I find it interesting they say there isn't a shortage because wages are flat, yet are arguing that companies are bringing in these people to undercut wages. that's pretty contradictory. shouldn't wages be dropping if there isn't a shortage of workers and they are bringing in people to cut wages?
All that you describe are minor and did not impact the environment. More of the Oil that traveled through the pipeline was lost after entering tankers than leaked from the pipeline. Sounds like pipelines should be encouraged and tankers banned.
Comparing gallons, I'm not sure trucks don't come out ahead. Regardless, you are moving the goalpost.
But the current roster of full- and part-time jobs listed on Dice stands at 83,086, compared to 63,605 in May 2010, an increase of more than 30 percent. In 2011, 43,072 IT-related bachelor degrees and 37,677 associate's degrees were awarded, jumping 9 percent and 16 percent respectively over the previous year http://www.infoworld.com/article/26...m-grads-are-pouring-out-of-u-s--colleges.html
The major studies has shown that it is safe. It hasn't been removed off of the table as option because of unions, so if they pass it that puts Obama in a interesting position
Didn't impact the environment? How did you determine this? And you are moving the goalposts as well. I said they leaked. You seemed to suggest they don't. Well, they do. Often. I only brought up one pipeline system you specifically mentioned. I could easily go through more that have had larger leaks. We don't want to run a pipleline through the Sand Hills and over the world's most important aquifer. We really don't.
I said pipelines leak. It was implied and stated that they didn't. I demonstrated that they in fact do, and often. Now you are saying "but how much?", as if the issue here wasn't related to where this pipeline is running through.
Tankers, trucks, refineries have the type of leaks that you describe and worse. The Dems fight pipelines because of a supposed negative effect on the environment of a massive leak. You seem to be moving the goalpost.
No, I am not moving shit. I said they leaked. You implied they didn't by saying the Alaskan pipeline proved otherwise. I demonstrated that you were wrong, it in fact proved my point. They leak. They all do. Whether trucks, refineries, or noses leak as well are all secondary to the original claim: pipelines DO leak. Whatever negative effects occur from the leaks, while pertinent to the discussion, are also deflections of the original disagreement: pipelines DO leak. It is a simple, irrefutable premise. I suppose that is why you are trying to skip past it now.
seemed unlikely to me too, but thankfully we are not very likely to get earthquakes of that magnitude.
Very unlikely to ever see one like that. If we did, the pipeline would probably be outside of the top 3 concerns.
That's why it's pointless to debate policy here which wasn't my intention. It's my fault for thinking it would be any different.
Your car leaks; better stop building cars. You know the fear mongering Dems use the threat of an environmental disaster block the building of pipelines; not a bullet hole by a drunk idiot.
I'm a good for the goose/good for the gander guy often at my own detriment and against my own beliefs. Call it spite if you must.
