(01-14-2015 06:46 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(01-07-2015 07:52 PM)NIU05 Wrote:  Build the frickining pipeline! We need to put constant pressure on OPEC. Constant. Will the pipeline move oil tomorrow? next month? next year? NO. WE need it for the LONG TERM. We need it to be in place for 2020 and beyond. You build the infrastructure to presuure their options. Can't anyone think past their next beer? WTF...

BUILD the FRICKING PIPELINE! Stop fighting it Mr. President. It is private investment BUILD IT!

We will MAKE you drink the water that comes from the aquifer WHEN the pipeline leaks into and destroys the aquifer.

And we will MAKE those that oppose it bear the higher cost of goods as a result of the reduced rail and truck capacity.

Klake is getting nervous that the economy might start coming around before the end of Obama's term. Lower gas prices will only help the U.S. economy. If the economy is on a strong recovery, it might be more difficult for a Republican to be elected to president.

(01-16-2015 08:35 PM)Big_Man Wrote:  Klake is getting nervous that the economy might start coming around before the end of Obama's term. Lower gas prices will only help the U.S. economy. If the economy is on a strong recovery, it might be more difficult for a Republican to be elected to president.

I have a feeling the next election is going to be heavy on foreign policy and less on the economy.

If the economy was still ****, the Republicans would be a shoe in. Even with foreign policy.

(01-16-2015 09:25 PM)Big_Man Wrote:  If the economy was still ****, the Republicans would be a shoe in. Even with foreign policy.

Dems have no electable candidate for 16. If the Repubs don't shoot themselves (possible,10% chance) they win in handily.

(01-16-2015 11:03 PM)NIU05 Wrote:  

(01-16-2015 09:25 PM)Big_Man Wrote:  If the economy was still ****, the Republicans would be a shoe in. Even with foreign policy.

Dems have no electable candidate for 16. If the Repubs don't shoot themselves (possible,10% chance) they win in handily.

Given the Repugs love affair with guns, they might just shoot themselves. Who on the right do you think would be able to beat Clinton? I give you that if Bernie Sanders wins the Democratic nomination, the Reugs win easily once the find out that he is a Socialist.

You mean pipelines can break!?

http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/20/us/yellows...index.html

(01-20-2015 10:58 AM)huskiealum03 Wrote:  You mean pipelines can break!?

http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/20/us/yellows...index.html

Who said they don't?

Since oil has to move, compare the pipeline failure rate to a trail derailment or a truck accident? Which has a lower failure rate?

(01-20-2015 11:34 AM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  

(01-20-2015 10:58 AM)huskiealum03 Wrote:  You mean pipelines can break!?

http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/20/us/yellows...index.html

Who said they don't?

Since oil has to move, compare the pipeline failure rate to a trail derailment or a truck accident? Which has a lower failure rate?

that i am not sure. however, the source of an oil spill via pipeline can be endless until a valve is shut down. the train and/or truck have a finite amount that can spill.

(01-20-2015 11:59 AM)huskiealum03 Wrote:  

(01-20-2015 11:34 AM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  

(01-20-2015 10:58 AM)huskiealum03 Wrote:  You mean pipelines can break!?

http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/20/us/yellows...index.html

Who said they don't?

Since oil has to move, compare the pipeline failure rate to a trail derailment or a truck accident? Which has a lower failure rate?

that i am not sure. however, the source of an oil spill via pipeline can be endless until a valve is shut down. the train and/or truck have a finite amount that can spill.

It could be, if all the monitoring systems don't pick up the drop in pressure, the lack of oil at at the receiving end, etc.

A single train tanker car carries nearly 35,000 gallons of oil.

So, I'll ask you again, what are the failure rates of those three transportation methods?

(01-20-2015 12:17 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  

(01-20-2015 11:59 AM)huskiealum03 Wrote:  

(01-20-2015 11:34 AM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  

(01-20-2015 10:58 AM)huskiealum03 Wrote:  You mean pipelines can break!?

http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/20/us/yellows...index.html

Who said they don't?

Since oil has to move, compare the pipeline failure rate to a trail derailment or a truck accident? Which has a lower failure rate?

that i am not sure. however, the source of an oil spill via pipeline can be endless until a valve is shut down. the train and/or truck have a finite amount that can spill.

It could be, if all the monitoring systems don't pick up the drop in pressure, the lack of oil at at the receiving end, etc.

A single train tanker car carries nearly 35,000 gallons of oil.

So, I'll ask you again, what are the failure rates of those three transportation methods?

The failure rate (frequency) is probably much more for train or truck. But the amount would have to be higher for a pipeline. If it's not, wouldn't the chance it would be more destructive to the environment (drinking water) and harder to clean up be higher?

