Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

Aerial Footage of Arkansas Tar Sands Oil Spill (It reached the lake).








Join us on the 99% Moms group!
The Ninety-Nine Percent Moms   

If they enforced bank regulations like they do park rules, we wouldn't be in this mess

by on Apr. 3, 2013 at 12:43 AM
Replies (21-30):
autodidact
by Platinum Member on Apr. 3, 2013 at 4:58 PM

eye rolling


Quoting LindaClement:

My point is: we don't take safety (of people or the landscape) seriously on so many fronts.

When was agriculture 'good for the environment'? Jet fuel explosions? Even without talking about the mess 9/11 made, the environmental cost of flying is NOT a conversation point.

We have a huge international industry built around the new religion of environmentalism, and not one of them has suggested that the 'best' thing for the environment would be to stop flying anywhere, ever. Why? Because they make their billions getting together in various conferences all over the world, so they can nod and pat each other on the back and make scathing remarks about the people who drive, ever, or who think 3rd world employment is worth buying for, or who actually care that safe water supplies exist only in 1st world countries.

Quoting brookiecookie87:


Quoting LindaClement:

If people treated airline crashes they way they're treating this, flight would have been banned in 1961.


I don't know many airline crashes that after they crash they continue to damage the land, the animals, and the peoples lives around the area. Can you show how they do this?

A big point about the Keystone XL Pipeline is an aquifier that it can contaminate. When is the last time an airplane crashed and destroyed a water supply for states across the country?

And let's not forget no one is saying we shouldn't use the oil. If Canada wants to build a refinery on their land they are completely capable of it. It doesn't make sense to build a pipeline across our country that puts lives, the land, and our water at danger so a few people can make loads of money from it.

They can build a refinery near the oil if they want to make money from it.  There is no way to even cross this example to airlines.







grandmab125
by Gold Member on Apr. 3, 2013 at 5:10 PM

 I have no idea what the owners of the Pegasus pipeline plan on doing, do you?  Why don't you contact them and ask them?  Unlike you, I am not a mind reader.

Quoting brookiecookie87:

 

Have the owners of the Pegasus pipeline said they plan to close down some of their pipelines?

Have any of the people who send oil through those pipes mentioned if the new one opens they will stop using the old ones?

Because I haven't heard a statement like that from any source yet.




Quoting grandmab125:

 As sad as this spill is, you must realize that the age of the pipeline probably had a lot to do with it.  It was built in the 1940's.  Perhaps with the new XL pipeline, completely built, we could bypass some of these older lines. 

 

 

 

grandma B

brookiecookie87
by Platinum Member on Apr. 3, 2013 at 5:13 PM
1 mom liked this

Unlike you I am not making up statements about them.

I am not a mind reader so I am not going to say, "We could bypass some of the older ones" like you did.

If you are going to make up statements for them, or have suggestions for them. YOU should contact them.


Quoting grandmab125:

 I have no idea what the owners of the Pegasus pipeline plan on doing, do you?  Why don't you contact them and ask them?  Unlike you, I am not a mind reader.

Quoting brookiecookie87:


Have the owners of the Pegasus pipeline said they plan to close down some of their pipelines?

Have any of the people who send oil through those pipes mentioned if the new one opens they will stop using the old ones?

Because I haven't heard a statement like that from any source yet.




Quoting grandmab125:

 As sad as this spill is, you must realize that the age of the pipeline probably had a lot to do with it.  It was built in the 1940's.  Perhaps with the new XL pipeline, completely built, we could bypass some of these older lines. 



 



Join us on the 99% Moms group!
The Ninety-Nine Percent Moms   

If they enforced bank regulations like they do park rules, we wouldn't be in this mess

Healthystart30
by Silver Member on Apr. 3, 2013 at 5:25 PM
2 moms liked this
People will be outraged for couple of weeks and then the media will spin it in the favor of the few that will profit from the pipeline by lying! Just like the Gulf of Mexico! People were pissed when the oil leaked, but then gas went up and people demand more drilling! Then when you voice your opinion about the danger drilling, fracking and pipelines cause, people look at you like they think you are crazy. Until the next environmental disaster and then all of a sudden everyone agrees with you.... For couple of weeks!
Sisteract
by Whoopie on Apr. 3, 2013 at 5:42 PM
Quoting Healthystart30:

People will be outraged for couple of weeks and then the media will spin it in the favor of the few that will profit from the pipeline by lying! Just like the Gulf of Mexico! People were pissed when the oil leaked, but then gas went up and people demand more drilling! Then when you voice your opinion about the danger drilling, fracking and pipelines cause, people look at you like they think you are crazy. Until the next environmental disaster and then all of a sudden everyone agrees with you.... For couple of weeks!
Money rules all decisions made.
LindaClement
by Linda on Apr. 3, 2013 at 6:01 PM

Because unlike folks from the US, individual Canadians have individual opinions, and many listen to environmental doomsayers spouting fake science and invective, so they don't all vote the same way.

We don't vote directly for laws of any kind, and the 'no' was on polls, not elections.

Quoting Sisteract:

 That being said, how come Canadians voted NO when it came to the pipeline running through Canadian provinces?

Quoting LindaClement:

My point is: we don't take safety (of people or the landscape) seriously on so many fronts.

When was agriculture 'good for the environment'? Jet fuel explosions? Even without talking about the mess 9/11 made, the environmental cost of flying is NOT a conversation point.

