IF I WAS BLACK, POOR AND CAUGHT IN GENERATIONAL POVERTY i WOULD BE RIOTING TOO !!!!

Could it have been because Buffet is better at lobbying? Originally Posted by LexusLover

Right because Buffet personally finances every single "dimocrap".

We don't have to do SHIT. If you're going to sit there on your fat ass and try and tell me that republicans care about the environment, you can go suck IB's dick. They have NEVER shown any interest in the environment. Most of them believe jeebus crabst is coming back anyway, so fuck the earth. Simple-minded morons. I'm still waiting on you to prove a god, any god, exists. Originally Posted by WombRaider

I already pointed out to you that Nixon started the EPA, you and eva have short memorys

Now IB point out some more republicans that were concerned about the environment

http://www.nps.gov/thro/learn/histor...nservation.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationa...ervice#History

We don't have to do SHIT. If you're going to sit there on your fat ass and try and tell me that republicans care about the environment, you can go suck IB's dick. They have NEVER shown any interest in the environment. Originally Posted by WombRaider

Yes undercunt you lying stooge, Republicans DO care about the environment. That's why they passed the Keystone XL Pipeline Approval Act two months ago. Your pal Odumbo vetoed it because he doesn't care about the environment. Evidently he prefers to see more nasty, befouling train accidents - like this one 4 days ago in Heimdal, North Dakota:





http://www.usnews.com/news/us/articl...th-dakota-town

I already pointed out to you that Nixon started the EPA, you and eva have short memorys

Now IB point out some more republicans that were concerned about the environment

http://www.nps.gov/thro/learn/histor...nservation.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationa...ervice#History Originally Posted by cptjohnstone

I guess you forgot about republicans wanting to abolish the EPA? My memory is just fine, dickcheese. Teddy Roosevelt? Jesus Christ, why don't you trot out Old George Washington for shit's sake.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/201...-for-our-kids/

http://thehill.com/policy/energy-env...gainst-the-epa

they're even willing to shutdown the government over it. So don't trot out Tricky Dick and act like it's all ok.

http://www.politicususa.com/2014/06/...epa-rules.html

Yes undercunt you lying stooge, Republicans DO care about the environment. That's why they passed the Keystone XL Pipeline Approval Act two months ago. Your pal Odumbo vetoed it because he doesn't care about the environment. Evidently he prefers to see more nasty, befouling train accidents - like this one 4 days ago in Heimdal, North Dakota:





http://www.usnews.com/news/us/articl...th-dakota-town Originally Posted by lustylad

If you want to sit there and pretend that passing the Keystone Pipeline has ANYTHING to do with the environment, you're a fucking moron.

It looks like you're just parroting the party line though, as I see your fat boy Huckabee is doing the same thing. Never let a disaster go to political waste, right? Seems like they're stealing a play from good old Rahm Emanuel's playbook.

It's not going to create jobs. That much is painfully obvious now as it's been admitted that it will create roughly 35 jobs once it's finished. Pitiful. So, they've got to create a reason to still be for it. Voila. The environment, yeah, let's push that angle. Even though we've never pushed it before unless it benefitted us.

Not to mention, the myth of pipelines being safer, it's bullshit:

"It’s true that oil rail accidents have shot up in recent years … but that doesn’t make Keystone less dangerous than train shipments. Trains are more likely than pipelines to have accidents, but their accidents are less environmentally devastating: The International Energy Agency’s eight-year analysis of oil spills found the risk of a spill is six times higher for rail than pipeline shipments, but a pipeline accident spills three times as much oil as a rail shipment.

Furthermore, it’s unlikely the pipeline will relieve congestion in North Dakota, which is the primary reason for the spike in oil transport. About 10 percent of the nation’s crude oil travels by rail, except in North Dakota, where two-thirds of Bakken crude oil moves by train. Senator Heidi Heitkamp, a North Dakota Democrat and a Keystone supporter, had the best argument explaining why this particular pro-Keystone argument fails: “I am not someone who has ever said that the Keystone Pipeline will take crude off the rails. It won’t. Our markets are east and west and it would be extraordinarily difficult to build pipelines east and west.” Keystone would run south through the U.S., to refineries at the Gulf Coast."


http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-s...-push-keystone


Once again, you've had your ass handed to you. Keep posting your train fire pictures, dumbass.

If you want to sit there and pretend that passing the Keystone Pipeline has ANYTHING to do with the environment, you're a fucking moron.

