Total Posts:19|Showing Posts:1-19
Jump to topic:

The Keystone Pipeline Debate

1Historygenius
Posts: 1,639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2015 1:29:17 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
It really seems to me that this debate really shouldn't be as big and divisive as it is. In fact, it isn't really considering most Americans overwhelmingly support Keystone. Yet we have a president who is against for some limited environmental changes even though it would be more dangerous for oil to be traveled by truck down the nation or rerouted to China, which has lower environmental standards. Pass the law, give the construction workers there jobs, let the permanent workers have their jobs even if it is a small as 30, let the oil be sent into the nation as well as exported and let's then stop debating the issue.
"The chief business of the American people is business." - Calvin Coolidge

Latest debate - Reagan was a better President than Obama: http://www.debate.org...
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,208
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2015 2:20:53 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/9/2015 1:29:17 AM, 1Historygenius wrote:
It really seems to me that this debate really shouldn't be as big and divisive as it is. In fact, it isn't really considering most Americans overwhelmingly support Keystone. Yet we have a president who is against for some limited environmental changes even though it would be more dangerous for oil to be traveled by truck down the nation or rerouted to China, which has lower environmental standards. Pass the law, give the construction workers there jobs, let the permanent workers have their jobs even if it is a small as 30, let the oil be sent into the nation as well as exported and let's then stop debating the issue.

States rights?

Last I heard, a handful of states along the proposed route were not cool with the idea. Not sure if its changed, but if it hasn't, is that a valid argument?
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
1Historygenius
Posts: 1,639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2015 2:50:53 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/9/2015 2:20:53 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 1/9/2015 1:29:17 AM, 1Historygenius wrote:
It really seems to me that this debate really shouldn't be as big and divisive as it is. In fact, it isn't really considering most Americans overwhelmingly support Keystone. Yet we have a president who is against for some limited environmental changes even though it would be more dangerous for oil to be traveled by truck down the nation or rerouted to China, which has lower environmental standards. Pass the law, give the construction workers there jobs, let the permanent workers have their jobs even if it is a small as 30, let the oil be sent into the nation as well as exported and let's then stop debating the issue.

States rights?

Last I heard, a handful of states along the proposed route were not cool with the idea. Not sure if its changed, but if it hasn't, is that a valid argument?

A handful out of many, we shouldn't have to deal with a few governors in a few states who may oppose what the greater nation can enjoy.
"The chief business of the American people is business." - Calvin Coolidge

Latest debate - Reagan was a better President than Obama: http://www.debate.org...
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,208
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2015 2:56:06 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/9/2015 2:50:53 AM, 1Historygenius wrote:
At 1/9/2015 2:20:53 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 1/9/2015 1:29:17 AM, 1Historygenius wrote:
It really seems to me that this debate really shouldn't be as big and divisive as it is. In fact, it isn't really considering most Americans overwhelmingly support Keystone. Yet we have a president who is against for some limited environmental changes even though it would be more dangerous for oil to be traveled by truck down the nation or rerouted to China, which has lower environmental standards. Pass the law, give the construction workers there jobs, let the permanent workers have their jobs even if it is a small as 30, let the oil be sent into the nation as well as exported and let's then stop debating the issue.

States rights?

Last I heard, a handful of states along the proposed route were not cool with the idea. Not sure if its changed, but if it hasn't, is that a valid argument?

A handful out of many, we shouldn't have to deal with a few governors in a few states who may oppose what the greater nation can enjoy.

So, states rights are subject to majority vote of people -outside- their state?
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2015 9:47:38 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/9/2015 2:56:06 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 1/9/2015 2:50:53 AM, 1Historygenius wrote:
At 1/9/2015 2:20:53 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 1/9/2015 1:29:17 AM, 1Historygenius wrote:
It really seems to me that this debate really shouldn't be as big and divisive as it is. In fact, it isn't really considering most Americans overwhelmingly support Keystone. Yet we have a president who is against for some limited environmental changes even though it would be more dangerous for oil to be traveled by truck down the nation or rerouted to China, which has lower environmental standards. Pass the law, give the construction workers there jobs, let the permanent workers have their jobs even if it is a small as 30, let the oil be sent into the nation as well as exported and let's then stop debating the issue.

States rights?

Last I heard, a handful of states along the proposed route were not cool with the idea. Not sure if its changed, but if it hasn't, is that a valid argument?

A handful out of many, we shouldn't have to deal with a few governors in a few states who may oppose what the greater nation can enjoy.

So, states rights are subject to majority vote of people -outside- their state?

Federal Government. Thank you Lincoln.
1Historygenius
Posts: 1,639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2015 10:54:22 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/9/2015 9:47:38 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 1/9/2015 2:56:06 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 1/9/2015 2:50:53 AM, 1Historygenius wrote:
At 1/9/2015 2:20:53 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 1/9/2015 1:29:17 AM, 1Historygenius wrote:
It really seems to me that this debate really shouldn't be as big and divisive as it is. In fact, it isn't really considering most Americans overwhelmingly support Keystone. Yet we have a president who is against for some limited environmental changes even though it would be more dangerous for oil to be traveled by truck down the nation or rerouted to China, which has lower environmental standards. Pass the law, give the construction workers there jobs, let the permanent workers have their jobs even if it is a small as 30, let the oil be sent into the nation as well as exported and let's then stop debating the issue.

States rights?

Last I heard, a handful of states along the proposed route were not cool with the idea. Not sure if its changed, but if it hasn't, is that a valid argument?

A handful out of many, we shouldn't have to deal with a few governors in a few states who may oppose what the greater nation can enjoy.

So, states rights are subject to majority vote of people -outside- their state?

Federal Government. Thank you Lincoln.

Precisely.
"The chief business of the American people is business." - Calvin Coolidge

Latest debate - Reagan was a better President than Obama: http://www.debate.org...
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,208
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2015 11:01:44 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/9/2015 10:54:22 AM, 1Historygenius wrote:
At 1/9/2015 9:47:38 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 1/9/2015 2:56:06 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 1/9/2015 2:50:53 AM, 1Historygenius wrote:
At 1/9/2015 2:20:53 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 1/9/2015 1:29:17 AM, 1Historygenius wrote:
It really seems to me that this debate really shouldn't be as big and divisive as it is. In fact, it isn't really considering most Americans overwhelmingly support Keystone. Yet we have a president who is against for some limited environmental changes even though it would be more dangerous for oil to be traveled by truck down the nation or rerouted to China, which has lower environmental standards. Pass the law, give the construction workers there jobs, let the permanent workers have their jobs even if it is a small as 30, let the oil be sent into the nation as well as exported and let's then stop debating the issue.

States rights?

Last I heard, a handful of states along the proposed route were not cool with the idea. Not sure if its changed, but if it hasn't, is that a valid argument?

A handful out of many, we shouldn't have to deal with a few governors in a few states who may oppose what the greater nation can enjoy.

So, states rights are subject to majority vote of people -outside- their state?

Federal Government. Thank you Lincoln.

Precisely.

-smells a SCotUS challenge-

Wanna do a debate on how it won't happen?
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,208
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2015 11:02:54 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/9/2015 9:47:38 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 1/9/2015 2:56:06 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 1/9/2015 2:50:53 AM, 1Historygenius wrote:
At 1/9/2015 2:20:53 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 1/9/2015 1:29:17 AM, 1Historygenius wrote:
It really seems to me that this debate really shouldn't be as big and divisive as it is. In fact, it isn't really considering most Americans overwhelmingly support Keystone. Yet we have a president who is against for some limited environmental changes even though it would be more dangerous for oil to be traveled by truck down the nation or rerouted to China, which has lower environmental standards. Pass the law, give the construction workers there jobs, let the permanent workers have their jobs even if it is a small as 30, let the oil be sent into the nation as well as exported and let's then stop debating the issue.

States rights?

Last I heard, a handful of states along the proposed route were not cool with the idea. Not sure if its changed, but if it hasn't, is that a valid argument?

A handful out of many, we shouldn't have to deal with a few governors in a few states who may oppose what the greater nation can enjoy.

So, states rights are subject to majority vote of people -outside- their state?

Federal Government. Thank you Lincoln.

-smells a SCotUS challenge-

Wanna do a debate on how it won't happen?
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
1Historygenius
Posts: 1,639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2015 11:03:50 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/9/2015 11:01:44 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 1/9/2015 10:54:22 AM, 1Historygenius wrote:
At 1/9/2015 9:47:38 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 1/9/2015 2:56:06 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 1/9/2015 2:50:53 AM, 1Historygenius wrote:
At 1/9/2015 2:20:53 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 1/9/2015 1:29:17 AM, 1Historygenius wrote:
It really seems to me that this debate really shouldn't be as big and divisive as it is. In fact, it isn't really considering most Americans overwhelmingly support Keystone. Yet we have a president who is against for some limited environmental changes even though it would be more dangerous for oil to be traveled by truck down the nation or rerouted to China, which has lower environmental standards. Pass the law, give the construction workers there jobs, let the permanent workers have their jobs even if it is a small as 30, let the oil be sent into the nation as well as exported and let's then stop debating the issue.

States rights?

Last I heard, a handful of states along the proposed route were not cool with the idea. Not sure if its changed, but if it hasn't, is that a valid argument?

A handful out of many, we shouldn't have to deal with a few governors in a few states who may oppose what the greater nation can enjoy.

So, states rights are subject to majority vote of people -outside- their state?

Federal Government. Thank you Lincoln.

Precisely.


-smells a SCotUS challenge-

Wanna do a debate on how it won't happen?

Oh it will happen, so I don't believe a debate is needed.
"The chief business of the American people is business." - Calvin Coolidge

Latest debate - Reagan was a better President than Obama: http://www.debate.org...
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,208
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2015 11:04:52 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/9/2015 11:03:50 AM, 1Historygenius wrote:
At 1/9/2015 11:01:44 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 1/9/2015 10:54:22 AM, 1Historygenius wrote:
At 1/9/2015 9:47:38 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 1/9/2015 2:56:06 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 1/9/2015 2:50:53 AM, 1Historygenius wrote:
At 1/9/2015 2:20:53 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 1/9/2015 1:29:17 AM, 1Historygenius wrote:
It really seems to me that this debate really shouldn't be as big and divisive as it is. In fact, it isn't really considering most Americans overwhelmingly support Keystone. Yet we have a president who is against for some limited environmental changes even though it would be more dangerous for oil to be traveled by truck down the nation or rerouted to China, which has lower environmental standards. Pass the law, give the construction workers there jobs, let the permanent workers have their jobs even if it is a small as 30, let the oil be sent into the nation as well as exported and let's then stop debating the issue.

States rights?

Last I heard, a handful of states along the proposed route were not cool with the idea. Not sure if its changed, but if it hasn't, is that a valid argument?

A handful out of many, we shouldn't have to deal with a few governors in a few states who may oppose what the greater nation can enjoy.

So, states rights are subject to majority vote of people -outside- their state?

Federal Government. Thank you Lincoln.

Precisely.


-smells a SCotUS challenge-

Wanna do a debate on how it won't happen?

Oh it will happen, so I don't believe a debate is needed.

For clarification, I mean the Constitutional merits of the pipeline happening vs not happening.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
1Historygenius
Posts: 1,639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2015 11:06:46 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/9/2015 11:04:52 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 1/9/2015 11:03:50 AM, 1Historygenius wrote:
At 1/9/2015 11:01:44 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 1/9/2015 10:54:22 AM, 1Historygenius wrote:
At 1/9/2015 9:47:38 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 1/9/2015 2:56:06 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 1/9/2015 2:50:53 AM, 1Historygenius wrote:
At 1/9/2015 2:20:53 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 1/9/2015 1:29:17 AM, 1Historygenius wrote:
It really seems to me that this debate really shouldn't be as big and divisive as it is. In fact, it isn't really considering most Americans overwhelmingly support Keystone. Yet we have a president who is against for some limited environmental changes even though it would be more dangerous for oil to be traveled by truck down the nation or rerouted to China, which has lower environmental standards. Pass the law, give the construction workers there jobs, let the permanent workers have their jobs even if it is a small as 30, let the oil be sent into the nation as well as exported and let's then stop debating the issue.

States rights?

Last I heard, a handful of states along the proposed route were not cool with the idea. Not sure if its changed, but if it hasn't, is that a valid argument?

A handful out of many, we shouldn't have to deal with a few governors in a few states who may oppose what the greater nation can enjoy.

So, states rights are subject to majority vote of people -outside- their state?

Federal Government. Thank you Lincoln.

Precisely.


-smells a SCotUS challenge-

Wanna do a debate on how it won't happen?

Oh it will happen, so I don't believe a debate is needed.

For clarification, I mean the Constitutional merits of the pipeline happening vs not happening.

No state, even if they object to it, is likely to prevent the pipeline. I also think there's more to it than a governor saying no when it is likely a majority of the state's population does. It really isn't worth my time since the pipeline will either be passed or veto soon enough.
"The chief business of the American people is business." - Calvin Coolidge

Latest debate - Reagan was a better President than Obama: http://www.debate.org...
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,208
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2015 11:10:15 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/9/2015 11:06:46 AM, 1Historygenius wrote:
At 1/9/2015 11:04:52 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 1/9/2015 11:03:50 AM, 1Historygenius wrote:
At 1/9/2015 11:01:44 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 1/9/2015 10:54:22 AM, 1Historygenius wrote:
At 1/9/2015 9:47:38 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 1/9/2015 2:56:06 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 1/9/2015 2:50:53 AM, 1Historygenius wrote:
At 1/9/2015 2:20:53 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 1/9/2015 1:29:17 AM, 1Historygenius wrote:
It really seems to me that this debate really shouldn't be as big and divisive as it is. In fact, it isn't really considering most Americans overwhelmingly support Keystone. Yet we have a president who is against for some limited environmental changes even though it would be more dangerous for oil to be traveled by truck down the nation or rerouted to China, which has lower environmental standards. Pass the law, give the construction workers there jobs, let the permanent workers have their jobs even if it is a small as 30, let the oil be sent into the nation as well as exported and let's then stop debating the issue.

States rights?

Last I heard, a handful of states along the proposed route were not cool with the idea. Not sure if its changed, but if it hasn't, is that a valid argument?

A handful out of many, we shouldn't have to deal with a few governors in a few states who may oppose what the greater nation can enjoy.

So, states rights are subject to majority vote of people -outside- their state?

Federal Government. Thank you Lincoln.

Precisely.


-smells a SCotUS challenge-

Wanna do a debate on how it won't happen?

Oh it will happen, so I don't believe a debate is needed.

For clarification, I mean the Constitutional merits of the pipeline happening vs not happening.

No state, even if they object to it, is likely to prevent the pipeline. I also think there's more to it than a governor saying no when it is likely a majority of the state's population does. It really isn't worth my time since the pipeline will either be passed or veto soon enough.

Thereby circumventing the point of a debate site. Can you support that opinion, by chance?

I think any state in the path could pass constitutional muster to deny the proposed path. You think differently. Correct? This sounds like a PERFECT challenge.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
1Historygenius
Posts: 1,639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2015 11:14:03 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/9/2015 11:10:15 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 1/9/2015 11:06:46 AM, 1Historygenius wrote:
At 1/9/2015 11:04:52 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 1/9/2015 11:03:50 AM, 1Historygenius wrote:
At 1/9/2015 11:01:44 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 1/9/2015 10:54:22 AM, 1Historygenius wrote:
At 1/9/2015 9:47:38 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 1/9/2015 2:56:06 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 1/9/2015 2:50:53 AM, 1Historygenius wrote:
At 1/9/2015 2:20:53 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 1/9/2015 1:29:17 AM, 1Historygenius wrote:
It really seems to me that this debate really shouldn't be as big and divisive as it is. In fact, it isn't really considering most Americans overwhelmingly support Keystone. Yet we have a president who is against for some limited environmental changes even though it would be more dangerous for oil to be traveled by truck down the nation or rerouted to China, which has lower environmental standards. Pass the law, give the construction workers there jobs, let the permanent workers have their jobs even if it is a small as 30, let the oil be sent into the nation as well as exported and let's then stop debating the issue.

States rights?

Last I heard, a handful of states along the proposed route were not cool with the idea. Not sure if its changed, but if it hasn't, is that a valid argument?

A handful out of many, we shouldn't have to deal with a few governors in a few states who may oppose what the greater nation can enjoy.

So, states rights are subject to majority vote of people -outside- their state?

Federal Government. Thank you Lincoln.

Precisely.


-smells a SCotUS challenge-

Wanna do a debate on how it won't happen?

Oh it will happen, so I don't believe a debate is needed.

For clarification, I mean the Constitutional merits of the pipeline happening vs not happening.

No state, even if they object to it, is likely to prevent the pipeline. I also think there's more to it than a governor saying no when it is likely a majority of the state's population does. It really isn't worth my time since the pipeline will either be passed or veto soon enough.


Thereby circumventing the point of a debate site. Can you support that opinion, by chance?

I think any state in the path could pass constitutional muster to deny the proposed path. You think differently. Correct? This sounds like a PERFECT challenge.

Yes but I currently have other challenges for debates and I am a bit busy. This debate does sound like a waste of time to me since I know such a thing isn't going happen.
"The chief business of the American people is business." - Calvin Coolidge

Latest debate - Reagan was a better President than Obama: http://www.debate.org...
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,208
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2015 11:21:15 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Adn't be as big and divisive as it is. In fact, it isn't really considering most Americans overwhelmingly support Keystone. Yet we have a president who is against for some limited environmental changes even though it would be more dangerous for oil to be traveled by truck down the nation or rerouted to China, which has lower environmental standards. Pass the law, give the construction workers there jobs, let the permanent workers have their jobs even if it is a small as 30, let the oil be sent into the nation as well as exported and let's then stop debating the issue.

States rights?

Last I heard, a handful of states along the proposed route were not cool with the idea. Not sure if its changed, but if it hasn't, is that a valid argument?

A handful out of many, we shouldn't have to deal with a few governors in a few states who may oppose what the greater nation can enjoy.

So, states rights are subject to majority vote of people -outside- their state?

Federal Government. Thank you Lincoln.

Precisely.


-smells a SCotUS challenge-

Wanna do a debate on how it won't happen?

Oh it will happen, so I don't believe a debate is needed.

For clarification, I mean the Constitutional merits of the pipeline happening vs not happening.

No state, even if they object to it, is likely to prevent the pipeline. I also think there's more to it than a governor saying no when it is likely a majority of the state's population does. It really isn't worth my time since the pipeline will either be passed or veto soon enough.


Thereby circumventing the point of a debate site. Can you support that opinion, by chance?

I think any state in the path could pass constitutional muster to deny the proposed path. You think differently. Correct? This sounds like a PERFECT challenge.

Yes but I currently have other challenges for debates and I am a bit busy. This debate does sound like a waste of time to me since I know such a thing isn't going happen.

Its your topic! Did you just seriously invite a topic and opinions on a matter that holds no interest to you?!

Oh, hey, not to pry, but debate wise, you have ONE. ONE. A whole ONE. Congrats, we are on equal footing.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
1Historygenius
Posts: 1,639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2015 11:27:55 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/9/2015 11:21:15 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
Adn't be as big and divisive as it is. In fact, it isn't really considering most Americans overwhelmingly support Keystone. Yet we have a president who is against for some limited environmental changes even though it would be more dangerous for oil to be traveled by truck down the nation or rerouted to China, which has lower environmental standards. Pass the law, give the construction workers there jobs, let the permanent workers have their jobs even if it is a small as 30, let the oil be sent into the nation as well as exported and let's then stop debating the issue.

States rights?

Last I heard, a handful of states along the proposed route were not cool with the idea. Not sure if its changed, but if it hasn't, is that a valid argument?

A handful out of many, we shouldn't have to deal with a few governors in a few states who may oppose what the greater nation can enjoy.

So, states rights are subject to majority vote of people -outside- their state?

Federal Government. Thank you Lincoln.

Precisely.


-smells a SCotUS challenge-

Wanna do a debate on how it won't happen?

Oh it will happen, so I don't believe a debate is needed.

For clarification, I mean the Constitutional merits of the pipeline happening vs not happening.

No state, even if they object to it, is likely to prevent the pipeline. I also think there's more to it than a governor saying no when it is likely a majority of the state's population does. It really isn't worth my time since the pipeline will either be passed or veto soon enough.


Thereby circumventing the point of a debate site. Can you support that opinion, by chance?

I think any state in the path could pass constitutional muster to deny the proposed path. You think differently. Correct? This sounds like a PERFECT challenge.

Yes but I currently have other challenges for debates and I am a bit busy. This debate does sound like a waste of time to me since I know such a thing isn't going happen.

Its your topic! Did you just seriously invite a topic and opinions on a matter that holds no interest to you?!

Oh, hey, not to pry, but debate wise, you have ONE. ONE. A whole ONE. Congrats, we are on equal footing.

This topic interests me, but I prefer a forum discussion over than just a debate with another person right now.
"The chief business of the American people is business." - Calvin Coolidge

Latest debate - Reagan was a better President than Obama: http://www.debate.org...
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,208
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2015 11:35:28 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/9/2015 11:27:55 AM, 1Historygenius wrote:
At 1/9/2015 11:21:15 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
Adn't be as big and divisive as it is. In fact, it isn't really considering most Americans overwhelmingly support Keystone. Yet we have a president who is against for some limited environmental changes even though it would be more dangerous for oil to be traveled by truck down the nation or rerouted to China, which has lower environmental standards. Pass the law, give the construction workers there jobs, let the permanent workers have their jobs even if it is a small as 30, let the oil be sent into the nation as well as exported and let's then stop debating the issue.

States rights?

Last I heard, a handful of states along the proposed route were not cool with the idea. Not sure if its changed, but if it hasn't, is that a valid argument?

A handful out of many, we shouldn't have to deal with a few governors in a few states who may oppose what the greater nation can enjoy.

So, states rights are subject to majority vote of people -outside- their state?

Federal Government. Thank you Lincoln.

Precisely.


-smells a SCotUS challenge-

Wanna do a debate on how it won't happen?

Oh it will happen, so I don't believe a debate is needed.

For clarification, I mean the Constitutional merits of the pipeline happening vs not happening.

No state, even if they object to it, is likely to prevent the pipeline. I also think there's more to it than a governor saying no when it is likely a majority of the state's population does. It really isn't worth my time since the pipeline will either be passed or veto soon enough.


Thereby circumventing the point of a debate site. Can you support that opinion, by chance?

I think any state in the path could pass constitutional muster to deny the proposed path. You think differently. Correct? This sounds like a PERFECT challenge.

Yes but I currently have other challenges for debates and I am a bit busy. This debate does sound like a waste of time to me since I know such a thing isn't going happen.

Its your topic! Did you just seriously invite a topic and opinions on a matter that holds no interest to you?!

Oh, hey, not to pry, but debate wise, you have ONE. ONE. A whole ONE. Congrats, we are on equal footing.

This topic interests me, but I prefer a forum discussion over than just a debate with another person right now.

"This topic interests me"

" This debate does sound like a waste of time "

Naw, its cool. Not that those two are mutually exclusive, but I am sure your hopper is like, uber full.

Now, this is my humble but...
"I would prefer..... forum"

Literally means "I would prefer not to research and have my values tested".

I am sure you are the exception.

Good luck in this forum discussion.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
1Historygenius
Posts: 1,639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2015 11:41:00 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/9/2015 11:35:28 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 1/9/2015 11:27:55 AM, 1Historygenius wrote:
At 1/9/2015 11:21:15 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
Adn't be as big and divisive as it is. In fact, it isn't really considering most Americans overwhelmingly support Keystone. Yet we have a president who is against for some limited environmental changes even though it would be more dangerous for oil to be traveled by truck down the nation or rerouted to China, which has lower environmental standards. Pass the law, give the construction workers there jobs, let the permanent workers have their jobs even if it is a small as 30, let the oil be sent into the nation as well as exported and let's then stop debating the issue.

States rights?

Last I heard, a handful of states along the proposed route were not cool with the idea. Not sure if its changed, but if it hasn't, is that a valid argument?

A handful out of many, we shouldn't have to deal with a few governors in a few states who may oppose what the greater nation can enjoy.

So, states rights are subject to majority vote of people -outside- their state?

Federal Government. Thank you Lincoln.

Precisely.


-smells a SCotUS challenge-

Wanna do a debate on how it won't happen?

Oh it will happen, so I don't believe a debate is needed.

For clarification, I mean the Constitutional merits of the pipeline happening vs not happening.

No state, even if they object to it, is likely to prevent the pipeline. I also think there's more to it than a governor saying no when it is likely a majority of the state's population does. It really isn't worth my time since the pipeline will either be passed or veto soon enough.


Thereby circumventing the point of a debate site. Can you support that opinion, by chance?

I think any state in the path could pass constitutional muster to deny the proposed path. You think differently. Correct? This sounds like a PERFECT challenge.

Yes but I currently have other challenges for debates and I am a bit busy. This debate does sound like a waste of time to me since I know such a thing isn't going happen.

Its your topic! Did you just seriously invite a topic and opinions on a matter that holds no interest to you?!

Oh, hey, not to pry, but debate wise, you have ONE. ONE. A whole ONE. Congrats, we are on equal footing.

This topic interests me, but I prefer a forum discussion over than just a debate with another person right now.




"This topic interests me"

" This debate does sound like a waste of time "


Naw, its cool. Not that those two are mutually exclusive, but I am sure your hopper is like, uber full.

Now, this is my humble but...
"I would prefer..... forum"

Literally means "I would prefer not to research and have my values tested".

I am sure you are the exception.

Good luck in this forum discussion.

Oh I've debated Keystone before, albeit on more important things like economics. Right now I would like to know n a variety of opinions though, rather than wasting my time in another Keystone debate while I have other potential debates. I also feel that it is important to debate what is realistically possible and what your saying simply isn't.
"The chief business of the American people is business." - Calvin Coolidge

Latest debate - Reagan was a better President than Obama: http://www.debate.org...
Clovis
Posts: 191
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2015 11:43:45 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Almost the entirety of the opposition to the pipeline is predicated upon its environmental impact. Yet numerous studies have come out showing that the impact will be negligible. I mean its just a pipeline... we have pipelines crisscrossing every inch of this country. I'm not sure why this one single pipeline, which would do an enormous amount of good (my family lives in works in the endpoint city in Texas) for the American energy industry is being harped on so vehemently by those on the Left.
Words are wind.

A reader lives a thousand lives before he dies. The man who never reads lives only one.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,208
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2015 11:48:59 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/9/2015 11:41:00 AM, 1Historygenius wrote:
At 1/9/2015 11:35:28 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 1/9/2015 11:27:55 AM, 1Historygenius wrote:
At 1/9/2015 11:21:15 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
Adn't be as big and divisive as it is. In fact, it isn't really considering most Americans overwhelmingly support Keystone. Yet we have a president who is against for some limited environmental changes even though it would be more dangerous for oil to be traveled by truck down the nation or rerouted to China, which has lower environmental standards. Pass the law, give the construction workers there jobs, let the permanent workers have their jobs even if it is a small as 30, let the oil be sent into the nation as well as exported and let's then stop debating the issue.

States rights?

Last I heard, a handful of states along the proposed route were not cool with the idea. Not sure if its changed, but if it hasn't, is that a valid argument?

A handful out of many, we shouldn't have to deal with a few governors in a few states who may oppose what the greater nation can enjoy.

So, states rights are subject to majority vote of people -outside- their state?

Federal Government. Thank you Lincoln.

Precisely.


-smells a SCotUS challenge-

Wanna do a debate on how it won't happen?

Oh it will happen, so I don't believe a debate is needed.

For clarification, I mean the Constitutional merits of the pipeline happening vs not happening.

No state, even if they object to it, is likely to prevent the pipeline. I also think there's more to it than a governor saying no when it is likely a majority of the state's population does. It really isn't worth my time since the pipeline will either be passed or veto soon enough.


Thereby circumventing the point of a debate site. Can you support that opinion, by chance?

I think any state in the path could pass constitutional muster to deny the proposed path. You think differently. Correct? This sounds like a PERFECT challenge.

Yes but I currently have other challenges for debates and I am a bit busy. This debate does sound like a waste of time to me since I know such a thing isn't going happen.

Its your topic! Did you just seriously invite a topic and opinions on a matter that holds no interest to you?!

Oh, hey, not to pry, but debate wise, you have ONE. ONE. A whole ONE. Congrats, we are on equal footing.

This topic interests me, but I prefer a forum discussion over than just a debate with another person right now.




"This topic interests me"

" This debate does sound like a waste of time "


Naw, its cool. Not that those two are mutually exclusive, but I am sure your hopper is like, uber full.

Now, this is my humble but...
"I would prefer..... forum"

Literally means "I would prefer not to research and have my values tested".

I am sure you are the exception.

Good luck in this forum discussion.

Oh I've debated Keystone before, albeit on more important things like economics.

Apparently 'economics' is more important that states' rights. Good ta know. More important that you feel this particular subject is not worthy of your justification.

Right now I would like to know n a variety of opinions though, rather than wasting my time in another Keystone debate while I have other potential debates.

Like, one in debate, or.... serious challenges that you have picked up at your leisure, because according to DDO, you have one (1) that is even remotely in your control.

I also feel that it is important to debate what is realistically possible and what your saying simply isn't.

Like the ACA? Three Fifths Clause? Women's Sufferage? Roe v Wade? Prohibition? Prohibition repealed?

When I look at the various SCotUS rulings, I think you are in the minority for matters like this. But again, good luck in the forums.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...