Keystone Pipeline....a political disgrace.

» Site Navigation
Home Page The Villages Maps The Villages Activities The Villages Clubs The Villages Book Healthcare Rentals Real Estate Section Classified Section The Villages Directory Home Improvement Site Guidelines Advertising Info Register Now Video Tutorials Frequently Asked Questions
» Newsletter Signup
» Premium Tower
» Advertisements
» Trending News
» Tower Sponsors




















» Premium Sponsors
» Banner Sponsors
» Advertisements
 
Thread Tools
  #1  
Old 02-25-2015, 09:49 AM
Guest
n/a
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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 () and vetoes the project.

Elected officials for the good of and for the people ().

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!
  #2  
Old 02-25-2015, 09:58 AM
Guest
n/a
 
Posts: n/a
Post

how is the GOP going to replace those 35 permanent jobs that would have been created if this thing was built?
  #3  
Old 02-25-2015, 10:02 AM
Guest
n/a
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Guest View Post
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 () and vetoes the project.

Elected officials for the good of and for the people ().

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!

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.
  #4  
Old 02-25-2015, 10:24 AM
Guest
n/a
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Guest View Post
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.
  #5  
Old 02-25-2015, 10:25 AM
Guest
n/a
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Guest View Post
how is the GOP going to replace those 35 permanent jobs that would have been created if this thing was built?

  #6  
Old 02-25-2015, 11:19 AM
Guest
n/a
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Guest View Post
how is the GOP going to replace those 35 permanent jobs that would have been created if this thing was built?
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 thatwouldn'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
  #7  
Old 02-25-2015, 11:33 AM
Guest
n/a
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Guest View Post
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.
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
  #8  
Old 02-25-2015, 11:37 AM
Guest
n/a
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Guest View Post
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 thatwouldn'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

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.
  #9  
Old 02-25-2015, 11:53 AM
Guest
n/a
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Guest View Post
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????
  #10  
Old 02-25-2015, 11:53 AM
Guest
n/a
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Guest View Post
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.
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?
  #11  
Old 02-25-2015, 12:20 PM
Guest
n/a
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Guest View Post
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.
  #12  
Old 02-25-2015, 12:26 PM
Guest
n/a
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.
  #13  
Old 02-25-2015, 12:32 PM
Guest
n/a
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Guest View Post
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.
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
  #14  
Old 02-25-2015, 12:39 PM
Guest
n/a
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Guest View Post
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.
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.
  #15  
Old 02-25-2015, 01:47 PM
Guest
n/a
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Keystone XL Veto Demonstrates Obamas Extremism And Hypocrisy"

"To no ones 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 Obamas 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 Obamas 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. Thats true but the mythical shovel-ready jobs from Obamas 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
 

Thread Tools

You are viewing a new design of the TOTV site. Click here to revert to the old version.

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:08 AM.