It looks like you're just parroting the party line though, as I see your fat boy Huckabee is doing the same thing. Never let a disaster go to political waste, right? Seems like they're stealing a play from good old Rahm Emanuel's playbook.

It's not going to create jobs. That much is painfully obvious now as it's been admitted that it will create roughly 35 jobs once it's finished. Pitiful. So, they've got to create a reason to still be for it. Voila. The environment, yeah, let's push that angle. Even though we've never pushed it before unless it benefitted us.

Not to mention, the myth of pipelines being safer, it's bullshit:

"It’s true that oil rail accidents have shot up in recent years … but that doesn’t make Keystone less dangerous than train shipments. Trains are more likely than pipelines to have accidents, but their accidents are less environmentally devastating: The International Energy Agency’s eight-year analysis of oil spills found the risk of a spill is six times higher for rail than pipeline shipments, but a pipeline accident spills three times as much oil as a rail shipment.

Furthermore, it’s unlikely the pipeline will relieve congestion in North Dakota, which is the primary reason for the spike in oil transport. About 10 percent of the nation’s crude oil travels by rail, except in North Dakota, where two-thirds of Bakken crude oil moves by train. Senator Heidi Heitkamp, a North Dakota Democrat and a Keystone supporter, had the best argument explaining why this particular pro-Keystone argument fails: “I am not someone who has ever said that the Keystone Pipeline will take crude off the rails. It won’t. Our markets are east and west and it would be extraordinarily difficult to build pipelines east and west.” Keystone would run south through the U.S., to refineries at the Gulf Coast."


http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-s...-push-keystone


Once again, you've had your ass handed to you. Keep posting your train fire pictures, dumbass. Originally Posted by WombRaider

Always ready to spout off more dimocrap talking points on a subject you know nothing about, undercunt? Only a complete dipshit would even try to parrot the utterly discredited claim that the Keystone pipeline will only generate 35 jobs. Oh wait, you said “once it's finished”! Now I get it! Let's just ignore all those jobs spawned directly and indirectly to build the fucker. Let's only count how many guys will be left behind to run it afterwards. That's like saying let's not build the Golden Gate Bridge because it will only give jobs to a dozen toll-booth collectors once it's finished! What's amazing is how you dimocraps will trot out inflated multipliers whenever you want to puff up your estimates of the economic impact of government stimulus and spending programs, but then you turn around and deliberately understate to the point of absurdity the economic benefits of a project funded entirely with private money! But that's a matter for discussion another time. Suffice it to say here that the freelance faggot from Arkansas has been caught brazenly lying his ass off again. Even Odumbo's own State Department estimated the Keystone pipeline will create 42,100 jobs. At least they made an effort to count honestly.

The only thing more pathetic than your job-counting is your math skill, undercunt. You say the idea that pipelines are safer than railcars is “bullshit” - but then you cite an IEA analysis whose numbers suggest we spill twice as much oil shipping by rail! You even highlighted this conclusion! If rail spills 1/3 as much but 6X as often, then.... aw, do your own fucking math, you dunce! You just proved my point. And that's even before considering the human safety aspect. Pipeline spills rarely cause fatalities, but a single railcar accident in Quebec, Canada last July killed 47 people! Of course, that doesn't bother the freelance faggot from Arkansas as long as none of those oil tankers blow up in his little town of dogpatch!

Oh, and btw undercunt, your pal Heidi Heitkamp is directly contradicted by North Dakota's other US Senator, who says the Keystone pipeline will definitely ease rail congestion in the state:

The Congressional Research Service report said that of the Keystone Pipeline’s 830,000 barrels per day ultimate capacity, up to 12 percent has been set aside to transport Bakken crude... The Senate bill’s chief sponsor, Sen. John Hoeven, R-N.D., told us last week, “Once Keystone is built, that will go in pipeline instead of having to run 14 100-car unit trains a day. So you can see it will help reduce congestion on the rails. … We need it so we can move other goods.”

http://blogs.rollcall.com/the-contai...ngestion/?dcz=

Bottom line is you've been caught lying on all sides of this issue, undercunt. It's time for you to hide under your bed now. As usual, you stupidly claim victory when it's your own ass that has been handed back to you.

.

