It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Gingrich on Obama Rejecting Keystone Pipeline: 'This Is a Stunningly Stupid Thing to Do'

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 02:34 PM
link   
Speaking to a standing-room only crowd of about 350 people in Warrenville, S.C., "boos" erupted when Gingrich said the pipeline had been "vetoed."

"Now, this is a stunningly," Gingrich began until he was interuppted by a crowd members shouting "stupid mistake."

After pausing for a moment Gingrich responded, "This is a stunningly stupid thing to do."


Read more: nation.foxnews.com...

nation.foxnews.com...

Obama doesnt care about America or Americans. He stated that there wasnt enough time to research changing the rout around the aquifer that could be effected by the pipeline and p[ossible leaks. This is untrue. If he had agreed to the pipeline there would have been YEARS to change the proposed route but he doesnt want anyone to know that and he would rather give China jobs while Americans are suffering.

ANYONE BUT OBAMA IN 2012




posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 02:43 PM
link   
You know what else is stunningly stupid to do? Allow terrorist attacks to happen. But old newt thinks its cool.



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 02:48 PM
link   
the keystone pipeline is stunningly stupid



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 02:50 PM
link   
About 1500 jobs building the pipe and the refined gasoline is for export. There already is a pipeline from Canada to midwestern refineries. If this was about America's oil needs alone we could simply expand the existing pipe. But since this is about simply using this country as an easement for the export of resources via the gulf ports it is stunningly stupid except if you're heavily invested in gasoline exports. Dig deeper than faux news and it is more clear.



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 03:04 PM
link   
reply to post by geryon
 


And why would that be?

To prevent damage to the aquifer? An aquifer that already receives gallons of oil per day from highway run off?
Or the aquifer that receives gallons of fertilizer and chemical run off from farming?

If the pipeline isn't built, the oil will still be transported directly over the aquifer, just in a much dirtier manner.



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 03:15 PM
link   
see AmericanPitBull's post above. Its good for oil companies, thats it, Obama tried to create jobs to build our infrastructure which could really use it, your buddies made sure that didnt happen to protect millionaires from paying a little more in taxes. Don't you ever want to move away from oil anyway?



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 03:18 PM
link   
reply to post by candcantiques
 


It would be stupid for him not to veto it. If passed, we would be allowing a foreign company to violate imminent domain on many peoples' private property. You know a fat waffle like Gingrich would have called him out on that if he didn't veto it.

I don't support many of the current actions of our president but, with the GOP, he's damned if it does and damned if he doesn't.



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 03:29 PM
link   
I'm glad President Obama rejected it, we don't need to put any aquifer's at risk over greed. Canada could always build a new refinery or just sell the nasty sand tar oil to another country. We need to think about future generations and keep this pipeline from being built.

Just look at the Gulf to see what kind of job big oil does cleaning up spills.



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 03:33 PM
link   
In the decades of the Alaskan oil pipeline how many oil spills happened?

So what America gets to build one through Canada but Canada can't here?

Hypocrisy Alert.

Newt is right it is stunningly stupid as the worlds largest consumer of oil and dire price increases at the pump in a failing economy when the entire world and this economy revolves around getting from point a to point b and thats how people and goods and serices make money and generate tax revenue.

Stunningly stupid not the word choice i would have used "blanken" stupid.



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 03:38 PM
link   
reply to post by LonelyGuy
 


Another person that believes the lies.



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 03:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Echo007
 


Sure, lets transport it across the ocean by ship. Can we get the Valdez?

Hey this country doesnt need the jobs anyway, lets give China more financial stability.



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 03:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Cuervo
 


"If passed, we would be allowing a foreign company to violate imminent domain on many peoples' private property."

They dont just take the property THEY BUY IT and alot of people could use that money right now.



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 03:48 PM
link   
reply to post by geryon
 


"Don't you ever want to move away from oil anyway?"

Tell you what. Lets do it. Let us end all oil use right now and end jobs for another 20 million people in this country.



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 03:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
In the decades of the Alaskan oil pipeline how many oil spills happened?

So what America gets to build one through Canada but Canada can't here?

Hypocrisy Alert.

Newt is right it is stunningly stupid as the worlds largest consumer of oil and dire price increases at the pump in a failing economy when the entire world and this economy revolves around getting from point a to point b and thats how people and goods and serices make money and generate tax revenue.

Stunningly stupid not the word choice i would have used "blanken" stupid.


You do realize that the AOP isn't exactly "perfect", right? Check this out for a recent history:

www.alaskadispatch.com...

Do we really need another pipeline so that rich guys can get richer? The only benefit to the pipeline is to the 0.1% and nowhere else.

Derek



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 04:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Viesczy
 


Your source is about the Alaska Prudhoe Bay oil field and Lisburne field.

The only time the pipeline is mentioned is in a civil lawsuit (Alaska & Fed vs BP) that is concerned with the revenues lost during the pipeline shut down that was required during the BP Prudhoe mishap.

Ironic, pipeline gets a bad rep, when to date the single largest pipeline spill was not even an accident.



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 04:09 PM
link   
Obama doing something stupid again?

He can't help it, all of his years of community organizing retarded his leadership skills.

Time to get this amateur out of the White House.



