Slashdot Mirror
Obama Vetoes Keystone XL Pipeline Bill
An anonymous reader writes: As expected, President Obama has vetoed a bill that would have given the green light for construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline. "By saying no to the legislation, Mr. Obama retains the authority to make a final judgment on the pipeline on his own timeline. The White House has said the president would decide whether to allow the pipeline when all of the environmental and regulatory reviews are complete. ... Since 2011, the proposed Keystone pipeline, which would deliver up to 800,000 barrels daily of heavy petroleum from the oil sands of Alberta to ports and refineries on the Gulf Coast, has emerged as a broader symbol of the partisan political clash over energy, climate change and the economy."
I guess Tom Steyer got what he paid for.
Hint: "environmentalist" billionaire Steyer made his billions off coal, now owns a huge stake in a Canadian pipeline that would compete with the Keystone, and spent a LOT of money playing an "environmentally concerned" person trying to stop the Keystone pipeline.
And the /tards rant about Fox News and the Kochs...
::snore::
This bill would move forward with the XL portion of the pipeline. The Keystone pipeline currently terminates at the refineries near Chicago, Il. The XL portion of the pipeline would extends the line to the Gulf Coast, allowing for the oil to be more easily re-sold on the world market as opposed to being land locked into the US market.
The XL portion was never meant to reduce oil prices in the US, it was meant to increase profit margins by reducing costs to transport the oil and oil products to higher priced markets.
Can we take down the environmentalism straw man yet?
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
not to mention he has chosen to offend Canada for no reason..
This presumes that the oil will not reach the intended refineries, which is false. The oil is already getting there, albeit via a shorter pipe and lots of trucks and trains (ironically, less environment-friendly than the Keyston XL). The current pipeline is owned by some very deep pockets, however.
Actually, after looking it up, I see that it is only his 3rd. For comparison, George W. Bush did 11, Bill Clinton did 36, George H.W. Bush did 29, and Ronald Reagan did 39. Is that because he's signing lots of things, or because the congress is sending him so few bills?
Did you mount a military-grade, variable-focus MASER on an unlicensed artificial intelligence?
The burning rail cars strewn about the US would suggest otherwise. The efficient flow of oil to world energy markets can do nothing but lower its price, but you knew that.
or why the fuck is' this on slashdot (beside every fucking news-channel/-site/-blog in the us)...?
Never understood why it's called an Obamaphone since he actually had fuck all to do with it.
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
Obama has vetoed 3,879 bills. The people of America are crying, pleading for the terror to stop. For any of the bills they so desperately support to get passed!
(Goes back to sucking on Coke, eating plate of cheeseburgers and watching Fox News)
interesting. Not sure how allowing Canada to sell it's oil out of Texas effects our energy needs at all.
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
It might damage Obama, but I'll wager that one way the GOP is not going to capitalize on this is by playing up how much they support unionized labor.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
The point about offending Canada isn't about whether he allows it or not, it's about the convoluted and interminable process that they have gone through to find out whether it is allowed. Realistically, they cannot start entertaining other (more costly) options, until the final rejection is received.
If there's one thing I hope could unite people that disagree on whether it should be completed or not is that the process should have a deterministic end point where a final decision is reached. It doesn't have to be quick -- it ought to take as long as necessary to thoroughly develop the factual record -- but there should never be a process that goes on indefinitely.
As a Canadian, I find the Keystone pipeline offensive. We should be investing our tax dollars into the future and in clean energy than in dirty tar sand oil. Can't wait till Harper is turfed to put the final nail in the coffin of this giant waste of taxpayer money.
When he an moo-shell vacate the people's house without having to be evicted... For now, I thank him for keeping Biden's wondering womanizing hands and failing mental capacity out of the oval office... Just remember, it could be worse... Hard to image how, but it *could* be...
Never understood why it's called an Obamaphone since he actually had fuck all to do with it.
