Credibility gap for MSNBC , who would have guessed..........

Speaking from my own personal experiences, Cornell is one of the most liberal universities in USA - and that from a graduate of their university.

 

OK nothing to do with the topic but can I ask why it is against the law (federal) to ship oil etc from one US port to another? To me that just seems silly or am I missing something here?

 

Since you cannot be bothered to look it up, UNIONS is why.

The major problem is that there are no such ships/crews in existence today for transportation of oil. Actually, the major problem is that Congress cannot agree on even the most inane regulation.

 

Was there any call to be rude? I was simply asking a civil question

 

So they must be lying, right? How about the Conservative Prime Minister, Harper? How do you go about discrediting what he has been quoted as saying?

 

Going no further than the summary, I find;

Don't tell Oklahoma or Obama that. No one in Oklahoma thinks it has already been built and Obama just recently signed a bill to allow construction to begin on the lower section of the pipeline. He was sure proud when he signed it.

Please explain to me how sending the crude to China, Mexico, Venezuela, or elsewhere (where pollution regulations are the most lax) will generate less pollution because I absolutely guarantee that it will be refined somewhere regardless of what happens in the US (with the strictest anti-pollution regulations).

Funny how all the steel mills have migrated to China, isn't it?

See to start http://www.partisanlines.com/thread...ne-xl-pipeline-project.4126/page-6#post-78743. And that is just Oklahoma

Lying? Well, if you prefer, twisting the facts to fit the desired result.

 

(looks around) I see no rails.

Thanks for posting the Cornell stuff. I had researched their site yesterday, had even written a post (several actually) similar to yours...but I had a computer issue that kept causing my work to be lost so I gave up lol The issue has been resolved ...the offending hardware is now in dozens of pieces.

I'm not against the XL project itself, but I'm not thrilled with the company (TransCanada)...or the industry. My visits to their sites made me laugh...the way they make it sound, the entire oil industry is poor and impoverished and this pipeline will save the day lol

Poor, poor oil industry and their billions in profits lol

Anyway, the line will almost certainly be built within a couple years, so all this bs is rather pointless. Besides the XL, other lines from the tar sands (ending in cities in Illinois) have been operational for a couple of years.

 

Really? Apparently you didn't bother to look at a map of the pipeline. If you had you would realize that the Cornell study was talking about the "section of the Keystone project in Kansas and Oklahoma that is not part of KXL and has already been built." This section can be clearly seen on the map. The fact that more pipeline will be built in Oklahoma doesn't mean that the section that the study is describing doesn't exist. You really should research your facts a little better, sir.

The other sections of the summary you've quoted don't show dishonesty either. Both are accurate statements, and you've produced not a scintilla of evidence to show any sort of dishonesty. You've merely written sneering commentary which, frankly, exposes the weakness of your position.

I notice that you didn't bother to address the issue of Harper's comments.

 

Great! There is already a line there - at capacity or nearly so. In order to accommodate the increased volume, they have to build another.