importing oil from Canada? I'm guessing we get it much cheaper than we would oil from the M.E., but it's still an import so much costlier than drilling for gas in N.Dakota or whatever?
 
Last edited:
lizzie said:
Well, tbh, I'm not 100% positive how I'd feel if it were in my own back yard, but I don't think it would bother me. Maybe I'm just underestimating the effects. Can you enlighten me as to why it would be awful to live near it?
Click to expand...

This was a great answer:



I live in Nebraska and I've heard so much propaganda about how it wouldn't ever effect the aquifer and on the other side it would destroy it. My thought is that unless there is a 100% chance it could never be compromised why risk it for a foreign company that is also using eminent domain to obtain people's lands to build it on, even those who don't want it. Which brings up another thing I was made aware of recently is the fact the pipeline route crosses into Native Sioux lands. They are a sovereign nation and were not even brought into any discussions, it was routed through their lands with no approval. They have two treaties from our US government giving them that land and it's not right to break that.
 

You are totally misunderstanding things. The Keystone pipeline has nothing to do with Pennsylvania, it is named after the Keystone Oil terminal in Hardisty, Alberta. Discussions going on in Pennsylvania are about another pipeline to take Shale Oil from the Marcellus fields to Philadelphia.

The irony of the discussion is that may people are already near a natural gas pipeline: http://www.eia.gov/pub/oil_gas/natural_gas/analysis_publications/ngpipeline/images/ngpipelines_map.jpg
 

Because its a political football, and a good example of environmentalist using federal power to force their ideas on states.
 
rocket88 said:
Here's the problem with that argument: if one state says ok, and the next state doesn't you don't have any kind of useful pipeline at all. This is what the Federal government was created for in the first place: interstate commerce.
Click to expand...

Thats not what the commerce clause was for at all. It was for the federal govt to enforce standard rules to encourage free trade. This issue is not a dispute between states, its a dispute between environmentalists and states/corporations. The issue of getting permission from every landowner to build a pipeline is the companies problem.
 

That about sums it up for me.
 
Frat Rep.h said:
The Keystone pipeline is a must for America and will help create jobs to repair a cripple economy. The Keystone will also solve most of our oil problems.
Click to expand...

It may solve a few short term problems, but we must look beyond that. What are the long term goals and effects?
 
I was against it originally, then someone made the point I highlighted in red and I had to re-think my position. Now I'm more on the fence.

I also do not care for the heavy handedness of the eminent domain procedures, but it's not like said heavy handedness is unique to this project only.
 

I have always disliked eminent domain procedures. If you want the land so bad, pay a bit above the going price.
 
I support the line, myself, BUT, you, sir must be pulling my leg(s) ..
Our energy "problems", if we really have any , can be improved upon by a comprehensive energy plan .. as proposed by James Earl Carter some 40 years ago..
 
Of course it IS a federal thing as many states are involved .. Every state MUST give an OK , if one does not .. then all do NOT . and this would be a problem Ditch "state rights" ..
Solution .. go underground .. good idea ??
 
rocket88 said:
But it's going to make everything better! Had will be 50 cents per gallon! Everybody will have jobs! It will bring peace between Israel and Palestine!
Click to expand...

"Tongue in cheek" but this could cause suffocation, Rocket . I like underground, at least in places ... but this could make the pipeline too expensive , so, its back to the rails and trucks, and a possibility of pollution .
 

First, I don't think most people have any clue what is running in pipelines very near where they live right now. In Southern California, there are pipelines running above, and most below the streets and neighborhoods throughout the Southland. This concern about the pipeline itself likely has more to do with imagination, than it does with reality.

Second, petroleum based energy is going to be an even more critical commodity in the coming decades, and there will be growing tensions between the haves, and have nots. It makes sense to establish the infrastructure and amortize it now, rather than enter into a last minute scramble to secure energy when the issue becomes a major point of economic survival.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…