Because his administration allowed the ~$9/month subsidy to be applied to cell phones, instead of being restricted to land lines.
And it's clear that lazy unmotivated poor people deserve to be tied down to land lines, rather than be allowed the chance to bask in the stunning luxury of having a cell phone when looking for a job.
Is this legal?
Mr. Obama retains the authority to make a final judgment on the pipeline on his own timeline
I mean, if congress passes it first, that makes it potentially law if the President agrees. But can a president sit on something until any time he chooses or veto his previous veto?
If so, I can see some strategic uses for that:
John McCain
Mitt Romney
Sarah Palin,
George W Bush
The new Bush guy on the scene.
Rand Paul
As a Canadian myself, I find the alternatives to the Keystone pipeline offensive. I certainly don't need more noisy, dirty, likely to crash CN Rail cars transporting oil.
As far as the idea that stopping the pipeline is going to cause everyone to stop using oil, that's a pipedream. Show me the connection, if you disagree, remembering that no pipeline doesn't mean no oil. It just means continuing to transport it the same way we've been doing it.
Also offensive is sending tax money to any project, including "clean" energy. Ontario gives incredible benefits to solar and other alternative energy generators by paying them 16x the going wholesale rate for the electricity output, completely ignoring the environmental effects of solar panel production because, conveniently, it doesn't happen here. If that's what "clean" means, why not produce "clean" energy by importing coal generated power from China? It's the same sort of greenwashing, just more obvious.
It isn't the government's job to fund your project, whether it be a pipeline, solar panel, or battery powered car.
It's simple, the oil will be shipped by train as it is now. Which obviously emits way more greenhouse gasses then a pipeline. Rich people aren't gonna "stop" trying to make money of energy because of no pipeline lol.
It's where a lot of refineries are located. The infrastructure there is also set up for distribution of refined products throughout the US.
The world is made by those who show up for the job.
No tax money is being use to build the pipeline. In fact, the only reason the govment is involved at all is because it crosses an international border.
Now if you want to talk about where your tax money is going. Plenty of tax money is being given to solar power, electric cars, bio-desiel, etc.
Right now this oil moves via rail, which is far riskier than a pipeline.
Because of wingnut propaganda from hate radio, far-right-wing blogs, and Fox "News."
Some really rotten people realized that conservatives couldn't cope with a cooperative civilization, so set up fake news outlets to exploit the fears of these limited-thinkers. They feed them lies every single day, which keeps the rubes afraid, angry, and unthinking. This psychological terrorism to delay the end of the archaic Republican party was intentional, and should be criminal.
Well if you want to keep living in the past that's your problem, but other than Alberta support for Keystone is quite low. Oil is not the future. Clean energy is. What I don't understand is why we have to keep funding with our tax dollars an industry of the past that benefits very few already quite rich Canadians? Can't they support themselves if this is so profitable?
>"I hate America", said the lame duck President. "I hope you all lose your jobs. Less energy means less economy
Some of the nuttiest of the Republican propaganda victims actually believe this nonsense. We should all feel sorry for them, even though they've been taught to hate modern people. They can't help the fact that they were brainwashed, often from birth.
His point was that you just proved it. :/
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
Fox News is a news channel with a history of saying things I don't want to hear, and was founded to be a "conservative" media outlet because of the demonstrably true fact that other media outlets are "liberal".
Fixed that for you.
They wouldn't call it by that name, but they would talk about the potential jobs that could have been created to build and maintain the pipeline. Realistically most politicians on either side of the aisle care very little about the pipeline. A few of them might represent vested interests and have more reason than others to care, but for most it's just about slinging mud or using it as a means to attack the opposition.
It would be interesting to put some measure to vote before Congress without allowing the party wranglers to establish the party line beforehand. Outside of a few hot-button issues, I suspect that there wouldn't be anywhere near as much of a pattern to the votes as there is after one party decides that they need to vote for or against something just to oppose the other side.
