State of the Union

Discussion in 'The Thunderdome' started by kptvol, Jan 24, 2012.

  1. IP

    IP Advanced Pruitt Apologetics Bot

    Nah, we'll just require students to stay in school until they graduate or 18. That'll fix it. Jobs comin'.
     
  2. IP

    IP Advanced Pruitt Apologetics Bot

    I'm pretty [uck fay]ing skeptical that many permanent positions would be generated by that bill, let alone "high paying" ones.

    The funniest thing I hear is how now China is going to get the oil... China already was. It would have just been leaving from Houston rather than British Colombia.
     
  3. Volst53

    Volst53 Super Moderator

    Why does the amount of jobs matter, when studies have showed it to be a low risk and all the other parties were on board?
     
  4. droski

    droski Traffic Criminal

    there is no doubt whatsoever that it would generate high paying jobs as would encouraging natural gas exploration and drilling which btw is a major solution to our energy problems. all you have to look at is areas where they do allow such things (even in our own country). those areas have labor shortages. instead those jobs are going overseas.
     
  5. droski

    droski Traffic Criminal

    it's also interesting that the rails are the primary way oil is being transported in that area and buffett of course owns a major railroad. maybe a payback by obama?
     
  6. CardinalVol

    CardinalVol Uncultured, non-diverse mod

    See post #5 in this thread.
     
  7. droski

    droski Traffic Criminal

  8. CardinalVol

    CardinalVol Uncultured, non-diverse mod

    Was coming here to post the same thing droski.

    Poor lady.
     
  9. IP

    IP Advanced Pruitt Apologetics Bot

    All parties are on board? Or just the ones who stand to gain financially?

    Low risk is a relative thing. Some would say this is low risk, like the Horizon well was low risk. Others will scoff at the statistically probable outcomes of continued unabated fossil fuel consumption. It is all in the eye of the beholder.
     
  10. IP

    IP Advanced Pruitt Apologetics Bot

    I live in a region with mini earthquakes, lost water tables, and poisoned ground water due to ongoing gas exploration and drilling. Go explore and drill under your home, not mine.
     
  11. LawVol13

    LawVol13 Chieftain

    I live in a region where there is mass poverty and people can't find jobs even if they're looking as hard as they can for them. I say drill if there is little chance of environmental contamination. We can drill and get people working while simultaneously looking for alternative sources of energy.
     
  12. IP

    IP Advanced Pruitt Apologetics Bot

    So it is your position that natural resource extraction is the solution to poverty?
     
  13. LawVol13

    LawVol13 Chieftain

    Not at all. But, you have a different perspective on just saying, "No thanks" to a possibility of lots of new jobs when you live in a county with nearly 25% unemployment. It's not a long-term solution, but getting people back to work helps improve the economy, which in turn eventually helps everyone. Also, domestic energy production, at least in my opinion, will be vital in our long-term economic success.
     
  14. volfanjo

    volfanjo Chieftain

    The coal and gas industry pay a lot of mortgages out that way though.
     
  15. volfanjo

    volfanjo Chieftain

    Last time I checked, Hancock County had 34-percent? unemployment I think. Those folks would probably put an oil derrick in their back yard if they knew it would work. I certainly would.
     
  16. LawVol13

    LawVol13 Chieftain

    Exactly. I can sympathize with environmentalists' position on things; however, go tell the people who can't support their family because there simply aren't jobs available about a .000003 chance of environmental contamination being the reason you're opposing a measure that means food on the table for their families and see what their response is.
     
  17. volfanjo

    volfanjo Chieftain

    My position is this: If you can live with a coal mine in your backyard, and don't mind working there, that's your business. Now I realize "down-streaming" and all of the negative externalities that come with environmental degradation that can affect those outside of a given community. But I am about sick and tired of meth-heads and high school dropouts running around our community and I don't want to put anything in their way to being gainfully employed.
     
  18. Volst53

    Volst53 Super Moderator


    We already have pipe lines all over the country and this project has a lower risk than those pipe lines. This would also stop the need for a lot oil to be shipped by rail, but Buffet is making a killing from shipping oil on his rails.

    I live in a county with 20 plus unempoyment, and The average income of my students family is 10,500. This fossil fuel is going to be consumed either way. Why not let it create jobs here?
     
    Last edited: Jan 25, 2012
  19. CardinalVol

    CardinalVol Uncultured, non-diverse mod

  20. joevol320

    joevol320 New Member

    obama doesn't care about private jobs. his goal is to make the fed gov the central point that every must go through to get insurance, jobs, etc... he doesn't like this country and it's constitution. that's why he wants to fundementally change it.
     

Share This Page