Where Is Fox News' Outrage Over Keystone XL Land Rights?

Where Is Fox News' Outrage Over Keystone XL Land Rights?
Quote from article:
"Fox News consistently pushes fears of government "land grabs" surrounding environmental regulations. But the network celebrated the recent court decision allowing TransCanada to force construction of the Keystone XL pipeline on private land -- with no mention of the threat to landowner rights.
The Nebraska Supreme Court recently overturned a lower court ruling that would have protected the property rights of landowners who do not want the Keystone XL pipeline built on their land and fear that a spill could devastate region's drinking water and agriculture-based economy. As CBS reported, the ruling upheld a 2012 law allowing Canadian oil firm TransCanada to "seize property using eminent domain from any landowners who deny the developer access." A majority of Nebraska's Supreme Court -- four of the seven judges -- actually voted that the statute authorizing TransCanada's use of eminent domain was unconstitutional, but that fell just short of the supermajority (of at least five judges) necessary to make such a ruling."

No votes yet

Just like there wasn't any outrage over Citibank writing legislation that allowed the banks to start gambling with our money again, opening the door for more future bailouts. It's called a double standard. Big money trumps the little guy, and FOX is working for the big money.

Right-wingers never want the courts to interfere with the other branches of government. I guess they don't believe that Marbury v. Madison set any type of precedent...at least until the activism favors something THEY like. Here's a link to the latest ruling by one of those terrible, activist federal judges!

Bill O'Reilly Has His Own Brian Williams Problem

Statements made are the opinion of the writer who is exercising his first amendment right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and are generally permitted.

Already watched the video. There was a story about O'Reilly's photographer, of which, Mother Jones did not attempt to disprove. Had they that would be the equivalent of what Brian Williams did. Being that they didn't leads me to believe the story is true or Mother Jones is unable to disprove it making this nothing but a smear.

The best they have on O'Reilly is that he wasn't in Argentina nor the Falklands when he said he was in a war zone. Well... The U.S. government doesn't define a war zone as solely confined to the countries it is conducted. In The Iraq War, service members received combat and hardship pay while being stationed in Saudia Arabia and Kuwait. In the Afghanistan War, the same was true for those in Kyrgyzstan and Pakistan.

So by the U.S. government's definition... O'Reilly was/is telling the truth.

Mother Jones is NOT a credible source of information. I would quote any story of theirs unless supported by a separate I investigation by another media source.


Funny the writers name is Corn. Hey, CORN, isn't that the name of the group that is distancing itself from you Paul?


have the usual right-wing ideologues making excuses for him. I may be wrong, but I don't recall any left-wing ideologues jumping to Williams's defense!

Look, at the very least, O'Reilly has stated on numerous occasions that he was, "in the Falklands," when he was nowhere CLOSE to the Falklands! O'Reilly also stated that he saved an injured camera operator from possible death during a demonstration during which several people were killed. This is an outright lie, since there were NO DEATHS in that demonstration.

Did Brian Williams do something unethical? YES! Did Bill O'Reilly also do something unethical? YES! At least Brian Williams has done a "mea culpa." O'Reilly, and his supporters have taken a trip to Egypt on this issue.

The two situations are not comparable unless they debunk the photographer story. That would be a story on a specific instance that was inflated. I read the article and watched the video. Mother Jones doesn't present any evidence that he lied.

On your assertion that he said he was "in the Falklands" the only time he uses those specific words in the video is when he says "I was covering the war in the Falklands". That's not the statement Mother Jones claims it to be. This story has been alive for two days now and other then Mother Jones initial report, which failed to show a lie other than using out of context statements like above, no one else has come forward with anything new.

