Keystone Pipeline....a political disgrace.
 

Just think of all the things that can be accomplished in 6 years.
Build an aircraft carrier.
Become a doctor, engineer, et al.
Etc, etc.

But the study of the effects if the pipeline are not complete yet after 6 years!!!

And as usual it does not seem to matter that the majority of we the people are in favor of this project.

A perfect case study of political incompetence and arrogance.

Why is it acceptable that in the face of overwhelming support and approval.....one man thinks he knows more or needs to know more (:1rotfl:) and vetoes the project.

Elected officials for the good of and for the people (:1rotfl:).

It always nets out to be the Obama agenda is the prioity.

Lawyers look to precedent being set to compare. Not in this case as the hundreds and thousands of miles of existing pipelines in the USA don't seem to matter. And that this pipeline is safer and more environmentally friendly than the existing pipelines....but it still needs to be studied?

A true classic piece of the Obama legacy of inaction, political polarity and pandering to special interests.......with not a shred of shame.
Typical Obama....he just doesn't care and we allow it to continue!:bigbow:

how is the GOP going to replace those 35 permanent jobs that would have been created if this thing was built?

If this project has the "overwhelming support and approval" then it should be no problem overriding the President's veto. Sen Mitch McConnell has promised an override vote will be taken next week. Can he get the 67 votes needed? We'll see.

If the representatives vote the will of their constituency they will have no problem getting the vote needed.

However, like so many issues that affect our lives, the will of the constituency is over ridden by the politics.

Therefore the reason this project has been dragged on and on.

We will see how it plays out. Based on the last 6 years of inaction I doubt they will all of a sudden do the right thing. Incompetence shall continue to prevail....unfortunately.

:clap2:
:1rotfl:

I admit I'm not as informed as I should be regarding Keystone XL. I guess I never dug into it too deeply because it was obvious from the outset Obama was against it and was conveniently utilizing various excuses of environmental impact and what have you so I never invested my limited time to do much research.

Having said that…wouldn't THOUSANDS of multi-year TEMPORARY jobs be created to build the pipeline? Roads, dams, bridges, railroads, sports stadiums, airports are all significant infrastructure projects with relatively few permanent jobs. Should those not be built because they won't result in many permanent jobs?

Also, wouldn't it be in our national interest to secure a reliable source of oil from our largest trading partner and arguably our closest ally, Canada? I understand the crude is high in sulfur, but it's my understanding we currently have refineries that refine high sulfur content oil with low pollution output. It hardly seems smart to ignore energy independence when it's potentially on our national doorstep. Perhaps the quality of this oil is not IDEAL, but it seems a better choice to accept a lower quality of oil than continue to be beholden to the middle east and hostile nations such as Venezuela. We've spent several $TRILLION in middle east wars of late, and many more $BILLIONS annually to assure the free flow of oil through the Persian Gulf at market prices. This does not include the many thousands of American lives lost and injured. God bless our nation's sons and daughters in uniform!

I honestly want to know why Obama and the majority of democrats are blocking this. Do those of you on the left really believe the "potential" dangers to our environment outweigh securing energy independence for our nation and all its people? Isn't the nation's safety the highest priority of our elected officials?

Thank You

Part of our vast right wing conspiracy strategy is to provide blue collar workers jobs that pay well and offer a better future than food stamps . Keystone would have done that so its amazing to watch the current day democrat aristocrats diss the job creation aspect. I'm looking forward to when President Walker gets middle class jobs back on the priority list, and when the current narcissist-in-chief is on the golf course full time

Start with this; republicans would not support an amendment that said this oil would stay in the US rather than be put on the world markets. They also would not allow an amendment that said all materials used in this pipeline will be American made products. These amendments were proposed by Sen Ron Wyden and Sen Al Franken.

So we should impose rules and regulations that are not imposed upon domestic oil providers?

And when made in America is suggested in any other venue the first rebuttal is we are a global society and need to be competitive with the rest of the world.

Perfect examples of lawmakers hypocracy. And being legally trained using, abusing or hiding behind the letter of the law.

IF the same rules were applied for this project as all the other thousands of miles of pipeline in the USA and IF the material and labor was put on a competitive bid basis (they all are eh?)....

And IF this project is safer and more environmentally reponsiible than all the existing pipelines........