On a side note-bought gas for $1.85 a gal yesterday in Elgin - Sam's club. I can't remember the last time I bought it that cheaply. 25 years ago? Edit: checked gas buddy site and apparently avg prices were lower in 2004 and 2008 for a short period of time.

(01-20-2015 01:07 PM)NIU17 Wrote:  The failure rate (frequency) is probably much more for train or truck. But the amount would have to be higher for a pipeline. If it's not, wouldn't the chance it would be more destructive to the environment (drinking water) and harder to clean up be higher?

Why would it have to be higher? Why? There are systems on pipelines to detect leaks and shut it down

When a tanker car spills, does that material not have the opportunity, generally, to migrate towards groundwater? How many railroad bridges cross the Fox River, in our neighborhood? If a truck overturns on Randall Road, where does the drainage system take the spill?

(01-20-2015 01:54 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  

(01-20-2015 01:07 PM)NIU17 Wrote:  The failure rate (frequency) is probably much more for train or truck. But the amount would have to be higher for a pipeline. If it's not, wouldn't the chance it would be more destructive to the environment (drinking water) and harder to clean up be higher?

Why would it have to be higher? Why? There are systems on pipelines to detect leaks and shut it down

When a tanker car spills, does that material not have the opportunity, generally, to migrate towards groundwater? How many railroad bridges cross the Fox River, in our neighborhood? If a truck overturns on Randall Road, where does the drainage system take the spill?

All valid questions. I don't know the answers and I guess it depends on where the spills occur. Do you know... Are all the pipelines buried? And are they building the pipeline at the bottom of lakes and rivers? Under or near underground water supplies? Seems to me these types of leaks would be harder to fix and clean up. If they have systems to detect leaks and they have shut offs, it would definitely limit the spills, but would that only be for major leaks? how long would it take to find a smaller leak?

Its a fruitless exercise to ask why this president (lower case p) does anything. Its a lost cause, just look ahead to 2016 and pray for a new beginning. You just hope this country isn't pushed beyond repair with the time he has left.

(01-22-2015 10:48 AM)MaddDawgz02 Wrote:  You just hope this country isn't pushed beyond repair with the time he has left.

*chuckles*

(01-22-2015 10:48 AM)MaddDawgz02 Wrote:  Its a fruitless exercise to ask why this president (lower case p) does anything. Its a lost cause, just look ahead to 2016 and pray for a new beginning. You just hope this country isn't pushed beyond repair with the time he has left.

I agree.

Obama wanted change and he got it. This country is worse off in too many ways since the narcissist took office.

(01-22-2015 09:54 PM)prairiedawg Wrote:  

(01-22-2015 10:48 AM)MaddDawgz02 Wrote:  Its a fruitless exercise to ask why this president (lower case p) does anything. Its a lost cause, just look ahead to 2016 and pray for a new beginning. You just hope this country isn't pushed beyond repair with the time he has left.

I agree.

Obama wanted change and he got it. This country is worse off in too many ways since the narcissist took office.

Example please.

(01-22-2015 09:54 PM)prairiedawg Wrote:  country is worse off in too many ways since the narcissist took office.

Yeah, let's go back to before he was elected and deal with the bank collapses. Let's go back to where the auto industry in this country was tanking. Let's go back to where the insurance industry claiming that the uninsured were the cause for all of our insurance rates going higher. Let's go back to the unreasonable mortage rates. Let's go back to the monthly increases in unemployment.
Businesses have one and only one purpose -- increase profits; not for reinvestment or expansion, but to increase bonuses for CEOs and the board of directors. There is no amount of profit that is ever enough. Just like the P5 conferences want to grow the gap and keep the MAC, NIU, beneath them, the same can be said of the top of every business. Cut staff, cut expenses, cut benefits, cut quality, just cut, cut, cut, cut except for the CEOs and the board of directors. Big business cares about people; right, a life-saving drug becomes easier to make, stop making it until the profit margin rises again. It's not a question of less government, it's a question of efficient government. You want the government providing you firefighters, police, snow removal, waste collection, infrastructure, mental health facilities, etc., but don't increase my taxes and keep your hands of my rapid-fire guns used against those turd-dropping ducks, shrub-eating deer, nutshell mess-making squirrels, and bullet-hole begging road signs. Those of you saying the President needs to approve the pipleline, now you want government action? You say, think of the tens of thousands of jobs created to build the pipeline -- but once it's built, permanent jobs as a result of the pipeline will be a couple hundred. Yeah, blame the end of bipartisianship on one person even though the opposition came right out and said their only agenda is to make him look bad enough to be a one-term president. Why can't those left-leaning liberal socialist put the good of the country ahead of themselves like the conservative right which knows only its side of every agrument is correct. Can't imagine why some of us think both sides are equally to blame. What the frack!