Thus far there is nothing to apologize for. I don't believe it's from a lack of looking.


spinning the O'Reilly lies. No one I know of is spinning to protect Williams. You right-wingers can say all you want about how horrible the reporting of the "liberal" media is, but when one of your own lies in order to enhance his career, anyone who points out the lies comes under attack. This is a very good debating tactic. If you can't refute the story with which you disagree, attack the person or persons who issue the information to the public.
When the Williams story broke, the right-wing media pundits were falling all over themselves to use the situation as an example of how unethical what they refer to as the "liberal" media representatives are. They implied that ALL "liberal" reporters lie. The truth is that we cannot totally trust anyone who makes a living by building ratings in the media.

Here's what O'Reilly said about the riots: "A major riot ensued and many were killed. I was right in the middle of it and nearly died of a heart attack when a soldier standing about ten feet away, pointed his automatic weapon directly at my head." This quote is directly from O'Reilly's book, ironically entitled, "The No Spin Zone." Not one news organization reported even one death in these riots.
Several years later, O'Reilly stated that soldiers, "...were just gunning people down, shooting them down in the streets...with real bullets." He then went on to state how he saved a South American cameraman from being trampled by the crowd.

Lies are lies, Mikey. These two situations are not identical. No two situations are. But they are comparable.

No one is spinning to protect Williams because he talked about a direct incident that is a matter of record. There has only been one direct incident MJ took issue with the photographer story.

The cameraman story has not been proven false. As I stated before, had Mother Jones done that it would be exactly like what Brian Williams did. But they didn't provide anything to show the story was false. Why is that? Am I to assume that Mother Jones didn't look into it?

Now you are giving a new story about an automatic weapon. And you claim it's a lie. You do realize you need to prove it's a lie right? And you've offered none. Am I to believe a riot didn't occur? Am I to believe soldiers didn't intervene? CBS News owns the raw footage. Am I to believe CBS News doesn't want to burn Bill O'Reilly?


find to be unbiased. As they state, the answer as to whether or not O'Reilly lied about being in the Falkland Islands during the war there, is both yes and no. The source is Channel 31 Denver, which is a FOX channel.
Here's the link: http://kdvr.com/2015/02/21/did-bill-oreilly-have-his-brian-williams-mome...

Actually Dale it shows you either didn't read the Mother Jones article or watch the video.

All they did was quote exactly what was in both. This is not an investigative report.

All of these statements come down to how do you define the term "War zone" and like I said if you use the US government's interpretation O'Reilly would be correct.

Maybe you should finally read the Mother Jones article and watch the video. Like I said for something comparable to what Brian Williams did they should prove his story about the photographer was false.


whether of not O'Reilly lied was "...both yes and no." That's not regurgitation of the Mother Jones report. That's their conclusion. And which of us is showing "bias" here?
I am NOT defending Williams.
You ARE defending O'Reilly.

Just to show everyone that Dale did not read the Mother Jones story here is a quote from their story.
"-In his 2001 book, The No Spin Zone: Confrontations With the Powerful and Famous in America, O'Reilly stated, "You know that I am not easily shocked. I've reported on the ground in active war zones from El Salvador to the Falklands."
Conservative journalist Tucker Carlson, in a 2003 book, described how O'Reilly answered a question during a Washington panel discussion about media coverage of the Afghanistan war: "Rather than simply answer the question, O'Reilly began by trying to establish his own bona fides as a war correspondent. 'I've covered wars, okay? I've been there. The Falklands, Northern Ireland, the Middle East. I've almost been killed three times, okay.'"
-In a 2004 column about US soldiers fighting in Iraq, O'Reilly noted, "Having survived a combat situation in Argentina during the Falklands war, I know that life-and-death decisions are made in a flash."
-In 2008, he took a shot at journalist Bill Moyers, saying, "I missed Moyers in the war zones of [the] Falkland conflict in Argentina, the Middle East, and Northern Ireland. I looked for Bill, but I didn't see him.
-In April 2013, while discussing the Boston Marathon bombing, O'Reilly shared a heroic tale of his exploits in the Falklands war:
I was in a situation one time, in a war zone in Argentina, in the Falklands, where my photographer got run down and then hit his head and was bleeding from the ear on the concrete. And the army was chasing us. I had to make a decision. And I dragged him off, you know, but at the same time, I'm looking around and trying to do my job, but I figure I had to get this guy out of there because that was more important."