For most issues, your average Congress critter simply does not care one way or the other and is entirely happy to fall into line as it removes the burden of actually making a decision.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2014/04/26/pick-your-poison-for-crude-pipeline-rail-truck-or-boat/
The short answer is: truck worse than train worse than pipeline worse than boat (Oilprice.com). But that’s only for human death and property destruction. For the normalized amount of oil spilled, it’s truck worse than pipeline worse than rail worse than boat (Congressional Research Service). Different yet again is for environmental impact (dominated by impact to aquatic habitat), where it’s boat worse than pipeline worse than truck worse than rail.
Not mentioned is the Eminent Domain clause stealing land from Americans, home owners, Indian tribes, and private businesses.
If The Canadian company wants pipeline,
they must PAY !
BUY the land you want at Top Dollar,
don't use sheriff rifles to steal land at gunpoint.
Capacity begets usage. It's so true it's even been a meme ("if you build it, they will come") from before the Internet made "memes" a meme! Building a pipeline to ship the oil faster will cause more oil to be shipped in a shorter period of time.
If you don't like having the oil shipped by rail, then fix that problem instead! (Make the rail cars safer, prohibit shipping oil by rail -- whatever.)
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
It puts a big pinch on us since without the pipeline we have a natural advantage if we want to buy the oil. With the pipeline we get to watch it flow right past us and on to somewhere else.
Fox News (or Faux News) is an entertainment program with a history of saying things that are provocative, to an audience that doesn't know any better.
There, fixed that for you
Why you just not kill yourself and your offspring? That will be good for the Environment for sure.
Oh boy, more YouTube videos of flaming trains!
As an American, I don't want you to socialize your risk of spilling your oil in our soil and rivers with no benefit to us.
In fact it is likely to raise gas prices in our mid-west. By up to 20 cents a gallon.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-04-25/keystone-weirdonomics-means-gas-prices-won-t-be-getting-any-cheaper-
It is also likely to only create a few hundred jobs. (Long term jobs, not construction or manufacture.)
So keep your pipeline, I don't want it.
It's easy for them to be like that when their biggest competition is CNN. How anybody thinks CNN and Fox are anywhere near legit, I'll never know.... Fox isn't exactly crying either, last I checked they throttle the other "news" networks in ratings.
A grand total of fewer than 50 permanent jobs.
You are welcome on my lawn.
I hope Canada makes a huge deal with China to ship their oil through Hudson's Bay. The union folks who once supported Obama will be mightily impressed by the number of tankers taking it straight to Asia.
As a Canadian myself, I find the alternatives to the Keystone pipeline offensive.
Agreed. Some alternatives have the pipe going through our land to reach the sea. We really don't want that. Why won't the Americans just let us stick our pipe down there?
The media bias is evident when you look at who and why they attack certain individuals. Biden has gotten away with a lot of stuff. He basically groped a woman in public, in front of cameras, and the reaction was "Oh, Biden....", but when Dan Quayle only accepted a different spelling of potato at a spelling bee, he was vilified. Another example of bias is look at DHS funding: some media outlets are blaming Republicans of denying funding, yet it's Dems that are blocking the vote through parliamentary measures because they don't have the votes to outright block it.
As I've seen it, the Koch brothers are not for gay marriage, one has said he's basically fine with it and doesn't get why everyone's in a big fuss about it.
I, for one, tend to be fiscally conservative, yet socially liberal or, rather, laissez faire. I don't care to subsidize others lifestyles, but I won't comment on or condemn others' lifestyle choices. However, I'm willing to state that marriage is not a constitutional right, and as such, should be left as an issue of states' rights. I'm also willing to state that the primary reason this is an issue is because the federal government grants certain privileges (nominally in the form of tax breaks) to such qualifying "couples". The argument to extend such protections is under the 14th Amendment "equal protection" clause, yet neither sexual orientation nor marital status is listed, under that amendment, as protected classes. Thus, if you extend that qualification to same-sex couples, you're still alienating another class: single individuals and still violating the spirit of the 14th Amendment. What it boils down to, if you treated all people equally, as individuals, regardless of marital status, gay or otherwise marriage would be a non-existent issue.
