Exactly better to sell to a firm ally rather than a dubious one.
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 4:46 PM, Robert Munn wrote:
>
> On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 6:28 AM, Sam wrote:
>
>>
>> I know it means jobs in the US and cheaper fuel cost eventually and
>> the Republicans forced it into the bill.
>>
>> What
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 6:28 AM, Sam wrote:
>
> I know it means jobs in the US and cheaper fuel cost eventually and
> the Republicans forced it into the bill.
>
> What I don't know is why Canada would care if we have a pipeline or
> not. We would still buy oil from them it would just take us lon
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 2:28 PM, Medic wrote:
> You might need more than 32, but I bet if you sent all of your boyscouts
> and gave them stuff just out of your local gun shop you could probably
> overrun our forces. It wouldn't be the battle with the military that caused
> you trouble though, it
You might need more than 32, but I bet if you sent all of your boyscouts
and gave them stuff just out of your local gun shop you could probably
overrun our forces. It wouldn't be the battle with the military that caused
you trouble though, it would be the resistance. Canadians are not a people
tha
you know everyone thinks that, except like the taliban they're found
out to their regret.
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 2:02 PM, Cameron Childress wrote:
>
> On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 11:29 AM, Larry C. Lyons wrote:
>
>> your choice.
>
>
> Oh man, you really don't want ME to choose. I totally want to s
> How else do you explain such a large percantage of the
> population living within 50 miles of the US border?
When you live in the USA's hat, it's warmest near the band?
--
will
"If my life weren't funny, it would just be true;
and that would just be unacceptable."
- Carrie Fisher
~~
I don't know about that. Canada has been prepping for an invasion for
years. How else do you explain such a large percantage of the
population living within 50 miles of the US border?
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 2:02 PM, Cameron Childress wrote:
>
> On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 11:29 AM, Larry C. Lyons w
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 11:29 AM, Larry C. Lyons wrote:
> your choice.
Oh man, you really don't want ME to choose. I totally want to see 32 boy
scouts storm Canada and win.
-Cameron
...
~|
Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthol
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 11:29 AM, Larry C. Lyons wrote:
> lets see energy stops, invasion starts, energy infrastructure
> destroyed. US is 3 to 10 years without half its normally available
> energy. Rest of the world starts boycotting the US, the economy tanks
> to below 2008 and great depression
lets see energy stops, invasion starts, energy infrastructure
destroyed. US is 3 to 10 years without half its normally available
energy. Rest of the world starts boycotting the US, the economy tanks
to below 2008 and great depression levels.
scenario two. Negotiation reaches an acceptable deal fo
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 10:36 AM, Larry C. Lyons wrote:
> I'll let you figure out what happens next.
We invade Canada using a troop of 32 Boy Scouts?
Merry Christmas! :)
-Cameron
...
~|
Order the Adobe Coldfusion Antholog
look at how a minor boycott affected the US in 1973. Or how much gas
prices spiked 3 years ago. Now suddenly over 50% of the gas and
electricity supply is gone...
I'll let you figure out what happens next.
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 10:33 AM, GMoney wrote:
>
> I bet you a Loonie that America isn't
I bet you a Loonie that America isn't left "freezing in the dark" by
anything Canada does.
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 9:27 AM, Larry C. Lyons wrote:
>
> The attitude of many I've heard in Canada lately has been if the US
> doesn't agree let the b*st*rds freeze in the dark. Remember Canada
> supplie
The attitude of many I've heard in Canada lately has been if the US
doesn't agree let the b*st*rds freeze in the dark. Remember Canada
supplies over half of the American energy supply.
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 9:55 AM, Casey Dougall
wrote:
>
> On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 9:28 AM, Sam wrote:
>
>> I k
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 9:28 AM, Sam wrote:
> I know it means jobs in the US and cheaper fuel cost eventually and
> the Republicans forced it into the bill.
>
> What I don't know is why Canada would care if we have a pipeline or
> not. We would still buy oil from them it would just take us longe
I know it means jobs in the US and cheaper fuel cost eventually and
the Republicans forced it into the bill.
What I don't know is why Canada would care if we have a pipeline or
not. We would still buy oil from them it would just take us longer to
deliver and use it.
.
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 9:
no I'm just disgusted by the politics of it. and given that Harper is
the US's female dog, its very surprising. Its something too important
to be a political football, and that's what the rethuglican house has
turned it into.
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 9:00 AM, Sam wrote:
>
> I was just wondering w
I was just wondering why you were so proud of the tactic.
I'm guessing it's because it's against the US.
.