And now from Dale's "independent investigation" source,

"Here is the public record of what O’Reilly has said:

2001: O’Reilly wrote in his book, “The No Spin Zone: Confrontations With the Powerful and Famous in America,” that his time covering war made him ready for anything. “You know that I am not easily shocked,” he wrote. “I’ve reported on the ground in active war zones from El Salvador to the Falkland Islands, and in chaotic situations like the collapse of the Berlin Wall and the Rodney King riots in Los Angeles.”

2004: In his syndicated column, O’Reilly recalled how he had “survived a combat situation in Argentina during the Falklands War.” He was presumably referring to a protest he covered in Buenos Aires, but his reference to a “combat situation” could reasonably be interpreted as a “war zone.”

2008: Seven years ago on the “O’Reilly Factor,” the host invoked his experience “in the war zones” to taunt Bill Moyers, the veteran journalist with whom he’s feuded for years. “By the way, I missed Moyers in the war zones of the Falkland conflict in Argentina, the Middle East and Northern Ireland,” O’Reilly said. “I looked for Bill, but I didn’t see him.”

2013: During an interview on his Fox News show, O’Reilly once again described the protest but said it took place “in a war zone in Argentina, in the Falklands.”

“Because I was in a situation one time, in a war zone in Argentina, in the Falklands, where my photographer got run down and then hit his head and was bleeding from the ear on the concrete,” O’Reilly told his guest.

Some of O’Reilly’s statements seem much less questionable.

2009: During an on-air segment with Bernard Goldberg, himself a former CBS News journalist, O’Reilly said that the network “sent me to El Salvador and to cover the Falkland Islands war in Argentina.

2011: After reading an email from a viewer who was honeymooning down in Argentina, O’Reilly noted his history with the region.

“Tell everybody down there I covered the Falklands War,” he told the viewer. “They’ll remember.”

2012: O’Reilly read an email from a viewer based in the Falkland Islands and said he had “a little soft spot” for the region, given that he “covered the Falklands War.”"

The additional bullets added by Channel 31 come from the Mother Jones published video. This is not an independent investigation but a report of the Mother Jones story with Bill's response at the end.

A story about a story... not an investigation. They clearly used the video as their source and not the article. They also removed Mother Jones' commentary language.


would create are estimated to last about 2 years. The number of PERMANENT jobs to be created would be 35- 50. That's 35-50, NOT 35-50,000! 35-50.
While thousands of jobs for 2 years is better than nothing, those pushing this project are talking only about job creation, and not pointing out that these jobs are temporary. In addition, upon the completion of the Keystone XL Pipeline, permanent jobs would be eliminated for those who are now working for railroads which would no longer need so many workers as they currently need for transporting oil from the Alberta oilfields. So, the net effect on permanent jobs may well be negative.
And with America, under Obama, becoming the leading producer of oil in the world, and concurrently becoming a net oil exporter, where's the need for this pipeline? Since the oil processors are in line for incentives at an estimated cost of $1.0-1.8 billion, isn't this a case of adding to the federal deficit for an unnecessary, duplicative pipeline?

Also. The Keystone Pipeline already exists and is full operational. This is an additional spur being added to a pipeline which already exists.

What is a "War Zone"?

Well according to the US government... right now I am in a War Zone.

I receive Combat Exclusion pay. This is money I get for being in the middle east right now. I am not armed. I do not feel like I am in any danger. Yet, they do classify me as being in a War Zone at this very moment.


Williams and O'Reilly both lied. No so-called "liberal" is defending Williams. A LOT of self-proclaimed "conservatives" ARE defending O'Reilly. If you enjoy being part of the crowd of hypocrites, continue. It is your right.