What is the excuse other than politics, arrogance and incompetence?

Remind me again what it is that takes 6 years to figure out????

I'm really trying to understand. I'm sure there are many considerations just to the two points you've raised and I'm not informed on any of it. But, if YOU were in the House or Senate, would you vote against Keystone XL because some of the oil might flow beyond our borders and some of the pipeline construction material might be foreign sourced? Are these two points you raised so important that energy independence for our nation is sacrificed?

Not SOME of the oil, but ALL of the oil will flow through the US to the world markets. It's time for Canada to come up with plan B on how to get THEIR oil to the open market.

The oil is very dirty oil. We now have adequate oil and adequate natural gas without refining this filthy product. Not only is it dirtier to refine, it is also much more difficult to cleanly extract and produces much more greenhouse gases in its extraction. It is also much more difficult to clean when the inevitable pipe accident occurs. All of these argue against this project. It is not needed, it is dangerous to air, water, soil, and climate. Yes it produce good temporary jobs. I strongly encourage our government to use these workers repair our crumbling bridges, roads, water systems. We all know this absolutely needs attention.
We will need to find a mechanism to pay for infrastructure repair. Perhaps a financial transaction tax.

Wow! I must say I'm completely blown away by the complete lack of understanding and knowledge of economics 101 as displayed in this post.

Oil is a completely fungible product. In addition the whole point of world trade is to find economies of scale and lowest cost producers which is how collective societal wealth is built up over time.

I can understand how a comedian (Franken) can be this ignorant but I'm really surprised that you would say what you did

You don't seem to get it, multiple attempts notwithstanding.

The oil is going to be extracted and sold anyway ... just now in this case by other players in the market. Americans will not get the benefit of real jobs, Tom Steyer will keep his billions no sweat while lecturing the peons about dirty oil, and environmental wackos will feel good emotionally.

Heckuva job Baracko.

"Keystone XL Veto Demonstrates Obama’s Extremism – And Hypocrisy"

"To no one’s surprise, President Barack Obama issued a veto this week. Until now, Obama has had very little need of this authority; this is only the third of his entire presidency. For the first six years of his time in the White House, Democrats controlled the Senate, and Harry Reid made sure that Republican initiatives never reached his desk by blocking them from floor votes, even after the GOP won control of the House in 2010 and kept it in 2012

That changed last November, when Democrats suffered their second consecutive midterm blowout and lost control of the Senate. Reid lost the ability to control the floor, and with that most of his ability to stop the Republican legislative agenda from proceeding – at least that without some Democratic support.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has been frustrated in four attempts to pass the funding bill for the Department of Homeland Security from the House that cuts off spending for Obama’s announced executive actions on immigration. Reid managed to unify his minority Democratic caucus well enough to sustain the filibuster on the bill, and now McConnell has to work with Speaker John Boehner on a Plan B to fight Obama’s actions – even while a federal court blocks them for executive overreach.

That makes the veto Obama issued even more instructive. Obama killed a bill that would have forced the authorization of the Keystone XL pipeline, designed to bring crude from Alberta tar sands in Canada to refiners on the Gulf coast. The project would create 40,000 jobs in construction and pipefitting over the two years it would take to finish it.

For that reason, unions strongly backed the Keystone XL project, while environmentalists bitterly opposed it. Both of those are important constituencies for the Democratic Party, and the tension was reflected in the votes on the bill in both chambers. Twenty-nine House Democrats joined all but one of the House Republicans in passing the bill 270-152, while nine Senate Democrats joined all 53 GOP Senators for a 62-36 passage in the upper chamber.

Obama has talked about generating jobs in America. The Keystone XL project would create tens of thousands of direct and indirect good paying jobs for the duration of its construction phase, and would continue to support job creation in Louisiana, a point Jindal emphasized in his response as well. "The President is shirking his responsibility to deliver good paying jobs to American workers,” he continued. “They are ready to work; they just need the Obama administration to get out of the way.”
The Obama administration has been dismissive of this claim, pointing out that the jobs would be temporary. That’s true – but the mythical “shovel-ready jobs” from Obama’s 2009 stimulus plan were just as temporary, if not more so, being mostly generated in public-infrastructure maintenance that only lasted a few months to a year. Plus, this project did not require massive government spending, as the companies that benefit from the pipeline would have funding most of the effort. It would cost Obama almost nothing to create those jobs other than the ink it took to affix his signature to the legislation.

