keystone pipeline

[Big girl]

It is not going to happen this time around. The bill was struck down. Lol

[RETIREDFAN1]

59 votes in this liberal infested Senate will translate to 65 or more in the next.....there are enough votes to override any veto from barry sotero........

[Big girl]

Not this time around. :)

[LumRaiderFan]

59 votes in this liberal infested Senate will translate to 65 or more in the next.....there are enough votes to override any veto from barry sotero........

 

Exactly right...the big thing that happened here was that more democrats put a target on themselves by voting no.

 

Keep it up...you guys are doing great!

[smitty]

It is not going to happen this time around. The bill was struck down. Lol

Are you for or against the pipeline?

[Big girl]

Yes

[RETIREDFAN1]

Are you for or against the pipeline?

Yes

wow...i didn't realize john kerry was a member of the site...... :lol:

[tvc184]

It is easy to say yes or no. Ask for an explanation and see what comes out?

[smitty]

Yes

I asked for or against.  But can I presume you meant that you are against the pipeline?  If it's a correct presumption, why are you against it?

[stevenash]

She doesnt know yet why she is against it.  Give her a little time to consult  few blogs and she will have an answer

[tvc184]

She doesnt know yet why she is against it.  Give her a little time to consult  few blogs and she will have an answer

 

Let's see, we need the oil, the Canadians will get it out of the oil sand whether we use it or not, the fuel will be burned and go into the atmosphere whether we use it or not, it will likely come into our country anyway on rail, truck and ship, it will create jobs that are temporary, permanent and supporting, we will have to import just as much oil from another source, even the rank and file Democrats (the working stiffs) are for it but Obama is against it.

 

Looking at all those facts and stacking them up against each other, the lone negative out ways all the positives and that means that Obama is against it. That will be the reasoning. 

[RETIREDFAN1]

Let's see, we need the oil, the Canadians will get it out of the oil sand whether we use it or not, the fuel will be burned and go into the atmosphere whether we use it or not, it will likely come into our country anyway on rail, truck and ship, it will create jobs that are temporary, permanent and supporting, we will have to import just as much oil from another source, even the rank and file Democrats (the working stiffs) are for it but Obama is against it.
 
Looking at all those facts and stacking them up against each other, the lone negative out ways all the positives and that means that Obama is against it. That will be the reasoning.

The truth,though, is that barry sotero's buddy Warren Buffett will lose BILLIONS if the thing is built........his trains are what brings it in currently......

[LumRaiderFan]

The truth,though, is that barry sotero's buddy Warren Buffett will lose BILLIONS if the thing is built........his trains are what brings it in currently......

Bingo!

[new tobie]

If the Dems want anything they just have to get Obama to be for it and the rehaticans will be against it!

[thetragichippy]

All the environmental folks out there, there was a study that claimed a pipeline was safer than our conventional methods, like railcar......  

[RETIREDFAN1]

All the environmental folks out there, there was a study that claimed a pipeline was safer than our conventional methods, like railcar......

barry and his boy warren aren't worried about the environment.....all they care about is the almighty $$$$.........

[westend1]

I dont doubt that the pipeline is relatively safe, but you have to convince the landowners in Nebraska.    For the record. I think it should be approved.

[Big girl]

I am really indifferent. I dont care either way. I really love to see the GOP not getting its way though. They challenge everything President Obama does. They are now reaping what they have sown.

[Big girl]

Tt

[NorthoftheBorder]

She doesnt know yet why she is against it.  Give her a little time to consult  few blogs and she will have an answer

She is for whatever Obama is for.  She was against Exectutive Orders when Obama was mouthing off in the 2008 Campaign about he detested George Bush for using Executive Orders, but now she is for Executive Orders since it is King Obama who is using them to push a treasonous agenda!!

[PN-G bamatex]

All the environmental folks out there, there was a study that claimed a pipeline was safer than our conventional methods, like railcar......  

 

That's because it is.

 

 

I dont doubt that the pipeline is relatively safe, but you have to convince the landowners in Nebraska.    For the record. I think it should be approved.

 

There are already pipelines running through that very region of Nebraska. They weren't upset over those pipelines when they were built. Why are they so upset now?

 

And that's not rhetorical. There's an answer. I'm just curious to see if anyone gets it.

[tvc184]

I am really indifferent. I dont care either way. I really love to see the GOP not getting its way though. They challenge everything President Obama does. They are now reaping what they have sown.

 

With you not really caring, meaning you aren't against it, and a majority of the public for it, would that then mean that Obama is merely going against the Republicans just to oppose what they are for? Hey, if the GOP is for it, I will oppose it. 