Always ready to spout off more dimocrap talking points on a subject you know zilch about, undercunt? Only a complete dipshit would even try to parrot the utterly discredited claim that the Keystone pipeline will only generate 35 jobs. Oh wait, you said “once it's finished”! Now I get it! Let's just ignore all those jobs spawned directly and indirectly to build the fucker. Let's only count how many guys are left behind to run it afterwards. That's like saying let's not build the Golden Gate bridge because it will only give jobs to a dozen toll-booth collectors once it's finished! What's amazing is how you dimocraps will trot out inflated multipliers whenever you want to puff up your estimates of the economic impact of government stimulus and spending programs, but then you turn around and deliberately understate to the point of absurdity the economic benefits of a project funded entirely with private money! But that's a matter for discussion another time. Suffice it to say here that the freelance faggot from Arkansas has been caught brazenly lying his ass off again. Even Odumbo's own State Department estimated the Keystone pipeline will create 42,100 jobs. And they counted honestly.

The only thing more pathetic than your job-counting is your math skill, undercunt. You say the idea that pipelines are safer than railcars is “bullshit” - but then you cite an IEA analysis whose numbers suggest we will spill twice as much oil shipping by rail! You even highlighted this conclusion! If rail spills 1/3 as much but 6X as often, then.... aw, do your own fucking math, you dunce! You just proved my point. And that's even before considering the human safety aspect. Pipeline spills rarely cause fatalities, but a single railcar accident in Quebec, Canada last July killed 47 people! Of course, that doesn't bother the freelance faggot from Arkansas as long as none of those oil tankers blow up in his little town of dogpatch!

Oh, and btw undercunt, your pal Heidi Heitkamp is directly contradicted by North Dakota's other US Senator, who says the Keystone pipeline will definitely ease rail congestion in the state:

The Congressional Research Service report said that of the Keystone Pipeline’s 830,000 barrels per day ultimate capacity, up to 12 percent has been set aside to transport Bakken crude... The Senate bill’s chief sponsor, Sen. John Hoeven, R-N.D., told us last week, “Once Keystone is built, that will go in pipeline instead of having to run 14 100-car unit trains a day. So you can see it will help reduce congestion on the rails. … We need it so we can move other goods.”

http://blogs.rollcall.com/the-contai...ngestion/?dcz=

Bottom line is you've been caught lying on all sides of this issue, undercunt. I think it's time for you to hide under your bed now. As usual, you stupidly claim victory when your own ass has been handed back to you.

. Originally Posted by lustylad

Once again you've been proven as a sodomized gruberite. You've lied about the math, seeing as how you didn't even try to figure it out, you just claimed victory. I've worked it out in my head, now I demand to see your work and proof that more spills are because of rail. Before 2010, 99 percent of transport by rail got to its destination safe and sound. Only after oil prices made it possible to make money off the tar sands in Canada, only then do we suddenly need this pipeline. Only then did they start overworking the rail system. To honestly believe this is about anything other than money, is to be full of bullshit. Honest care about the environment is the last thing on their minds.

More reading for you. You won't like it. It says you're a dumbass.


"In the U.S., 70% of crude oil and petroleum products are shipped by pipeline. 23% of oil shipments are on tankers and barges over water. Trucking only accounts for 4% of shipments, and rail for a mere 3%"

Once again you've been proven as a sodomized gruberite. You've lied about the math, seeing as how you didn't even try to figure it out, you just claimed victory. I've worked it out in my head, now I demand to see your work and proof that more spills are because of rail... Originally Posted by WombRaider

You really ARE that stupid, aintcha? What exactly have you “worked out” in your head, douchebag? How to hide the fact that you flunked basic algebra?

X = qty of oil spilled per rail accident
3X = qty of oil spilled per pipeline accident
Y = frequency of pipeline accidents
6Y = frequency of rail accidents

6XY = total qty spilled using railcars
3XY = total qty spilled using pipelines

6XY/3XY = 2 = railcars spill twice as much as pipelines

But somehow - according to your inverted, demented "logic" - the fact that railcars spill twice as much oil proves "the myth of pipelines being safer", lol!

Give it up, flunkee! You lose again - at math, at logic, at politics, and at life! You even lose at being a convincing liar - by a 7:1 margin, according to our just-completed eccie poll. One glance at your forehead says it all!

You really ARE that stupid, aintcha? What exactly have you “worked out” in your head, douchebag? How to hide the fact that you flunked basic algebra?

X = qty of oil spilled per rail accident
3X = qty of oil spilled per pipeline accident
Y = frequency of pipeline accidents
6Y = frequency of rail accidents

6XY = total qty spilled using railcars
3XY = total qty spilled using pipelines

6XY/3XY = 2 = railcars spill twice as much as pipelines

Give it up, flunkee! You lose again - at math, at logic, at politics, and in life! You even lose at being a convincing liar - by a 7:1 margin, according to our just-completed eccie poll. One glance at your forehead says it all!


