Eminent domain by TransCanada for Keystone XL

[Anonymous]

And, in yet ANOTHER totally hypocritical move, while the Republicans trot around claiming Keystone XL is about jobs (with grotesquely overinflated numbers, and ignoring the fact that many of the jobs will be Canadian, not US jobs) - they today voted AGAINST a job-creating amendment that would have promoted the use of US-made steel in constructing Keystone XL. So again, that PROVES it's not really about US jobs, it PROVES the Republicans are liars, and PROVES they are in the pocket of big oil interests, because they are screwing over US steel workers and the US steel industry.

http://www.minnpost.com/dc-dispatches/2015/01/franken-renews-push-american-made-steel-keystone

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And, in yet ANOTHER totally hypocritical move, while the Republicans trot around claiming Keystone XL is about jobs (with grotesquely overinflated numbers, and ignoring the fact that many of the jobs will be Canadian, not US jobs) - they today voted AGAINST a job-creating amendment that would have promoted the use of US-made steel in constructing Keystone XL. So again, that PROVES it's not really about US jobs, it PROVES the Republicans are liars, and PROVES they are in the pocket of big oil interests, because they are screwing over US steel workers and the US steel industry.

http://www.minnpost.com/dc-dispatches/2015/01/franken-renews-push-american-made-steel-keystone

ANDY, they voted against an amendment that would have prohibited the oil from the pipeline to be exported. So not only is the pipeline not about U.S. jobs, it's not even about "increasing our oil independence."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And, in yet ANOTHER totally hypocritical move, while the Republicans trot around claiming Keystone XL is about jobs (with grotesquely overinflated numbers, and ignoring the fact that many of the jobs will be Canadian, not US jobs) - they today voted AGAINST a job-creating amendment that would have promoted the use of US-made steel in constructing Keystone XL. So again, that PROVES it's not really about US jobs, it PROVES the Republicans are liars, and PROVES they are in the pocket of big oil interests, because they are screwing over US steel workers and the US steel industry.

http://www.minnpost.com/dc-dispatches/2015/01/franken-renews-push-american-made-steel-keystone

ANDY, they voted against an amendment that would have prohibited the oil from the pipeline to be exported. So not only is the pipeline not about U.S. jobs, it's not even about "increasing our oil independence."

AND, not andy **

[Anonymous]

So once again the Republicans demonstrate what immense frauds they are. Yet their fanatic followers will ignore all of this and defend them to the end...

[Anonymous]

Don't feel sorry for the rancher landowners - they are all on the government dole.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Don't feel sorry for the rancher landowners - they are all on the government dole.

Um, no - unlike the right wingers' deadbeat rancher hero Cliven Bundy they are honest ranchers who actually pay their grazing fees.

[Anonymous]

Um, yes. Read a thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The funny thing is with the fall in oil prices, the tar sand are unprofitable, but the pipeline will be built. LOL

Anyone consider that the state dept might be working with the Sauds and whoever else in the middle east to bring down prices and destroy the fracking industry?

Why would the State Department be interested in doing that? Also, why do you always call them "Sauds" instead of "Saudis". Is that sort of like calling the "Democratic Party" the "Democrat Party"? Finally, if the Saudis wanted to destroy the fracking industry, why would they need help from the State Department?

Because Obama and his ilk would like nothing more than destroy our oil independence so they can continue to push green energy. I have nothing against green energy, I just want it out there when it's ready to roll for the masses, not pushed before the infrastructure can really handle it.

Why does it matter to you if I call them Sauds or Saudis? I'm not the type to usually bring those things up to other people, so I wonder why people do.

I didn't say the Saud(i)s want to destroy the fracking industry...

You "and your ilk" are totally and completely full of shit, because we are producing more domestic oil right now than we did under G. W. Bush.

Yes, I love how the American Petroleum Institute, which in the 2012 campaign ran commercials that basically criticized Obama and supported Romney, quickly pivoted to commercials extolling the ingenuity and success of the American oil and gas industry. Same commercial actors, even.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The bills and votes came from Republicans, and the court decisions came from the conservative judges. That's who says it was Republican driven.

They totally caved on property rights to pander to big polluting industry.

Links

Keystone was always top of the list for Republicans. Democrats were fighting it. Now that the people have spoken we get what we get.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/12/16/us-usa-congress-keystone-idUSKBN0JU2GJ20141216

The way to move it forward is via a grand bargain, that also contains benefits for the environment. By that, I don't mean that Obama should simply bargain approval of Keystone for an unrelated priority. He should use it to move his agenda forward, of course, but there also should be some offsetting environmental benefit. What about a special fee or surcharge on oil moved through the Keystone pipeline that is earmarked for land acquisition to expand national parks and wilderness areas, for example?

[Anonymous]

Because all those national parks and wilderness areas, plus all the farmland in middle America, are up shit's creek when a pipline accident dumps tar sands into the Oglala Aquifer.

[Anonymous]

Because all those national parks and wilderness areas, plus all the farmland in middle America, are up shit's creek when a pipline accident dumps tar sands into the Oglala Aquifer.

Oh, yes, much better to put it on barges in the rivers or on trains........

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Because all those national parks and wilderness areas, plus all the farmland in middle America, are up shit's creek when a pipline accident dumps tar sands into the Oglala Aquifer.

Oh, yes, much better to put it on barges in the rivers or on trains........

The only reason it's crossing our country in the first place is so that an oil company can refine it to sell to other countries. Seems like we are taking on environmental hazards for someone else's energy needs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Because all those national parks and wilderness areas, plus all the farmland in middle America, are up shit's creek when a pipline accident dumps tar sands into the Oglala Aquifer.

Oh, yes, much better to put it on barges in the rivers or on trains.....

Well, yes, it is better. Do you know what an aquifer is?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Because all those national parks and wilderness areas, plus all the farmland in middle America, are up shit's creek when a pipline accident dumps tar sands into the Oglala Aquifer.

Oh, yes, much better to put it on barges in the rivers or on trains........

The only reason it's crossing our country in the first place is so that an oil company can refine it to sell to other countries. Seems like we are taking on environmental hazards for someone else's energy needs.

Please stop with this woe as me attitude that we always hide behind. We're the shining knight, the Kevin Costner, to the world's energy needs. Really? It's bc we want $$$. It ain't out of the goodness of our hearts. Understand that before you comment on anything.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Because all those national parks and wilderness areas, plus all the farmland in middle America, are up shit's creek when a pipline accident dumps tar sands into the Oglala Aquifer.

Oh, yes, much better to put it on barges in the rivers or on trains........

The only reason it's crossing our country in the first place is so that an oil company can refine it to sell to other countries. Seems like we are taking on environmental hazards for someone else's energy needs.

Please stop with this woe as me attitude that we always hide behind. We're the shining knight, the Kevin Costner, to the world's energy needs. Really? It's bc we want $$$. It ain't out of the goodness of our hearts. Understand that before you comment on anything.

You seem to have missed my point entirely. It is an unflattering combination to be so slow on the uptake but so quick with the insult.