If you want to look beyond oil I would like to see you use more of that uranium you have around Great Slave Lake. Send that directly to Asia too, where they will be only too happy to use it.
With all the smoke coming from the left and right, is the Keystone XL pipeline a good or bad idea?
Right now, gas prices are relatively low, but they are rising, and oil will be back in the triple digits soon enough, almost definitely by Memorial Day. So, having the ability to use oil sands is a good thing since oil prices have replaced standard inflation for the reason for price hikes on virtually any type of good/service out there, and once oil starts going to $150-250 a barrel, the economy here in the US will grind to a halt, just like it did in 1972 and 2008. Plus, an oil sands pipeline is a lot cheaper than another theater of conflict in the Middle East.
Of course, there are the downsides of the pipeline:
It paralyzes growth in alternative energies, because medium term to long term, oil needs to be relegated for making plastic, not causing more climate change.
It makes people rich who are not exactly good global citizens. ISIS just destroyed a major part of mankind's history today by torching museums and libraries in Mosul today, and demand for oil just supports nations and groups like that. Oil used now just means wars later.
The record of oil pipelines isn't exactly sterling, with regards to leaks. Assuming it follows most construction done by the absolute lowest bidder, it won't exactly be leak-proof, and it will be a crap-shoot of what the pipeline fouls up.
tl;dr... is this pipeline a net good, or a net bad overall?
This MIGHT be something in agreement with some of the major oil producers like Saudi. Given the whole situation is Russia, there is precedence that Saudis got paid by the US to produce a lot of oil as to damage an oil based economy of an enemy. Something like this probably happened again but Saudi might have demanded a few things.
Another reason might be that the economic climate for oil is pretty shit atm. So by delaying this pipeline this oil would get pumped up in more favorable climate. Ensuring that people in the business right now don't get further losses due to increased competition. And keeping oil in the ground for when its worth more. Because lets face it, it doesn't matter if you believe we have reached peak oil or not, there certainly isn't an endless supply of the stuff.
If you think Fox is bad, watch some MSNBC. MSNBC has as much connection to reality as the North Korean "news" stations.
If by "throughout the US" you mean India and China then you're right. It's going to Texas, because that's where the boats are. There are several stops along the way inside the US at refineries for US use. Once it hits Texas it's gone. The point of Keystone XL is to make TransCanada more money not to reduce oil prices in the US. If TC is smart, they'll suck enough oil out of the US ecosystem to increase price to parity with the rest of the world so they can charge more and ship less. I'm I missing something or doesn't' that seem like the smart thing to do?
Why isn't the base argument about letting a foreign held company own a strip of the United States from Canada to the Gulf Coast (boarder to boarder) and using eminent domain to grab some of that land?
Also, don't be fooled by "oil independence." The oil companies are making sure oil stays independent from the US, because it can fetch more on the global market.
His point was that you just proved it. :/
Really? Just because you say it does doesn't make it true. You mentioned NO facts or even an argument with what I said: just a blanket repudiation.
Nobody argues facts anymore; just talking points; which is what Fox News does and AM Talk Radio. They are nothing but bullshitters who bullshit vapidly with no substance - such as yourself.
No point was proved. None. And you have offered nothing to the education and erudition of people here.
You sir, are part of the problem - your ignorance and the spread of it.
And the fact that the grandparent has been mod'ed minus one has shown to me how ignorant and misinformed the Slashdot audience is.
