Five amendments Dems will propose to Keystone XL bill

The Teamsters got "Enron-ed" by the Baker's Union. The Baker's Union was told that if they didn't come to the table and work with them, that the company was going bankrupt and being sold.

The Teamsters saw the writing on the wall and got (*)(*)(*)(*)ed over by the Baker's Union.

 

In other words, the other unions cut management some slack regarding making more money with existing profits, under any form of capitalism, except for the bakers union?

 

That way when a pipe ruptures underground the oil will be absorbed into the groundwater system and end up coming out of peoples faucets. Great idea!

 

What if? If building that infrastructure required digging a hole in your front yard, you have the right to say no.

 

not if it were fifty feet underneath.

 

So you do not believe that people have property rights? How does the fact something is being put 50 feet underneath change the fact that a hole is being drilled in my front yard? How is, say, drilling a 1 foot hole not okay, but drilling a 50 foot hole okay? What principle do you base this on?

 

Roads, railways, electric transmission lines and pipelines wouldn't be built with so many property owners involved in such linear projects.

 

Roads are owned by government already, as are sidewalks. Pipelines and electric transmission lines tend to be built on and under roads/sidewalks, so they are not an issue.

As to roads and railways, why do you assume the existence of many property owners would prevent roads and railways from being built? Do you know how many property owners are involved in acquiring the materials and producing a single pencil? There is a great video that illustrates the global complexity of this. Are pencils nonexistent and not created because of this? Of course not.

 

Indeed. So instead of some pay the Baker's Union left their workers and others with no pay.

 

???? Not before they are built.

Oil and gas pipelines aren't built underneath roads. Neither are high voltage transmission lines.

The cost would be prohibitive with landowners with the knowledge that the government must meet your asking price. The routes wouldn't be efficient if they are dictated by the location of willing sellers. A single landowner could kill the keystone pipeline along the route that has taken years to get approval of.

WTF???? A pencil doesn't require the use of a particular piece of property for decades or longer.

 

You should read the whole post before commenting. Your first statement is totally irrelevant, because I address the building of roads and railroads later on. As to the second comment, that is simply not true. Not all pipelines and transmission lines are built along or under public roads, but many are. If there is a need to build such lines on property not owned by government, then government must get permission from the property owners.

There is no reason to believe the cost would be unfair. If the government offered me money to put a pipeline under my backyard, I would say yes. If I bid the price up so high that it is prohibitive, I will get nothing. If a single landowners does that, then so be it. It's his land. Companies and the government should be well aware of these risks and have multiple plans to account for them.

I didn't say it did. I said there are many property owners involved in producing a single pencil. Property does not just mean land.

 

Noooo your statement would be irrelevant as the government doesnt use imminent domain for property they already own.

I said it would be prohibitive.

 

Yes, that was my point. Government already owns the roads, so your statement about utilities that are largely built under or along roads on government property is irrelevant. Then I went to addressing the building of roads and railroads on land that is not yet publicly owned.

Okay. There is no reason to believe the cost would be prohibitive. If the government offered me money to put a pipeline under my backyard, I would say yes. If I bid the price up so high that it is prohibitive, I will get nothing. If a single landowner does that, then so be it. It's his land. Companies and the government should be well aware of these risks and have multiple plans to account for them. The point is the idea that government will never be able to build anything on private land because sellers of rights to that land will always sell only at prohibitive prices is unfounded.

 

Not if they haven't been built yet. No one but you is discussing roads that have already been built.

 

Why do you insist on arguing in circles and ignoring posts in every topic? The statement "government already owns the roads" implies I am referring to roads that are built. Saying "not if they haven't been built yet" is totally irrelevant. And the rest of the post explains why I brought up already built roads:

"so your statement about utilities that are largely built under or along roads on government property is irrelevant. "

I then went on to address to the creation of new roads. You ignored that too.

 

Yes you are, AND like I said you are the only one discussing roads that have already been built. Which of course is irrelevant to the topic of discussion on government use of imminent domain.

 

Refer to the rest of the post for my response to that.

 

Except of course, I never made any statement about "utilities".

 

You mentioned pipelines and transmission lines. Those are utilities, and that is what I was referring to. Do you have an actual refutation of my argument, instead of your usual circular reasoning, or are we done here?