According to the US government's definition of a war zone, O'Reilly didn't lie.

So.... it's up to Mother Jones and you to prove the lie.

Notice I tend to comment about media issues because of my background. Yet, I didn't say a thing about Brian Williams. Yeah it was clear he lied by day 3, but I wasn't calling for his suspension. I don't think he can anchor anymore and his days as a field reporter are probably finished but that doesn't mean he can't do a show like Chris Hanson or Barbara Walters. Prior to highlighting the lie there wasn't some concerted effort to get him off the air.

The difference between Williams and O'Reilly is groups like Mother Jones and Media Matters have been trying to get O'Reilly off the air for years. So I am highly suspect of anything those groups put out because they have an agenda.

You have fallen into the trap by trusting a news source with no credibility. Then you put forth that bullshit link and claim it's an independent investigation. It's clearly ideological and it's being done by the far left because they see a new angle they can try on O'Reilly.

Now.... if the photographer story is false then that would be the equivalent to what Williams did and FoxNews should take action. But as of yet that hasn't been proven and CBS owns the footage and CBS would love to take down O'Reilly.

The problem with this story is those involved have agenda's and are media personalities and thus everything brought forward the source MUST be considered. With the Williams story it was soldiers who've gained nothing from highlighting the truth.


anyone in the media to report accurately, or to be always honest, because they rely upon ratings to have a successful newscast, and they rely upon image to have a sustainable career. IMHO -- You are the one who has fallen into a trap, Mikey.

The link I cited is one which is the Fox affiliate in Denver. They stated in their analysis that the answer to the question of whether or not O'Reilly lied is, "both yes and no." Now, you may feel that this particular Fox affiliate is part of the liberal media. And I will agree that Mother Jones has a left-wing agenda. But Channel 31's analysis was made by them, based upon all of the information available to them. If they have changed their minds, I'm unaware of it. Apparently, as so often happens with you, your argument is not with me, but with Channel 31 Fox in Denver. Why don't you email a complaint to them, Mikey?

All they did was repeat Mother Jones citations and give both sides. It wasn't analysis at all.

Analysis would be looking through and bringing facts to the story. They brought nothing and only repeated was was already out there.


Mikey -- Keep arguing with Channel 31 Fox news in Denver, if you wish.

O'Reilly definitely lied. He stated in his book that "many were killed" in the chaos in Buenos Aires. In fact NO ONE WAS KILLED! In addition, of all those who were with CBS in Buenos Aires covering the war situation, NOT ONE REMEMBERS ANYONE, NO CAMERAMAN OR ANYONE ELSE, being wounded in any way.
Here is another link to that, apparently aberrant Fox affiliate, Channel 31 in Denver. I guess they are being duped by Mother Jones, Mikey. Once again, your argument is not with me, but with my Fox News source!
Here's the link to the latest article:

I didn't ignore that. There is a question of is it a lie or is he remembering an event from over 25 years ago incorrectly? Like I said... the photographer story is a direct story. If it comes out the photographer was not injured in any way then yes, it's a total lie and Fox should do something. He has sinced named the photographer, Roberto Moreno. CBS owns any footage. It's easily disprovable or provable.

Until I see any type of statement from Moreno or footage that proves or disproves that story I am willing to give O'Reilly slack.

Moreno has declined comment thus far. That shows he's pretty disinterested in being a part of the story so I would take him to be credible.


The quote is from O'Reilly's book, which was published in 2001, 14 years ago!

Look, it's quite simple, really. O'Reilly's in show biz. Enhancing one's image in show biz is typical. Almost everyone in show biz lies, or at least exaggerates, to enhance his/her image. O'Reilly and Williams are just the latest to get caught. Williams is contrite; O'Reilly is unrepentant! "No Spin Zone," indeed!

Don't trust what anyone in show biz states about themselves, Mikey. Or, just keep on spinnin' for ol' Bill!