We have a huge international industry built around the new religion of environmentalism, and not one of them has suggested that the 'best' thing for the environment would be to stop flying anywhere, ever. Why? Because they make their billions getting together in various conferences all over the world, so they can nod and pat each other on the back and make scathing remarks about the people who drive, ever, or who think 3rd world employment is worth buying for, or who actually care that safe water supplies exist only in 1st world countries.

Quoting brookiecookie87:


Quoting LindaClement:

If people treated airline crashes they way they're treating this, flight would have been banned in 1961.


I don't know many airline crashes that after they crash they continue to damage the land, the animals, and the peoples lives around the area. Can you show how they do this?

A big point about the Keystone XL Pipeline is an aquifier that it can contaminate. When is the last time an airplane crashed and destroyed a water supply for states across the country?

And let's not forget no one is saying we shouldn't use the oil. If Canada wants to build a refinery on their land they are completely capable of it. It doesn't make sense to build a pipeline across our country that puts lives, the land, and our water at danger so a few people can make loads of money from it.

They can build a refinery near the oil if they want to make money from it.  There is no way to even cross this example to airlines.


 


LindaClement
by Linda on Apr. 3, 2013 at 6:03 PM

As opposed to science fact, that is.

Have you ever heard David Suzuki speak? The man's a born preacher, and his religion is 'people should not exist on this planet.'

He actually said that an earthquake was caused by how angry Triton the Earth God was over strip mining.

Quoting autodidact:

eye rolling


Quoting LindaClement:

My point is: we don't take safety (of people or the landscape) seriously on so many fronts.

When was agriculture 'good for the environment'? Jet fuel explosions? Even without talking about the mess 9/11 made, the environmental cost of flying is NOT a conversation point.

We have a huge international industry built around the new religion of environmentalism, and not one of them has suggested that the 'best' thing for the environment would be to stop flying anywhere, ever. Why? Because they make their billions getting together in various conferences all over the world, so they can nod and pat each other on the back and make scathing remarks about the people who drive, ever, or who think 3rd world employment is worth buying for, or who actually care that safe water supplies exist only in 1st world countries.

Quoting brookiecookie87:


Quoting LindaClement:

If people treated airline crashes they way they're treating this, flight would have been banned in 1961.


I don't know many airline crashes that after they crash they continue to damage the land, the animals, and the peoples lives around the area. Can you show how they do this?

A big point about the Keystone XL Pipeline is an aquifier that it can contaminate. When is the last time an airplane crashed and destroyed a water supply for states across the country?

And let's not forget no one is saying we shouldn't use the oil. If Canada wants to build a refinery on their land they are completely capable of it. It doesn't make sense to build a pipeline across our country that puts lives, the land, and our water at danger so a few people can make loads of money from it.

They can build a refinery near the oil if they want to make money from it.  There is no way to even cross this example to airlines.





autodidact
by Platinum Member on Apr. 3, 2013 at 6:10 PM

source? 



Quoting LindaClement:

As opposed to science fact, that is.

Have you ever heard David Suzuki speak? The man's a born preacher, and his religion is 'people should not exist on this planet.'

He actually said that an earthquake was caused by how angry Triton the Earth God was over strip mining.

Quoting autodidact:

eye rolling


Quoting LindaClement:

My point is: we don't take safety (of people or the landscape) seriously on so many fronts.

When was agriculture 'good for the environment'? Jet fuel explosions? Even without talking about the mess 9/11 made, the environmental cost of flying is NOT a conversation point.

We have a huge international industry built around the new religion of environmentalism, and not one of them has suggested that the 'best' thing for the environment would be to stop flying anywhere, ever. Why? Because they make their billions getting together in various conferences all over the world, so they can nod and pat each other on the back and make scathing remarks about the people who drive, ever, or who think 3rd world employment is worth buying for, or who actually care that safe water supplies exist only in 1st world countries.

Quoting brookiecookie87:


Quoting LindaClement:

If people treated airline crashes they way they're treating this, flight would have been banned in 1961.


I don't know many airline crashes that after they crash they continue to damage the land, the animals, and the peoples lives around the area. Can you show how they do this?

A big point about the Keystone XL Pipeline is an aquifier that it can contaminate. When is the last time an airplane crashed and destroyed a water supply for states across the country?

And let's not forget no one is saying we shouldn't use the oil. If Canada wants to build a refinery on their land they are completely capable of it. It doesn't make sense to build a pipeline across our country that puts lives, the land, and our water at danger so a few people can make loads of money from it.

They can build a refinery near the oil if they want to make money from it.  There is no way to even cross this example to airlines.










autodidact
by Platinum Member on Apr. 3, 2013 at 6:15 PM

Triton isn't an earth god, and that IS a religion, but it's the greek pantheon, not environmentalism. 

And Suzuki's an atheist.




brookiecookie87
by Platinum Member on Apr. 3, 2013 at 6:21 PM


I have never heard of David Suzuki. But I promise you he doesn't represent the entirety of science.

Quoting LindaClement:

As opposed to science fact, that is.

Have you ever heard David Suzuki speak? The man's a born preacher, and his religion is 'people should not exist on this planet.'

He actually said that an earthquake was caused by how angry Triton the Earth God was over strip mining.

Join us on the 99% Moms group!
The Ninety-Nine Percent Moms   

If they enforced bank regulations like they do park rules, we wouldn't be in this mess

Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)



Featured