(01-23-2015 03:30 PM)uiniu57 Wrote:  

(01-22-2015 09:54 PM)prairiedawg Wrote:  country is worse off in too many ways since the narcissist took office.

Yeah, let's go back to before he was elected and deal with the bank collapses. Let's go back to where the auto industry in this country was tanking. Let's go back to where the insurance industry claiming that the uninsured were the cause for all of our insurance rates going higher. Let's go back to the unreasonable mortage rates. Let's go back to the monthly increases in unemployment.
Businesses have one and only one purpose -- increase profits; not for reinvestment or expansion, but to increase bonuses for CEOs and the board of directors. There is no amount of profit that is ever enough. Just like the P5 conferences want to grow the gap and keep the MAC, NIU, beneath them, the same can be said of the top of every business. Cut staff, cut expenses, cut benefits, cut quality, just cut, cut, cut, cut except for the CEOs and the board of directors. Big business cares about people; right, a life-saving drug becomes easier to make, stop making it until the profit margin rises again. It's not a question of less government, it's a question of efficient government. You want the government providing you firefighters, police, snow removal, waste collection, infrastructure, mental health facilities, etc., but don't increase my taxes and keep your hands of my rapid-fire guns used against those turd-dropping ducks, shrub-eating deer, nutshell mess-making squirrels, and bullet-hole begging road signs. Those of you saying the President needs to approve the pipleline, now you want government action? You say, think of the tens of thousands of jobs created to build the pipeline -- but once it's built, permanent jobs as a result of the pipeline will be a couple hundred. Yeah, blame the end of bipartisianship on one person even though the opposition came right out and said their only agenda is to make him look bad enough to be a one-term president. Why can't those left-leaning liberal socialist put the good of the country ahead of themselves like the conservative right which knows only its side of every agrument is correct. Can't imagine why some of us think both sides are equally to blame. What the frack!

I am for SMALL government. BIG government is inefficient, ineffective, and bloated, poorly run, poorly managed (see VA). Why does the federal government need to get in the way of a pipeline being built in Oklahoma, Nebraska etc. Shouldn't those states make the choice?

(01-23-2015 03:59 PM)klake87 Wrote:  

(01-23-2015 03:30 PM)uiniu57 Wrote:  

(01-22-2015 09:54 PM)prairiedawg Wrote:  country is worse off in too many ways since the narcissist took office.

Yeah, let's go back to before he was elected and deal with the bank collapses. Let's go back to where the auto industry in this country was tanking. Let's go back to where the insurance industry claiming that the uninsured were the cause for all of our insurance rates going higher. Let's go back to the unreasonable mortage rates. Let's go back to the monthly increases in unemployment.
Businesses have one and only one purpose -- increase profits; not for reinvestment or expansion, but to increase bonuses for CEOs and the board of directors. There is no amount of profit that is ever enough. Just like the P5 conferences want to grow the gap and keep the MAC, NIU, beneath them, the same can be said of the top of every business. Cut staff, cut expenses, cut benefits, cut quality, just cut, cut, cut, cut except for the CEOs and the board of directors. Big business cares about people; right, a life-saving drug becomes easier to make, stop making it until the profit margin rises again. It's not a question of less government, it's a question of efficient government. You want the government providing you firefighters, police, snow removal, waste collection, infrastructure, mental health facilities, etc., but don't increase my taxes and keep your hands of my rapid-fire guns used against those turd-dropping ducks, shrub-eating deer, nutshell mess-making squirrels, and bullet-hole begging road signs. Those of you saying the President needs to approve the pipleline, now you want government action? You say, think of the tens of thousands of jobs created to build the pipeline -- but once it's built, permanent jobs as a result of the pipeline will be a couple hundred. Yeah, blame the end of bipartisianship on one person even though the opposition came right out and said their only agenda is to make him look bad enough to be a one-term president. Why can't those left-leaning liberal socialist put the good of the country ahead of themselves like the conservative right which knows only its side of every agrument is correct. Can't imagine why some of us think both sides are equally to blame. What the frack!

I am for SMALL government. BIG government is inefficient, ineffective, and bloated, poorly run, poorly managed (see VA). Why does the federal government need to get in the way of a pipeline being built in Oklahoma, Nebraska etc. Shouldn't those states make the choice?

The Constitution gives the federal government authority over interstate commerce.

I disagree with tie decision to not build it, but the feds have that power.