You read my post as much as you read the Mother Jones article. The EVENT is over 25 years old. The Falklands war took place in the early 80s.


I will quote you, "...or is he remembering an event from over 25 years ago incorrectly?" When he wrote about the killings in the Argentine riots, the events were NOT 25 years in the past. His comments were from the book he published 14 years ago, less than 20 years after the event -- and he was working on it for some time before it was published, too. And this was in a book. He had time to prepare his manuscript and recheck anything he put in his book. It was NOT an interview where he was answering a question on-the-spot. In addition, it is my understanding that over the years between the Falklands War and the publishing of this book, O'Reilly referred to his personal heroism while covering the Falklands War many times. As an entertainer, trying to polish his image as so many do, he exaggerated the danger he was in, and exaggerated his heroism by claiming he pulled an injured co-worker to safety.
Will you please quit making excuses for this professional journalist/ entertainer -- and quite a successful one at that? Just because he's one of your tight-wing heroes, doesn't mean he has better scruples than most in show biz.
"No Spin Zone" indeed. You two are spinning so much, you may throw up from dizziness!

Uh Dale.

I was speaking of the specific EVENT. EVENT EVENT EVENT. That means specific instance. Not overall situation. Not overall war. Not generalization. I was talking about the story with the photographer. The only thing truely tangible. He first talked about it, according to Mother Jones, in 2013. He did NOT mention it in 2001, just the overall war.

Now... look back at my comments. The whole "war zone" argument is really a semantics argument. Politico's editorial section even agrees with my assessment of this. So a semantics argument is unwinnable for Mother Jones in their claims of what should happen.

So... I'm dealing with where he gave specific information. What was specific? The photographer story.

Now if I reasonably assume that it happened from 82-84 (we've since learned that this was the case but I didn't know at the time) it's close to 30 years but since I was assuming I said over 25 to be safe.

No spin here. I am taking objective information and only using objective information. Like I said... if they can prove the photographer story false then Fox should take action as NBC did. But as more facts are brought to light about the story it doesn't look like the story was false.


This is a very simple issue to decide. The reason none of the typical socialists are defending Williams is, that's what they do in these situations. Ponder the scene from the movie "Titannic", where the rats were running to escape the water. Be it an ordinary rat or a liberal rat, deserting sinking ships is what they are most commonly known for.

I wasn't aware that this is an ideological issue.

Double post. Sorry.

CBS News releases Falklands War footage and it supports O'Reillys telling of events.

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/ex-nbc-bureau-chief-backs-up-oreillys-account... (video included)

As I stated earlier there was video that would have supported or disproved the story. The video shows a chaotic riot situation. From the video describing it as a war zone seems accurate and Dan Rather's wording supports that as well.

Don Browne, CBS's bureau chief at the time, also is supporting O'Reilly's description of the situation.

Telling is that the video has quotes in it from Eric Engberg and his report supports Bill's side yet he does not stand by these comments 30 years later and the story suggests he has anti-Fox motives.

The lesson here is not to trust ideological based news sources like Mother Jones. They could have easily requested this footage from CBS News. Instead they poured over Bill's television and books to find a gotcha without regard to the truth.


I also remember the riots. From viewing the tape of O'Reilly's show, he admitted that he, himself, saw no one killed. He admitted that he reported deaths because he was told that people were killed. The CBS report showed riot police and/or Argentine military shooting tear gas and rubber bullets. They, at least on the tape shown on the O'Reilly show, did not fire live rounds into crowds, and no one was shown dead or dying on the ground.
In addition, the NBC executive who was interviewed spoke of the fighting in El Salvador and the Falklands as places where a young reporter, as O'Reilly was then, would, "...want to get his ticket punched." People in show biz do things that I would never do. O'Reilly, obviously, volunteered for dangerous duty because he wanted to further his career. Is it so hard to imagine that he would exaggerate the danger of the events he was following to further polish his image?
O'Reilly implied that he was actually IN the Falklands. That is open to interpretation. But his statement in his book about the deaths during the riots, many years later, after he had to know the truth that there were no confirmed deaths in the Buenos Aires riots, is a fallacious statement, period! O'Reilly made a choice of what to say in his book. This statement was quite unequivocal. But, you may keep defending him. Just remember, Mikey, he's in show biz!