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 8:49 AM, Larry C. Lyons wrote:
>
> Fine Sam, then when is the US going to stop doing that? Or is it a
> case of do what I say not as I do. There is a long history
Fine Sam, then when is the US going to stop doing that? Or is it a
case of do what I say not as I do. There is a long history of the US
meddling in internal affairs of both Canada and Mexico as well as
other countries in the Americas. Harper was just stating the case.
Canada can sell the oil far m
ROFLMAO
-Original Message-
From: Jerry Milo Johnson [mailto:jmi...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2011 9:05 PM
To: cf-community
Subject: Re: Canada says it will sell oil to the Chinese if Keystone XL is
not built
No. That's just shrinkage from the cold. honest.
O
No. That's just shrinkage from the cold. honest.
On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 9:43 PM, Larry C. Lyons wrote:
>
> The US has tried that for over 200 years. And mostly have been suffering
> from "ED" from the start.
>
> On Tuesday, December 20, 2011, Eric Roberts <
> ow...@threeravensconsulting.com>
>
The US has tried that for over 200 years. And mostly have been suffering
from "ED" from the start.
On Tuesday, December 20, 2011, Eric Roberts
wrote:
>
> Fuck canada...
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Larry C. Lyons [mailto:larrycly...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2011 9:43 AM
Fuck canada...
-Original Message-
From: Larry C. Lyons [mailto:larrycly...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2011 9:43 AM
To: cf-community
Subject: Canada says it will sell oil to the Chinese if Keystone XL is not
built
Essentially Harper is telling the US screw you:
http://edmon
Currently the extraction methods use a lot of water and does produce a
fair amount of green house gases. That's where the real issue comes
in. And it needs to be solved and soon. Oil companies are now starting
to look at the oil shale deposits in the US. The methods to extract
oil from the Tar San
This would only effect new shipments of oil, I believe, since the
pipeline isn't built yet. If Canada is threatening to change their
current arrangements then that would obviously have a much bigger
impact.
Looks like Canada is still our number one supplier of oil but we
produce over half our oil
I think its a pretty big deal as, IIRC, we get most of our oil from
Canada. I imagine it will affect gas prices here.
On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 12:16 PM, Judah McAuley wrote:
>
> Given that the Republicans in Congress are intent of forcing a 60 day
> decision on the pipeline and there are no envir
Given that the Republicans in Congress are intent of forcing a 60 day
decision on the pipeline and there are no environmental impact
statements done on the alternate route, it simply means that the State
Department will have to deny the permit. Then Canada will sell to to
China and we'll go on our
There is no way to mitigate that.
We need to find sustainable sources of energy other than Oil, that's the
only way.
Fusion. We need Fusion. 0_0
~|
Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now!
http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusi
Telling a country how they should vote is playing politics.
.
On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 11:40 AM, Larry C. Lyons wrote:
>
> more like being pissed off at the politics. Besides China is willing
> to pay more.
>
> On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 11:19 AM, Sam wrote:
>>
>> Sounds like blackmail.
>>
~~
Me, I'm just recognizing the reality. Harper said they will sell to
the Chinese if the US doesn't get off its collective rear end. The oil
will be sold, it just depends on who is the buyer. If the Chinese then
it will go through the TransCanada pipeline to BC and then to China.
I'd rather see it
So you are staunchly with the Republicans on this issue?
On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 10:40 AM, Larry C. Lyons wrote:
>
> more like being pissed off at the politics. Besides China is willing
> to pay more.
>
> On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 11:19 AM, Sam wrote:
> >
> > Sounds like blackmail.
> >
> > .
> >
more like being pissed off at the politics. Besides China is willing
to pay more.
On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 11:19 AM, Sam wrote:
>
> Sounds like blackmail.
>
> .
>
> On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 11:13 AM, Larry C. Lyons
> wrote:
>>
>> The current plans have it going over the Ogallala Aquifer. TransCa
Sounds like blackmail.
.
On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 11:13 AM, Larry C. Lyons wrote:
>
> The current plans have it going over the Ogallala Aquifer. TransCan
> has already said that they'd reroute the pipeline as needed to avoid
> it. That said, Canada would probably make a lot more selling the oil
The current plans have it going over the Ogallala Aquifer. TransCan
has already said that they'd reroute the pipeline as needed to avoid
it. That said, Canada would probably make a lot more selling the oil
to China than the US. A lot of people I know back in Canada are now
saying saying let the US
...and the US is more environmentally careful/friendly than Canada? Seems
the holdup is environmental studies that need to be completed for the
pipeline which from the article appears to stretch from Canada to the US
Gulf of Mexico?
I didn't realize Canada was so environmentally careless.
-Came
35 matches
Mail list logo