Originally Posted by lustylad

You're incorrect again. Not only that, you've fallen into my little trap. You've been handed your ass so many times, it must be embarrassing. You gave up on proving god, I guess. Since that was a losing proposition that even Aquinas couldn't manage. And you sir, are no Thomas Aquinas.

That little equation of yours has only been the case for the last four years, since the economics allowed the tar sands to be a viable source of oil. 30 years previous, it was not the case and trains were quite safe. So suck on all that dick, you buffoon. You've been grubered, you odumbo sodomite. You've lied and misrepresented those numbers as having always been true and they weren't. I knew you couldn't pass up showing everyone what a big man you were and you fell right into my trap you gruberized odumbo cum-guzzling cocktard.

Go build the Golden Gate Bridge and SHOVE it up your ass. Everyone has seen you for the lying and misrepresenting turd that you are. A feckless turd that not even the toilet bowl would take without recoiling in horror. You have misrepresented and lied about the safety of transporting oil by rail. For 30 plus years, it was safe. Until greed and incompetence took over. Greed on the part of your republitard kin. They can almost taste the money flowing in through that pipeline, the environment be goddamned. Right dickhole?

You really ARE that stupid, aintcha? Originally Posted by lustylad

Actually, it's worse than that ....HE IS STUPID.

Statistically speaking gas and oil via a pipeline is all about the environment and efficiency.

Just the fact he would accuse some of being "gruberized" is sufficiently STUPID.

Only a complete dipshit would even try to parrot the utterly discredited claim that the Keystone pipeline will only generate 35 jobs. Originally Posted by lustylad

http://www.eccie.net/showthread.php?...light=pipeline

Recognizing that Want-a-be-a-Womb hasn't been around long, and that BigLouie is light years ahead of him in intelligence, most of Want-a-be-a-Womb's talking points have already been debunked in this forum, and ..

what does Keystone have to do with the OP?

You really ARE that stupid, aintcha? What exactly have you “worked out” in your head, douchebag? How to hide the fact that you flunked basic algebra?

X = qty of oil spilled per rail accident
3X = qty of oil spilled per pipeline accident
Y = frequency of pipeline accidents
6Y = frequency of rail accidents

6XY = total qty spilled using railcars
3XY = total qty spilled using pipelines

6XY/3XY = 2 = railcars spill twice as much as pipelines
Originally Posted by lustylad

Listen, I'm as glad as anyone that you can do 5th grade algebra, shows we haven't been completely wasting our time trying to knock some sense into your thick head.
BUT, once again, you are being deliberately ignorant just to find a way to prove your point. Think about it this way. Which one is harder to control, 6 separate, easily detectable oil railroad accidents, or 1 pipeline accident in ONE location that goes undetected and spills 3 times the load inside the ground or even a lake? My hope is that if you can do 5th grade algebra, this one shouldn't be so hard to figure out.

Not to mention that most railroad accidents happen on the surface, which makes them easy to clean up. Pipeline accidents, on the other hand, seep inside the ground (and very often) into lakes and other bodies of water. Remember the spills in the Kalamazoo and Yellowstone rivers?

Look, just take a minute and be honest with yourself. You know that republitards don't give a shit about the environment. Remember when that half-wit senator brought in a snowball to prove that global warming doesn't exist? Yeah. It's fine if you don't believe in climate change, but to completely ignore that there even might be a problem, especially after all the science and research backs it up, well...that's just fucking dishonest and I'm sure you know that.
It's also perfectly fine if you want to delude yourself into thinking that repubtards care about the environment, but if you want to prove that pipelines are somehow "better for the environment", you better come up with something more substantive than the crock-of-shit you just posted.

Not to mention that most railroad accidents happen on the surface, which makes them easy to clean up. Pipeline accidents, on the other hand, seep inside the ground (and very often) into lakes and other bodies of water. Remember the spills in the Kalamazoo and Yellowstone rivers? Originally Posted by shanm

Life is simple for simpletons ....



Here is a "simpleton oil spill" ...





.... just shoot them in the leg .... call for help and the emts.....

.... See Below .................

Life is simple for simpletons ....



Here is a "simpleton oil spill" ...
Originally Posted by LexusLover

More irrelevant pictures from our chief irrelevant idiot

NO, that EXXON or was the BP or something else ?

The opening post!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/0...n_7257746.html Originally Posted by joner

Huh?



This is a pipeline. What happens if it ruptures or leaks?