Quantcast

Should the Keystone XL Pipeline be approved?

Drue-AFCL 2013/03/01 23:13:06
You!
Add Photos & Videos
Add a comment above

Top Opinion

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • Andrew 2013/03/08 02:02:56
    YEs
    Andrew
    +1
    I approve who cares about the environmentalists, they need to be pushed aside.
  • Big E 2013/03/04 23:16:04 (edited)
    YEs
    Big E
    +1
    Hmm..Let me think about it a min..YES YES YES !!!! I Don't know what ( One Big
    Ass Mistake America )( Obama ) is waiting for.... in the mean time why don't we give billions of dollars of OURS to oil countries that hate us....I'm not talking about countries that don't like us...... i'm talking about people that would like to see each and every one of us DEAD!!!! Don't let me forget money that was borrowed!!!!! Obama better get his crap together mabe he should give
    MITT a call he knows business!!....every thing this man is doing should be a wake up call to all American citizen's The left wingers better get it together before its to late!!!!
  • Kaye 2013/03/04 22:33:49
    YEs
    Kaye
  • Claybern 2013/03/03 23:47:34
    YEs
    Claybern
    +2
    Please Lord more jobs.
  • JET 2013/03/03 14:36:15
    YEs
    JET
    +2
    It'll crerate lots of jobs and obama should have put his "skin in the game" a long time ago.
  • YouSirName 2013/03/03 06:09:10
    No
    YouSirName
    It will only raise gas prices in the midwest and make more profits for the oil companies.
  • happyhappyhappy 2013/03/02 19:31:13
    No
    happyhappyhappy
    Hell no! It would wreck havoc on the environment.
  • silentart 2013/03/02 19:00:55
    Undecided
    silentart
    +1
    But I lean more toward " NO" unless it do giving jobs to Americans and oil is for USA to use... Wonder about why corporation prefer pipelines than train delivery...
    Underground water are precious to be damaged by seepage from oilpipes.
  • Mo 2013/03/02 18:09:56
    YEs
    Mo
    +3
    But Obama won't do it.
  • Charles White 2013/03/02 17:01:02
    No
    Charles White
    +1
    I voted NO! ! ! Because the pipeline would not benefit this Nation once it is in operation. The oil from the pipeline will be sold to other nations and not the USA.
  • sbtbill 2013/03/02 16:58:31
    No
    sbtbill
    +2
    I would change my mind if the approval included a proviso that none of the oil in it could leave the US.
  • Drue-AFCL sbtbill 2013/03/02 17:01:06
    Drue-AFCL
    +1
    I totally agree with you on that one!
  • dave s sbtbill 2013/03/02 21:10:44
    dave  s
    that's wishful thinking. i don't think we have refining capacity to handle it.
  • sbtbill dave s 2013/03/03 00:56:59
    sbtbill
    +2
    Then build refineries.
  • dave s sbtbill 2013/03/03 05:09:23
    dave  s
    +1
    that might be one solution but the enviro-whackos would make it impossibly expensive to construct new refineries.
  • Wayne 2013/03/02 16:38:20
    YEs
    Wayne
    +3
    It will bring actual jobs, not government pretend jobs.
  • sbtbill Wayne 2013/03/02 17:00:00
    sbtbill
    +1
    Higher gas prices in the Midwest, too. That will probably cost more jobs then it creates and they will be permanent not temporary like the Keystone jobs.
  • Wayne sbtbill 2013/03/02 17:08:16
    Wayne
    +1
    Government jobs are not real relative to the economy and the good of regular citizen who do not suck off the government . Keystone jobs of contruction are high paying although temporary, but the subsequent support jobs will also be real. The pipe line will be helpful in the intrum considering the real unemployment numbers are at 14.7 percent .
  • sbtbill Wayne 2013/03/03 01:01:12
    sbtbill
    So being a park ranger, postman, firefighter, soldier, policeman, border guard, FBI agent, NASA scientist, secret service agent, CIA worker, customs agent, Highway inspector, food inspector, teacher or many more are temporary jobs. They are also necessary jobs for society to function and better done by government then private enterprise. Now I admit that Senators and Representatives might be temporary jobs but they don't seem to think so.
  • Wayne sbtbill 2013/03/03 17:13:55
    Wayne
    +1
    There is nothing the government does better than private enterprise period! They have no consequence for failing, they don't lose their jobs, they don't have to produce a profit, they do not have the challenge of free market competetion just look at our public education system, a total failure compared to private schools. for one example, food inspectors success LOL! Tell me about the ecoli that was allowed into America. All government agencies are so bloated they have become a harbor for those that hide from work in the government, The common montra when caught is they are under staffed or under funded, what a bunch of BS you believe. Would that be the border patrol that were given bean bags to defend our nation? The border patrol that has been prevented form doing their job by Obama?
    I do agree that Senators and representative should be temporary with term limits in order to prevent the good ole boy networks from developing, forcing them to use their limited time productively for the good of the entire nation not just to garner votes.
  • sbtbill Wayne 2013/03/03 23:08:47
    sbtbill
    Well Wayne you really believe the BS don't you.
  • Wayne sbtbill 2013/03/03 23:31:17
    Wayne
    I have lived it. You must be a government employee,
  • Risk sbtbill 2013/03/02 20:11:19
    Risk
    +3
    Temporary jobs ? You mean like Solyndra ?
  • sbtbill Risk 2013/03/03 01:02:12
    sbtbill
    You never heard of a private business failing before. I've worked for one. Just paid the government never got anything back.
  • Risk sbtbill 2013/03/03 18:38:03
    Risk
    Most of them don't do it with tax payer dollars however.
  • sbtbill Risk 2013/03/03 23:10:11
    sbtbill
    +1
    You might find this an interesting article.