 

After this last (and the previous two) election, I would say that Obama and the Dems have reaped what they have sown. Maybe you missed current events but the Dems have taken a super majority and squandered it to the point of losing all control of Congress. 

 

Again, I say keep it up. The next election is less than two years away and it is looking like the GOP might control the entire agenda. 

[tvc184]

 

 

There are already pipelines running through that very region of Nebraska. They weren't upset over those pipelines when they were built. Why are they so upset now?

 

And that's not rhetorical. There's an answer. I'm just curious to see if anyone gets it.

 

NIMBY's perhaps?

 

Maybe wanting their 15 minutes of the spotlight?

 

More money to run it?

[LumRaiderFan]

That's because it is.




There are already pipelines running through that very region of Nebraska. They weren't upset over those pipelines when they were built. Why are they so upset now?

And that's not rhetorical. There's an answer. I'm just curious to see if anyone gets it.

Possibly because the parent company of Buffett's railroad is based in Nebraska.

[PN-G bamatex]

Possibly because the parent company of Buffett's railroad is based in Nebraska.

 

That's a pretty big part of it, and it touches on a much larger issue.

 

The main driver behind the global warming scare isn't some coalition of environmental groups. It's companies that have thrown massive amounts of money into "green" technologies. When a company invests a lot of money in a technology that is environmentally friendly, but isn't economically competitive, creating artificial economic advantages to level the playing field against more economical technologies is in that company's best interest. The quickest way to do that is to put money into environmentalist groups that will obstruct the process for companies invested in older technologies on environmental grounds, and to put money into political campaigns for candidates who promise stronger, costly regulations for those same companies and more tax breaks and government investments in the newer, greener technologies.

 

General Electric is a prime example of this. We've all seen the figures regarding how little GE pays in taxes because of special breaks for companies that invest in certain technologies posted here a thousand times. We've also seen how much money GE throws into Democrat campaigns, and we've all seen the number of commercials GE puts on television advertising how environmentally friendly it is. Why do you think GE does all of that? It's not because they have any special love for the environment or Democrats, it's because establishing that narrative and funding those political initiatives makes their investments more profitable, their tax bill smaller and their share of the different markets they compete in larger. It's all about the bottom line.

 

Where Keystone's concerned, we find a similar example. The original reason for blocking the Keystone project was because of the potential it had to disturb the ecosystem in the Nebraska Sand Hills. TransCanada responded by eliminating that concern - they altered the project so that the pipeline would no longer run through the Sand Hills.

 

When that issue was eliminated, Keystone's opponents raised another one: the possibility of an oil spill contaminating the Ogallala Acquifer, one of the primary sources of freshwater for cities and farms across the Midwest. James Goeke, a hydrogeologist from the University of Nebraska and incidentally one of the world's leading experts on the Ogallala Acquifer, examined the project, spoke with TransCanada officials, and determined that the risk of a spill was so minimal as to be nonexistent, that the risk of any contamination resulting therefrom was equally minimal, and that if a spill somehow occurred and contamination somehow resulted from it, it would be so localized that it would be virtual non-issue.

 

When that issue was dismissed, a third one was raised: apparently, the process of extracting oil from the oil sands of Canada puts more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere than extracting oil the old-fashioned way. Liberals are scared that building the pipeline will result in more oil being extracted from the oil sands, thus causing more greenhouse gases to be released into the atmosphere than would be otherwise. One report went so far as to say that more activity in the oil sands would result in so much greenhouse gas being released that the entire planet would fall into "runaway global warming" and life on Earth as we know it would come to an abrupt end.

 

Are we seeing a pattern yet?

 

The goal here was never to address a substantive environmental issue. If it had been, this project would have been approved by now, because the only substantive environmental issues were, in fact, addressed in a way that would more than satisfy any reasonable person with legitimate conservationist sentiments. The goal was to block the project from going through by any means necessary, no matter how ridiculous things had to get to accomplish that goal. And the reason that was the goal was because it's in the economic interest of some of the Democrat party's largest financial contributors.

 

The sad part in all of this is that there are people out there who actually believe that Barack Obama and Harry Reid and Elizabeth Warren and Warren Buffet and all the other Democrat fat cats who oppose Keystone do it out of some idyllic, innocent concern for the well-being of Mother Earth. The reality is that the Democrats and the people who back them, just like the Republicans in many instances, are concerned about their pocketbooks and nothing more, and most of the hardcore liberals out there are too blind to see it. There's a reason for that as well, but that's a conversation for another day.