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
  #16  
Old 02-25-2015, 02:06 PM
Guest
n/a
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Guest View Post
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.
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.
  #17  
Old 02-25-2015, 02:14 PM
Guest
n/a
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Guest View Post
"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
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.
  #18  
Old 02-25-2015, 03:26 PM
Guest
n/a
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Guest View Post
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.
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
  #19  
Old 02-25-2015, 07:55 PM
Guest
n/a
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Guest View Post
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.
"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.
  #20  
Old 02-25-2015, 09:05 PM
Guest
n/a
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.
  #21  
Old 02-25-2015, 11:49 PM
Guest
n/a
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Guest View Post
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%!
  #22  
Old 02-26-2015, 12:55 AM
Guest
n/a
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Guest View Post
No!
A majority is a majority even at 40%!
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
  #23  
Old 02-26-2015, 10:24 AM
Guest
n/a
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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

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.
  #24  
Old 02-26-2015, 12:37 PM
Guest
n/a
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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?
  #25  
Old 02-26-2015, 12:48 PM
Guest
n/a
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Guest View Post
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 doesnt 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
  #26  
Old 02-26-2015, 01:12 PM
Guest
n/a
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Doesnt 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 dont 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.
  #27  
Old 02-26-2015, 01:36 PM
Guest
n/a
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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?
  #28  
Old 02-26-2015, 01:41 PM
Guest
n/a
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.
  #29  
Old 02-26-2015, 02:16 PM
Guest
n/a
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Guest View Post
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 doesnt 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
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.
  #30  
Old 02-26-2015, 03:17 PM
Guest
n/a
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Guest View Post
Doesnt 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 dont 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.
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!?
 

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 04:45 PM.