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 04:23 PM
link   
What's the total up to? The number of jobs he's supposedly killing? It was 10k initially. That would make it about, ohhh, 685 billion jobs now that he's killing.

Actually I wish he would just stop politicking and have them install the dam thing already. It will create work and perhaps help with climbing oil prices. This move is really selfish.



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 06:39 PM
link   
Like I said it will make about 1500 pipeline jobs for a couple yrs and a couple hundred permanent maintenance jobs. The oil if it were to be an asset to this country it could go to the Sinclair facility in Wyoming or to expanded facilities at the Midwestern terminus of the existing pipeline for refining. The ONLY reason for this pipeline is to get the oil to the gulf for EXPORT as refined products. It is delusional to believe that this pipeline will be of any real benefit to present energy problems or even improve supply. The oil flowing in the pipeline will have been bought and sold a dozen times before it is loaded on a ship and sent to indonesia.
As I said it is an easement authorization only, not a supply issue and no real benefit to this country beyond a very few jobs for a short time. I hope some of you read this this time as it seems to have flown over some of your heads.
APB



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 02:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
In the decades of the Alaskan oil pipeline how many oil spills happened?

So what America gets to build one through Canada but Canada can't here?

Hypocrisy Alert.

Stunningly stupid not the word choice i would have used "blanken" stupid.


You know what's 'stunningly stupid?' Thinking that a pipeline, delivering a product for export, to be sold on a world-wide market, on the basis of its geographical location, will somehow positively impact the end-user price ONLY if said pipeline is built through a specific country. It's also 'stunningly stupid' to believe that petroleum markets are traditional, basic supply/demand markets and thus releasing a bit more supply will somehow reduce consumer prices.

Let me tell you a little story about how awesome these pipelines are.

My family's farm is in eastern North Dakota. Prime farmland. We, like nearly everybody for hundreds of miles around us, have been farmers there for generations. A few years ago there was a big push to build what is known by a name not dissimilar to the current pipeline through this very area from Canada. Now, prior to the pipeline being built, we were repeatedly assured in mailings and via politicians involved with the project that there would be NO danger of eminent domain being used, nor would this have any kind of negative environmental impact because 'every caution would be taken.'

Well, the pipeline construction started and in order to overcome the many thousands of miles of private land they had to cross to get it to the southern United States, they went to the land owners and offered 99 year 'leases' for a relatively small amount of money (under $10,000 per 160 acre quarter, iirc) in exchange the permission to trench in this pipeline across the land along with some access trails to get to inspection stations, etc. The ground above the buried pipeline could still be farmed, so the total land loss was generally fairly limited. However, some people still didn't like the idea. Ground water tables are very shallow in most of eastern North Dakota (it's all the bottom of a massive prehistoric lake), so there's the serious threat of contamination and some people simply didn't want a pipeline across their land for their personal reasons.

The first sign of trouble was when a guy we knew near Devil's Lake, who owned a wide swath of land, refused to allow construction through his property. This would've necessitated rerouting the pipeline for several miles, resulting in a huge additional expense in planning and construction for the company. They whined, and the land owner lost a rather substantial corridor of his property via eminent domain, even after spending a great deal of money fighting it.

Then, they got closer to where I grew up. One of our neighbors and close family friends, himself no longer a young man, was living in the home that two generations earlier his family had built and used as the homestead. It was, of course, the house he had grown up in and raised his children in, as has it father and grandfather. The pipeline was slated to directly intersect the actual house, meaning the house would have to be demolished to build the pipeline. Our neighbor fought like hell and a bunch of nervous days, sleepless nights, and almost $60,000 in lawyer fees later, got the company to back off on the pending eminent domain ruling and 'compromise' by moving the pipeline 100 feet from the side of the house into his back yard.

After construction and a few miles down the road another one of our neighbors, whose land the pipeline also intersects, looked out his front window one Saturday morning and saw a geyser of crude oil shooting up about 60-70 feet out of the ground from the buried pipeline. This is obviously an issue, especially on a pipeline that was then less than a year old and had been billed as 'leak proof' and '100% safe,' so he called the company and was told he was a liar. There was no way the pipeline could be leaking. Then they hung up on him. He called them back two more times, finally got a supervisor to listen to him, emailed digital photos of the still-gushing geyser of oil, and then a few hours later a crew showed up to fix it. There was a rather large amount of oil spilled on what was good crop land. Environmental 'mitigation' was done, but there's still a very noticeable reduction in size and density of crops planted where the oil had leaked. Also keep in mind that this pipeline sits only a few feet above one of the largest aquifers in the United States....a water supply that feeds hundreds of thousands of people's drinking water supplies and irrigates a huge amount of corn, soybeans, and other crops.

So yeah, pipelines are awesome. Especially pipelines that are run by this outfit. Some of you guys really need to open your mouths less and engage your brains more.



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 09:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by geryon
see AmericanPitBull's post above. Its good for oil companies, thats it, Obama tried to create jobs to build our infrastructure which could really use it, your buddies made sure that didnt happen to protect millionaires from paying a little more in taxes. Don't you ever want to move away from oil anyway?


With all do respect, Obama was given roughly a trillion dollars for infrastructure. What did Obama do with the money? He gave it to Radical Feminist's, Bankers and corrupt Union thugs.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join