I would describe the video the riotting as a war zone... since the riotting was due to an actual war.

Dan Rather's report in the video even makes that clear. Dan Rather: "The Demonstrators began chanting 'Traitor! Traitor!" and "This is the end of the military dictatorship." later in the video he says "The war is over but there is new fighting, on the streets of Buenos Aires and there are signs that the last casualty of the Argentine War could be the military junta." A government overthrow is generally described as.... a war zone.


On to the photographer story. You quoted an article where colleagues have claimed Bill is lying. In that it states "They also doubt his description of a CBS cameraman being injured in the chaos.

“Nobody remembers this happening,” said Manny Alvarez, who was a cameraman for CBS News in Buenos Aires.

Well again I reference the CBS News video from the day in question. In the video Dan Rather states "some cameramen were knocked to the ground". And one of those colleagues Eric Engberg had stated "if a cameraman had been "bleeding from the ear" he would have immediately reported that to his superiors at the hotel." https://www.facebook.com/eric.j.engberg/posts/10204873374051471 Well apparently there was a report because it made it onto the CBS Nightly News.

So... no spinning here. The actual report from the day it occurred. Supports Bill's story.

Sorry Dale, you put your trust in people who report news from an ideological base. That will always fail.

What's sad is the CBS News footage is a matter of record that Mother Jones could have checked. Why didn't they? Why would you not check to see if a story is true or not before running to print? Probably when you're not concerned with the truth.


person making his money in show biz. O'Reilly is not backing down from his report of the incidents to which he refers from his coverage in Buenos Aires. O'Reilly is not placing blame upon the amount of time that has passed. Why are you? O'Reilly does not seem to be unsure in any way about his version of his self-reported heroic act to save his colleague, yet you ascribe his misremembering as a possibility. That's spin, Mikey!

Keep arguing with Channel 31 Fox Denver, about this. Their original story, linked above, specifically listed quotes from O'Reilly which were either fallacious on their face, or argumentative at best. They also listed what they perceived to be statements which were consistent with O'Reilly's spin. O'Reilly has not denied one of these quotes. His arguments are with the interpretation of these quotes. The quotes are accurate, Mikey.
This, to me, is an example of analysis by Channel 31. You are free to disagree with their analysis, but analysis it is! Perhaps they are even risking their Fox affiliation by reporting about this Fox Network star in an unbiased way. After all...it's show biz!!

Why should he back away from them? The video clearly shows it was a dangerous and chaotic situation. The video has proven him correct and Mother Jones wrong.

I'm not arguing with anyone. The video shows that O'Reilly is right. Dan Rather's words from 1982 show he is right. There's no arugment. There is right and wrong and O'Reilly was right.


Ignore those questions you don't wish to face. That's what a good politician -- dare I say ideologue -- does.
I suggest you reread the Channel 31 original article, and focus on ALL of the statements O'Reilly made, not just whether or not there was danger at the demonstrations, including his self-proclaimed heroism in saving his cameraman. Or continue to ignore the questions about which you prefer not to comment. It's your choice.
You may notice that, more than once, O'Reilly referred to his being "in The Falklands." That's misleading at best. But, O'Reilly is in show biz, after all. And he has done extremely well building his career!

Are you getting your information from Mother Jones, or Mother Jefferson, Dale? IMHO it's the latter


Dale as I said before, I am focusing on what is tangible. You are taking other statements and are taking subjective definitions and trying to infer what O'Reilly meant. All he has to say to negate that is say "That isn't what I meant whenI said that." Which is EXACTLY what O'Reilly has done. To prevent that I focused on what they reported that was not subject to interpretation and what could be proven by facts. You're accusing me of spinning but I have ONLY used facts. In the meantime you are using political hit pieces and partisan sources.