The statement that Obama issued with his veto fumbled through excuses and hypocrisy while failing to give any good reason for blocking the project. He accused Congress of “attempt[ing] to circumvent longstanding and proven processes” for approving cross-border pipelines. Congress intervened, though, because Obama sat on the project for the entire six years of his presidency rather than allow those processes to come to a conclusion.


http://finance.yahoo.com/news/keysto...091500666.html

Why are you resorting to name calling? The oil industry is pushing for the pipeline because it is their judgment that the pipeline is the cheapest way to get the oil to market, their goal. Anything that lessens their profit per gallon extracted makes the business decision to extract less likely. So the less they make, the less they dig. Let them build a pipeline to Vancouver and risk their water and soil. And they can build a Canadian refinery to pollute their air too if needed. And perhaps the Canadian government will say no to that and the oil will stay in the tar sands for a few decades by which time there is a possibility that cleaner, safer methods of extraction and refining will be developed. If this wasn't important to the oil lobby you would never have heard of XL Pipeline. And what's good for Exxon, Shell etc. is not good for America if it involves the environment.

So I guess I'll accept your insult as environmental wacko. And you can thank me and my co-wackos for your clean air, clean water, safe work places, well engineered roads, food inspections, safe drugs and all the other things we wackos have pushed for in the face of industry and conservative opposition for over 50 years.

As you should know it is a violation of site rules to simply cut and paste. Please in the future you should write what you think and provide a link.

Copyright material:

You agree not to post any copyrighted material unless the copyright is owned by you or by the Talk of the Villages. This includes text, content, art or photos. It is recommended to insert a link to an article that you would like to reference as opposed to inserting the copy into your thread or post.

Wacko in the descriptive sense that these positions all too often make no sense ... economically, or environmentally. Liberal activists love to take credit, as you did, for various benefits we all enjoy. How do you come off by saying conservatives are opposed to clean air, water, etc. That's a tired argument and moldy oldie democrat talking point

If we left this up to enlightened liberals like al gore the middle class would be living in homes without electricity using bikes to get to work assuming we had a job to go to.

If you think the oil is too dirty or substandard then stop using oil and gas ... this product will get to market and Obama has shafted the blue collar workers in this country once again. It is not right and cruel to people who need to work .... so that they can support those who dont

"The People" want this but no facts to base that opinion on. I pay pretty close attention to politics and I have yet to hear an intelligent discussion on this project. I've heard Fox New's side and the progressive angle but not anyone that knew what they were talking about. What percentage is the crude product for export, US consumption? Will it be refined in the USA, if so how come only 35 jobs? Are the real enviormental downsides and if so what? I'd like to offer my opinion but.

Latest polls:

An NBC News/Wall Street Journal survey released Tuesday shows that 41 percent favor construction of the pipeline to bring crude oil from Canadian oil sands to Gulf Coast refineries, while 20 percent oppose it and 37 percent did not know enough to weigh in.

An ABC News/Washington Post poll unveiled Monday, meanwhile, asked whether Congress should pass legislation approving the project or wait until the Obama administration completes its review. Sixty-one percent favored completing the review before deciding, while 34 percent backed authorizing construction now


If a majority is defined as 50% plus 1, then it seems to fail the test.

No!
A majority is a majority even at 40%!

An ABC News/Washington Post poll unveiled Monday, meanwhile, asked whether Congress should pass legislation approving the project or wait until the Obama administration completes its review. Sixty-one percent favored completing the review before deciding, while 34 percent backed authorizing construction now


If a majority is defined as 50% plus 1, then it seems to fail the test.

Wow !! I can use explanation points also!! because surely they prove I am right !!.

A majority is fifty percent plus one. A plurality is the most often selected choice when there were more than two options. For example Obama was twice elected by a majority of the voters. Bill Clinton was twice elected by a plurality of voters and of course a majority of electoral voters. So you are wrong in your statement !!!! enjoy the punctuation

Wow now puctuation use is an issue? (I assume question marks are not remarkable...I hope:jester:).

If there was a run off of four classic cars with a winner to be chosen by popular vote, would the one that wins be cosidered to have the majority?

To most of us no matter what one calls it, the most votes wins.