    9 Big Companies that Benefit from Food Stamps

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
  • Risk sbtbill 2013/03/03 23:16:12
    Risk
    It is interesting.
  • Tortoise 2013/03/02 16:26:36
    YEs
    Tortoise
    +3
    hell ya
  • John Storz 2013/03/02 16:24:13
    YEs
    John Storz
    +3
    JOB CREATION
  • mark 2013/03/02 16:17:15
    YEs
    mark
    +3
    The sooner , the better.
  • KEYPINITREEL 2013/03/02 15:51:36
    Undecided
    KEYPINITREEL
    +1
    Only providing the pipeline traverses land that will not be used for agriculture, and 25 to 30 percent of it is refined for resale in the US to bring down our fuel prices. We need the energy and we need the jobs, it can be done... if our leaders chose to do it the right way and not try to skimp or cut too many corners. The route should be through Montana, Idaho, Nevada, Arizona.... then skirt the southern boarder across to Texas... then coming through southwest and central Texas to the the refining region.
  • Racefish KEYPINI... 2013/03/02 16:09:15
    Racefish
    +2
    Every pipeline in this country crosses land used for agriculture.

    http://www.theodora.com/pipel...
  • sbtbill KEYPINI... 2013/03/02 17:02:28
    sbtbill
    The northern half of the pipeline is already in use bringing fuel to the Midwest. I say add some refineries there and don't extend the pipeline. If the Canadian's want to pump it over the highest mountains in North America let them pay for it.
  • silentart KEYPINI... 2013/03/02 18:54:15
    silentart
    To save farmland in Midwest and underground water...
  • Rebel Yell 2013/03/02 15:46:54
    Undecided
    Rebel Yell
    +2
    The question is, is it really necessary. Building pipelines over aqifiers that provide water to several states seems a risky business, seeing as how BP has had leaks before.

    The Keystone XL is designed to transport 830,000 barrels per day. Over the past two years or so, domestic railroads have increased their transport capacity by an amount equal to about 65 % of what Keystone is supposed to provide. There’s nothing new in moving oil by rail. In the late 1860s, John D. Rockefeller began investing in railroad tanker cars, saving him a lot of money and moving oil safely.

    Not building that pipeline will not stop the flow of oil. Presently, U.S. and Canadian oil producers aren’t waiting for the Keystone XL or other pipelines; they are building rail-car terminals so they can ship their product to market. In North Dakota alone, oil producers have built rail terminals capable of handling nearly 1 million barrels of oil per day.

    So, is it really necessary ? No.
  • sbtbill Rebel Yell 2013/03/02 17:03:31
    sbtbill
    +1
    A pipeline might be safer then rail.
  • dave s Rebel Yell 2013/03/02 21:22:55
    dave  s
    john d manipulated the markets and bribed the railroads to move his product at a cheaper rate. good business moves but perhaps not ethical.

    i believe the safest and cheapest method of transporting oil is by pipeline, so to me it's worth it to build keystone
  • sbtbill dave s 2013/03/03 01:04:19
    sbtbill
    You never heard of the Enron valve. Enron owned a gas pipe valve that lots of natural gas went through and used it to manipulate the price. You can manipulate the price in many manys Rebel Yell.
  • Cal 2013/03/02 15:44:54
    YEs
    Cal
    +3
    It should have been approved the first time it came about to a vote. http://patrioticvoices.com
  • Grandpa 2013/03/02 15:44:06 (edited)
    YEs
    Grandpa
    +3
    Hell yes >> Not only JOBS but lower Gas prices >> Something the Goverment doesn't seem to want as it make the people more indepdent of obama and big goverment

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/10/22 09:40:32

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals