AsburySkinsFan Posted December 6, 2016 Share Posted December 6, 2016 No sense talking with a Texan about oil. I'm nearly certain they believe that oil is a cure for the common cold. I do not want oil pipelines running through my water supply, and I and many others around me will fight it here too. But once again, my primary objection to these land grabs is the abuse of eminent domain. And yeah, it's NIMBY but then again...DUHH!!! You want to go through my yard, then you better bring a big fat checkbook, otherwise get soaked! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted December 6, 2016 Share Posted December 6, 2016 Texans know something about oil ,pipelines and water ...but if ya want to ignore science and experts feel free. Oil does help treat the common cold btw, not a cure yet though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted December 6, 2016 Share Posted December 6, 2016 34 minutes ago, twa said: <map of Texas covered in oil pipelines running over water> ohhhhhh now I get what's wrong with you people Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted December 6, 2016 Share Posted December 6, 2016 4 minutes ago, tshile said: ohhhhhh now I get what's wrong with you people oil and gas is natural, I thought you folk loved natural? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted December 6, 2016 Share Posted December 6, 2016 45 minutes ago, Larry said: In short, it sure seems obvious to me that part of the reason for building these pipelines, is to RAISE the price of energy, in the US. (And, therefore, the price of everything). ,no wait, increased supply and distribution = higher prices in general? you sure you an't thinking of Alt-energy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted December 6, 2016 Share Posted December 6, 2016 3 hours ago, twa said: ,no wait, increased supply and distribution = higher prices in general? you sure you an't thinking of Alt-energy? Nope. DECREASED supply >> increased prices. You know. What happens when you take a resource that's already in the US, and remove it from the US. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsmarydu Posted December 6, 2016 Share Posted December 6, 2016 7 hours ago, twa said: oil and gas is natural, I thought you folk loved natural? Oil is natural, what is done to make is useful (refining) is quite costly and time-consuming. Natural gas is anything but natural...if it were so, it wouldn't take 300 tankers of water just to get it moving. We're trading one very valuable and necessary resource for another, and the "other" can be replaced with renewables, in both instances. Get with the program. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted December 6, 2016 Share Posted December 6, 2016 5 hours ago, Larry said: Nope. DECREASED supply >> increased prices. You know. What happens when you take a resource that's already in the US, and remove it from the US. interesting thinking, the richest country on earth is going to be outbid due to increased supply. that would seem a good problem vs the inverse Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted December 6, 2016 Share Posted December 6, 2016 17 minutes ago, twa said: interesting thinking, the richest country on earth is going to be outbid due to increased supply. Feel free to keep referring to exporting something as "increased supply". It's working so well, for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted December 6, 2016 Share Posted December 6, 2016 20 minutes ago, Larry said: Feel free to keep referring to exporting something as "increased supply". It's working so well, for you. Increased world supply and increased domestic sources is most certainly increased supply in a global market.(which sets the price you seem concerned over) Funny thing about exports vs imports is the control and costs.....and the govt cut how did limiting export and domestic sources work out for us over the last 50 yrs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted December 6, 2016 Share Posted December 6, 2016 twa I get you're all for exporting US domestic resources, that's your right to take that position. Just stop pissing on my leg and telling me it's raining when trying to convince us that these pipelines are for domestic use and not designed and intended for export. Which is the whole lie told to convince people to force eminent domain on Native (and otherwise privately owned land) against the will of those who it rightfully belongs to. Eminent domain was intended to be used for civic projects for public use, but the use has been corpratized to force the sale and surrender of easements to corporations who are the ones to profit. Where is ypur defense of the free market now? Why are you so damnably silent on this issue? Instead this is what we get from you.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted December 6, 2016 Share Posted December 6, 2016 Eminent Domain is to be used for public benefit,not necessarily public use. I think the pipeline benefits the country whether the oil is exported or sold here(thus public benefit)....you are free to disagree Some of you seem to think holding it captive in the ground is best,probably the same ones that think food stamps are stimulus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bearrock Posted December 6, 2016 Share Posted December 6, 2016 14 minutes ago, twa said: Eminent Domain is to be used for public benefit,not necessarily public use. I think the pipeline benefits the country whether the oil is exported or sold here(thus public benefit)....you are free to disagree So you think the Originalist dissent in New London was wrong? The takings clause does say public use, not public benefit. FWIW, I usually side with the liberal wing of the court, but I do think that New London majority got it wrong as permitting eminent domain for highest use by a private party in non blight situation obliterates the line between private and public use. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LD0506 Posted December 6, 2016 Share Posted December 6, 2016 This is not as simple as "the poor NA community being steamrolled by big bad corporate interests" or the equally specious stand of "the poor company did everything legally correct and people are throwing a tantrum". There is validity and bull**** on both sides, as in most cases. This could (and should) have been easily resolved upfront by bringing in the dissenting voices to find an agreeable path forward. There were attempts at this that are seen by many as mere lip service to reach the ends desired in the first place. At the same time there are droves of people with little better to do learning how cold the Dakotas can be because it was a "cause", an opportunity to protest for the sake of protesting. As with so many other current discussions on so many topics, people are drawing lines and gathering in hardened factions as a first move rather than a last resort. In many ways this reflects the increasing tribalism within our society, where everyone not us is an enemy them, with no one seen in the middle, and anything negative is the other guys fault or just acceptable collateral damage to serve the higher purpose. A symptom rather than the underlying infection, we have lost our way as Americans, as people together working towards a common goal. Unless and until that is addressed the public discourse will become more rancorous and hostile. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted December 6, 2016 Share Posted December 6, 2016 17 minutes ago, bearrock said: So you think the Originalist dissent in New London was wrong? The takings clause does say public use, not public benefit. Does it matter?...the SCOTUS rulings rule no matter my preference. Until they change their minds at least Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted December 6, 2016 Share Posted December 6, 2016 1 hour ago, twa said: Eminent Domain is to be used for public benefit,not necessarily public use. I think the pipeline benefits the country whether the oil is exported or sold here(thus public benefit)....you are free to disagree Some of you seem to think holding it captive in the ground is best,probably the same ones that think food stamps are stimulus The "public benefit" is a new interpretation and it doesn't tale a rocket scientist to figure out that any 2nd year lawyer can twist that to fit just about any situation. BTW, a land OWNER holding land captive should be their right! What other instance can I come into your home and demand you sell your possessions to me because I'm going to them to "public benefit"? You seriously think that the oil in the ground is yours to take when you don't own the ground?!?! Land/mineral/oil/gas rights go from the surface to the core of the earth. This is no different than ANY other commodity, if you want it then you better bring the $$$$, if I don't want to sell...then get soaked! I think it's insane that you're the first to demand open markets for ANYTHING else but all the sudden land/oil/gas come into play and you're all about corporations stealing land and forcing land tights from their owners. The dichotomy is amazing! The next time I ever see you stand on the free market supply and demand capitalist soapbox you will be hear from me! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted December 6, 2016 Share Posted December 6, 2016 I'm not in favor of eminent domain being used for the benefit of private business. Land ownership means very little if Walmart can decide your ancestral home would make a good parking lot, and have the state force you out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted December 6, 2016 Share Posted December 6, 2016 9 minutes ago, Destino said: I'm not in favor of eminent domain being used for the benefit of private business. Land ownership means very if Walmart can decide your ancestral home would make a good parking lot and have the state force you out. But a new Walmart has more public benefit than your great-grandmother's historic victorian home. To see twa fighting for the government's ability to force the sale of private commodities is utterly hilarious! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted December 6, 2016 Share Posted December 6, 2016 1 hour ago, Destino said: I'm not in favor of eminent domain being used for the benefit of private business. Land ownership means very little if Walmart can decide your ancestral home would make a good parking lot, and have the state force you out. Neither am I, that still doesn't change the law or the need to transport things Pipelines are rather similar to railroads 1 hour ago, AsburySkinsFan said: The "public benefit" is a new interpretation and it doesn't tale a rocket scientist to figure out that any 2nd year lawyer can twist that to fit just about any situation. BTW, a land OWNER holding land captive should be their right! What other instance can I come into your home and demand you sell your possessions to me because I'm going to them to "public benefit"? You seriously think that the oil in the ground is yours to take when you don't own the ground?!?! Land/mineral/oil/gas rights go from the surface to the core of the earth. This is no different than ANY other commodity, if you want it then you better bring the $$$$, if I don't want to sell...then get soaked! I think it's insane that you're the first to demand open markets for ANYTHING else but all the sudden land/oil/gas come into play and you're all about corporations stealing land and forcing land tights from their owners. The dichotomy is amazing! The next time I ever see you stand on the free market supply and demand capitalist soapbox you will be hear from me! Tis rule of law, which I agree is burdensome at times. Free and open markets depend on being able to transport products and services,and pipelines are clearly the safest and best way to move liquids in quantity. They are not taking peoples homes are they? Nor can they force the sale of your mineral rights....right of ways on the other hand they can impose with compensation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted December 6, 2016 Share Posted December 6, 2016 1 hour ago, twa said: Pipelines are rather similar to railroads Tis rule of law, which I agree is burdensome at times. Free and open markets depend on being able to transport products and services,and pipelines are clearly the safest and best way to move liquids in quantity. They are not taking peoples homes are they? Nor can they force the sale of your mineral rights....right of ways on the other hand they can impose with compensation. You do realize that injustice and theft can all be made legal, right? If you want to equate pipelines to roads then make them government owned. Otherwise they are no different than any other PRIVATE infrastructure and they should not be given special treatment. Whether they are taking people's homes is WHOLLY irrelevant. Pipelines even with easement only seriously reduce property values and greatly reduce the market value of properties. "Imposing compensation" based on what? Some third party assesment of the value? Using your thinking I should be able to force you to sell your grandfather's Babe Ruth rookie card for whatever an appraiser says it's worth in order to place in a private museum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted December 6, 2016 Share Posted December 6, 2016 5 hours ago, twa said: how did limiting export and domestic sources work out for us over the last 50 yrs? Impossible to say. Since we did neither. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted December 6, 2016 Share Posted December 6, 2016 I equated them to RAILroads , which are not govt owned. What you propose is forbidding me the ability to take that Babe Ruth card to sell to a collector. Valuations on easements are set by the govt when in dispute...ya know, that rule of law thing. I'm well aware injustice, theft and imposition can all be made legal.....after all liberals push for it all the time in the name of greater good. 3 minutes ago, Larry said: Impossible to say. Since we did neither. You must be ignorant of the laws preventing crude export(except to select allies) and exploration (no drill zones) . I would call you a liar but the former probably is the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted December 6, 2016 Share Posted December 6, 2016 13 minutes ago, twa said: I equated them to RAILroads , which are not govt owned. What you propose is forbidding me the ability to take that Babe Ruth card to sell to a collector. Valuations on easements are set by the govt when in dispute...ya know, that rule of law thing. I'm well aware injustice, theft and imposition can all be made legal.....after all liberals push for it all the time in the name of greater good. You really want to equate pipelines to the railroads?! LoL go research the history of how many railroads got their land. And the railroads OWN the land their tracks sit on. Actually, save yourself the time and read the history of Frank and his little brother Jesse James. I am not forbidding you to do anything with your Babe Ruth card, how you get it there is NOT my responsibility! Property valuations are NEVER correct. If you think that your local tax assessor has your property assessed at the market rate then you're seriously misinformed, but please by all means sell it to my buyers at their assessed rate. ?? Ignoring your childish closing comment, because it's irrelevant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted December 6, 2016 Share Posted December 6, 2016 3 minutes ago, twa said: What you propose is forbidding me the ability to take that Babe Ruth card to sell to a collector. No, he's not. He's arguing against you claiming the right to build your own road, through his land, whether he wants to sell it to you or not, for your exclusive use, so that you can sell your card to a collector with lower shipping cost. - - - - Now, though. Having said that? I think twa has made a valid point. When the Kilo decision was handed down, I was outraged, too. And then I read the actual decision. And what struck me in the decision was when the court pointed out that using eminent domain for private companies has been going on for 150 years. It's how how the railroads got built. And I think he's also drawing a valid comparison. Pipelines are similar to a railroad. (Not "equal to". There are differences. But there's similarities.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted December 6, 2016 Share Posted December 6, 2016 31 minutes ago, AsburySkinsFan said: You really want to equate pipelines to the railroads?! LoL go research the history of how many railroads got their land. And the railroads OWN the land their tracks sit on. Actually, save yourself the time and read the history of Frank and his little brother Jesse James. Read the history?....Hell I married into the family. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.