Why did this Administration approve the Alberta Clipper Pipeline way back in 2009 and will not approve the Keystone XL Pipeline now?

Doesn't such construction create thousands of infrastructure jobs that pay excellent money that would help our unemployed and the economy?

Hasn't pipeline construction been determined to be the safest way to transport product?

Doesn't transport by pipeline reduce transport by rail and tanker; the latter of which is alleged to be creating pollution and having an adverse impact on the environment, global warming, and climate change?

What is the difference between the Alberta and the Keystone - Tom Steyer?

The veto, as with just about 100% of what happens in the WH, has nothing to do with anything but politics. Pure and simple.

The NY Times, amazingly, published a nice article on Keyston and Alberta and how it became a political football and I suggest all read it. It will show how the politics of this overshadow anything else and the President's ego also.

"“The political fight about Keystone is vastly greater than the economic, environmental or energy impact of the pipeline itself,” said Robert N. Stavins, director of the environmental economics program at Harvard. “It doesn’t make a big difference in energy prices, employment, or climate change either way.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/09/us...bill.html?_r=0

Doesn’t anyone on the right have a problem with a foreign country (Canada) using our court system to force Americans to give up their land to a foreign company? The pipe line will be built by Canadian companies with Canadian steel not American. Six years is a long time for decision making. But soon people will realize that we don’t need the dirty (high sulfa) oil. Oil supply has outstripped demand. We are currently shutting down rigs and laying American workers off until demand picks up.

I am glad I do not have grandchildren, because these pipelines to help other countries and all the rich people of this once great country get richer (how much is enough?) will destroy our land if these pipelines leak which they have in the past. Also are we going to import more immigrant to put it in?

I do not have grandchildren that will suffer in the future seeing the people we have voted in keep screwing this country, both Congress and President. We the people should start shaken the stuff between our ears and take a hard look at what your so called politicians are doing to this country. Your Grandchildren are the ones that are going to live in a third world Country, I don't have any grandchildren.

This is ALL about politics and far-left environmentalists getting their feelings hurt. Silly liberals. This will get built when our golf player is shown the exit in two years.

Can there not be a discussion without the continual need for referencing the right or the left.
Are some so naive as to expect there are no Dems who can ask a question doubting or criticizing a dem or Obama issue.

How does one make it through the day without knowing who is left or right?
How does one like that survive in TV!?

TransCanada Corp., the Canadian company behind the Keystone XL pipeline, filed eminent domain proceedings against an estimated 90 Nebraska landowners secure the right to build the controversial project across their property.

If you owned land in Nebraska, how would you feel if a foreign company was taking control of your home against your wishes?

More details would be needed, however I would be suspicious of any intent to take control of one's home......although it could happen, I guess, if the home were located in the middle of the pipelines right of way.

More likely most would be limited to a path somewhere on the back 40.

Hence more detail would be required to conclude degree of "foreighn invasion".

Two judges have ordered temporary injunctions based on lawsuits by 80 landowners lawsuits against Canadian companies use of eminent domain.

TransCanada again blocked from using eminent domain along Keystone XL route - Omaha.com: Nebraska

You put my thoughts into words, exactly.

It should have absolutely nothing to do with politics. Any pipeline built today will be a lot better than the 50 plus year old pipelines that currently run all over the US. I lived in Michigan when a 48" pipeline broke 200 yards from our house. There were over 600 homes evacuated for several days. The break contaminated everyone's wells. The pipeline was over 50 years old and had never been inspected. Oh, by the way, in the form of a settlement, we god $453 dollars per household, city water and a water bill.

bee-eye-en-gee-oh

I am sure that you appreciate the concern of the good people in Nebraska and sympathize with them in that that this oil is more of an environmental concern than what you experienced.

Of course we do.
How many of them are there?
How many homes affected VS being on the back 40?
What is the opinion of each of those who have such property?

Then we can address the issue fairly instead if emotionally.

For Nebraska and all the other states as well.
Why is there not an uproar coming from those affected in all the states.....instead of just from those with a political persuasion ONLY?

Then why don't we just shut down ALL of the pipelines and ship all oil by rail and truck? What I am saying is that everybody knows that with today's technology, the US can build a much better pipeline than what was built 50+ years ago. If anything, we should be shutting down all of the old pipelines and building new ones.