It's funny my analysis of how this could play out was supported by Politico, definitely not an ideological right source.



opinion piece that, I believe, accurately describes why O'Reilly is not in nearly so much trouble as was Williams.
I also like a piece from the "Times" website, which takes a slightly different view. This makes sense to me.
Welcome to the "truthiness" squad, Mikey. Jus' keep on a spinnin'!
I still contend, you can't trust anyone fully who is in show biz.

What it says is Mother Jones failed to make its case. Their definitive claims have either been debunked or are open to interpretation. The video shows a situation like O'Reilly described. It even has a voice over from Engberg counter to what Engberg now claims.


Believe whatever you want to believe, Mikey. It's show biz!
(Spin, spin, spin!)

It is in the video. It is not a matter of belief it's a matter of proof. If anyone has an arguementative of belief it is you.


And where did it show O'Reilly saving the wounded cameraman?
And where did the video show dead bodies?

Spin in the "No Spin Zone."
Keep spinnin', Mikey.
That's show biz!

and where did it show O'Reilly saving the wounded cameraman? I never said it did. I said Dan Rather states in the video "Cameramen were pushed to the ground." Now if Dan Rather is going back in time and spinning it now would be news to me.

"And where did the video show dead bodies?" Eric Engberg is quoted in the video saying there were "serious casualties" and when Dan Rather comes back on he states that the military junta said no one was killed but it is clear in the wording and tone that CBS News believed the military junta was passing propaganda.

No spin. Just presenting the facts from the video.


The video proved nothing.
O'Reilly was and is in show biz.
This is all GREAT for him.
It appeals to his followers, like you, Mikey.
It keeps his rating high.
So...just keep spinnin'.
That's show biz!


Statements made are the opinion of the writer who is exercising his first amendment right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and are generally permitted.


Statements made are the opinion of the writer who is exercising his first amendment right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and are generally permitted.

The video proved that the cameraman story was true, it proved that it was extremely dangerous and could reasonably described as a war zone, and it proved that Engberg was wrong on what he accused Bill of.

I have already gives you factual direct quotes and the citation for context. If I am wrong please prove it, but the stories you keep citing are not proving it as I've again shown with direct quotes from both.


This is just like the old days when W, the oilman, was leading us into bankruptcy and outrageously high fuel prices, right?
And we have to allow the Keystone XL Pipeline to be built, don't we? The pipelines we now have are inadequate to bring in the necessary crude to keep our economy going.

But wait! There's now so much crude in the U.S. that we are running out of storage room? How can this be? Here's a link to the article: http://news.yahoo.com/us-running-room-store-oil-price-collapse-next-1710...

Since most crude oil is in the ground, the "storage question" is a totally moot issue.

Why do we need a duplicative, new, additional pipeline to deliver more of something, when we already have so much of it we can't handle it all?
And, while creating jobs is a good thing to do, almost all of the jobs would go bye-bye as soon as the construction would be completed, because the termination points already have more oil than they can handle! It's duplicative!!

Get with the program! This is the 21st Century and has been for 15 years now! We simply do not need a greater capacity to procure oil at this time, or in the near future.

Chris, you may remove anytime.

"Why do we need a duplicative, new, additional pipeline to deliver more of something, when we already have so much of it we can't handle it all?" I think that perhaps "deliver" is the key word here, and "we have". The thing here is, oil is a very vital commodity. And what we have, we can sell, to the "we have nots" That creates many more jobs, and generates even more tax dollars. Also, fifteen years into the 21st. Century, the Middle East is at its' most unstable and explosive point of all time. Once it really explodes, people having even rudimentary intelligence will understand just how important this pipeline will be.

do you not understand?

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.