Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 

Get project under way

May 8, 2014

U.S. Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., often is in demand for weekend interview programs....

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(20)

MrBoB51

May-11-14 4:58 AM

'Think about all the gas sucking pickup trucks and suv's on American highways. $50,000 status symbols not to mention that most of the drivers are making payments because they can't really afford them'. That statement does not even remotely suggest 'conservation' solarguy. What business is it of yours what somebody else pays for and drives anyway? None, unless you insist on making it yours, if so..reread the above question until it sinks in.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Solarguy

May-09-14 8:32 PM

I think that calculation is quite inaccurate

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

taxtired

May-09-14 9:41 AM

Solar is great if you have $40,000 or so to buy a system. Pay National Greed 150 a month or a bank payment of 300 a month for solar. HMMMM.

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Solarguy

May-09-14 7:51 AM

Mr Bob, the word that I used was conservation not elimination. There's a big difference, and I do practice my beliefs. TOT,I mean no offense, but the solar industry is growing tremendously around the world and yes I also practice what I preach on that. In my opinion the solution is a blend of conservation,alternative energy, and fossil fuels. Solar sistered with natural gas is a good example. Seriously you guys, I can't express to you how great it feels to be producing your own electricity. Looking at your net electric meter at the end of the day and seeing how far it has spun backwards. It's not the entire answer, but it truly is part of it.

0 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MrBoB51

May-09-14 5:15 AM

Since you say you're in Business solarguy, you can lead by example...sell all your trucks, vans and gas fueled vehicles. Or is this another liberal cry of 'only for thee but not for me!!'?

4 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MrBoB51

May-09-14 5:11 AM

'All the oil that comes through the pipeline is for export, as in out of the US, once it is refined'. Right now it's mostly Canadian Tar Sands oil, Venezuelan and Middle East crude.. which we PURCHASE, refine and export. I'm referring to AMERICAN Black Gold under OUR ground...North Dakota, Texas, not somebody elses that we have to buy, refine and keep some and then sell the rest so we can buy some more to refine, keep some, sell and on and on. Of course we are the #1 exporter of REFINED oil, we have to be for the reasons above.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

TiredOfTax

May-08-14 10:05 PM

So solarguy, what other dreams do you want to cut? Whose choice is it to make? Do you believe that the economy, right now needs the abrupt increase in energy prices that these liberal roadblocks to recovery and energy production are intended to bring? What plan do you propose that will allow Americans to remain free to move and travel in any manner whatsoever? The left has made it clear that they will not allow us to move forward consuming fuels. What is the alternative that is affordable? Green technologies have been Obama's largest loss. I cannot name a single one of the hundreds of companies that received federal grants (taxpayer funds) that remains in business in a viable manor. It just hasn't worked. It is way past time for Obama to do what is right and allow this pipeline, all of his excuses have run to their conclusions. Time to step aside!

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Solarguy

May-08-14 9:47 PM

Personally I don't believe that the pipeline will bring energy security. In my opinion the first and most important step is to dramatically cut usage. Yes the C word, conservation. Think about all the gas sucking pickup trucks and suv's on American highways. $50,000 status symbols not to mention that most of the drivers are making payments because they can't really afford them. If America wants energy independence then Americans have to change. I think that the pipeline is a pipe dream.

0 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

TiredOfTax

May-08-14 6:13 PM

Hill you must be a very low information voter, Canada is the most friendly neighbor the US has it is not overseas and what is good for Canada is also good for the USA. Also the pipeline is the very SAFEST way to transport oil. Here in NYSA we want to severely cripple the use of rail to transport oil. Trucking is also not the best or most economical choice either. What is your answer to our ever increasing energy costs? The democrat party has shut down coal burning electric generators, will not allow atomic energy, HATES fossil fuels and the solar/wind generating plants are not ever going to provide the energy that our country THRIVES on. I cannot wait for your energy providing theory. I really do hope that it is a great one, we here in the USA and all over the world depends on it.

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Hilltopper

May-08-14 5:49 PM

Oil independence through Canadian oil imports? I must have missed it when Canada became the 51st state, but then I'm a low information voter.

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Hilltopper

May-08-14 5:47 PM

BoB: 1. What are the plans for the oil carried through the Keystone Pipeline once the connection is made to the refineries on the Gulf Coast and that oil is refined? Is is for domestic use or is it for export? 2. What country is the world's leader in oil exports? 3. How have record levels of US domestic oil production and oil conservation measures impacted the price at the pump or the price for #2 heating oil?

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MrBoB51

May-08-14 5:29 PM

Hill, that refined oil leaving the US means $$$$$$$$ coming back in, energy independence and not relying on Countries who hate us but gladly take our Taxpayers hard earned money. Do you think it's sensible to utilize our own resources for the benefit of all Americans or is that just an abstract concept not worth considering?

4 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MrBoB51

May-08-14 5:19 PM

Democrats are only now getting on board with the Keystone Pipeline because they're about to get their butts kicked in the mid-term elections. They can easily fool their low information voters here and elsewhere but the rest of us are on to their tricks.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

PleaseGetAClue

May-08-14 3:10 PM

Hill slow down, you'll only confuse TOT, MrBoob and Drugs if you start stating facts. That tri never lets the REAL facts get in the way of a good right wing spin

1 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Hilltopper

May-08-14 2:46 PM

Munchkin is full of beans. All the oil that comes through the pipeline is for export, as in out of the US, once it is refined. What is this, make up crap as you go along so you have a nice editorial? Let's get back to the facts, US and Canada, our leading importer, are on friendly terms, and the leading country for oil exports is the US.

3 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Patriot1

May-08-14 2:10 PM

Very similar to NY State where politics supersedes both economics and common sense. Just as increased energy production in the U.S. would facilitate a much more logical foreign policy, increase employment, and boost the economy, the OK for hydrocracking in NY state would do the same for the state's employment and economy. Bottom line - don't expect logical decisions in today's warped political world which endangers the very underpinning of both the country and its States.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Patriot1

May-08-14 2:07 PM

Very similar to NY State where politics supersedes both economics and common sense. Just as increased energy production in the U.S. would facilitate a much more logical foreign policy, increase employment, and boost the economy, the OK for hydrocracking in NY state would do the same for the state's employment and economy. Bottom line - don't expect logical decisions in today's warped political world which endangers the very underpinning of both the country and its States.

8 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

BEREAL64

May-08-14 1:56 PM

I agree with the editorial. The oil transported through the pipeline can secure our source of oil for decades to come. Therefore, the oil transported through the pipeline should be sold to distributors in the USA after it is refined. Don’t assume security lets guarantee security. Why should the United States take on the liability of the potential (or inevitable) oil spill only to watch the oil being shipped to another country?

9 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

TiredOfTax

May-08-14 1:39 PM

Exactly Scarecrow... but this goes in directly the wrong direction for President Obama. It would LOWER energy costs, drive our economy forward and lessen our dependence on foreign (middle eastern) oil. Like I said against everything president Obama stands for.

8 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Scarecrow57

May-08-14 12:21 PM

Manchin is living proof that there is at least 1 smart Democrat.

Sadly, when it come to progress we have come to expect nothing but obstruction from Democrats. I guess for them, progress means NO.

8 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 20 of 20 comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web