Don't forget:
Mitch McConnell
Harry Reid
Ted Cruz
Fox is definitely the lesser of two evils when it comes to the smack tards at MSNBC
Oops, no, not Harry Reid. My bad
As long as we're throwing out irrelevant information, there's also a Keystone Beer, the Keystone Cops, and Pennsylvania. Neither these nor the existence of a Keystone Pipeline on a different route changes the fact that someone wants to build a pipeline where there isn't one today. I think it's intellectually honest to minimize this as "they're just extending something that's already there!", when in reality the proposal is to build a brand new pipeline 1,179 miles long along a new path.
That's an "extension" in the same way that I-70 is an "extension" to I-80 because you can take either one from Denver to Chicago, except that those routes are about 150 miles short than the XL would be. You should be ashamed for trying to make it seem otherwise.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
"Democrats", not "Dems". Saying "Dems" makes you sound like a retard. Unless of course that's what you were shooting for...bullseye.
I thought allowing the Lifeline subsidy to be applied to cell phones was a Bush thing. Or am being confused by facts?
So the only option for Canada is to ship the oil by freight? It's already uneconomical enough as it is without the extra expense of that.
But I guess you have to pretend there's some nefarious reason (though quite why those who love private industry and especially the fossil fuel industry should decide that this is the result of a fossil fuel industry leader escapes me). Because you think it should go through, it not getting passed MUST be some conspiracy! Just like the conservative morons claiming liberal Hollywood stopped American Sniper from getting its Oscar...
The XL pipeline would provide only temporary jobs for the construction of the pipeline. It might require a few dozen permanent jobs for maintenance and other costs associated with any ongoing concern. Then again, the US firms (if any) charged with maintaining the pipeline once it's built may not hire anyone new for these roles.
I get the impression that you're joking, but it's more important than at any time in the past to correct false assertions: Most everyone has lost his sense of humor, and facts are routinely confused with personal or group truths. It will be more important to correct false assertions tomorrow -- why not procrastinate in order to ramp up the significance of your unfounded exaggerations?
Better suggestion for you -- from Len Grossman. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
"Press to test."
(click)
"Release to detonate."
Of course the oil is going to get to market. People are deluded if they think this is going to stop the oil sands.
CALGARY Shipments of oil by rail from Western Canada are expected to more than triple in the next two years, as the sector heads into a severe shortage of pipeline capacity by next year, according to a new forecast by the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers.
http://business.financialpost....
At the right price point (admittedly not right now) even trucks may become economical. I'm betting they would find a way to ship it by carrier pigeon before they would leave it in the ground. Makes no difference to me so long as there is no shortage.
The ONLY difference between Anarchism and Libertarian is that the Anarchist believes you should NOT be free to force someone to work for you, whereas Libertarians think that is an imposition on freedom. Much like FOSS/BSD.
IF you're going to go "Oh, that's not the Libertarianism *I* or anyone I know profess, so it's not true!", then I put to you that YOUR assertions about Anarchism are LIKEWISE caricatured and un-nuanced (with the added problem that your caricature is incorrect, whilst mine are at least accurate of libertarianism and anarchism).
It's odd you start off with "you might not want to paint with such a broad brush" then go full "Landscape sized brush" yourself, the only difference being you think yourself libertarian (the GP's "broad brush") and not anarchist (YOUR broad brush).
Next time you want to tell someone off, remember this episode.
This is sheer revisionism. He didn't "accept a different spelling of potato" (which makes it sound like 'potatoe' is a valid and recognized alternative, which it isn't, but anyway) - he "corrected" a kid who had spelled the word correctly.
If you doubt Wikipedia, the footage is on YouTube.
Why would we take the long way around the planet? There's a shorter route already in the works, although who knows if it will ever be approved.
And the several thousand construction jobs? They mean nothing because they aren't permanent (hint: no construction jobs ARE by that definition, yet there's still a construction industry, isn't there)?
And the refinery jobs? And the ancillary jobs THOSE jobs will support? Not as pithy as the "less than 50 permanent jobs" soundbite, but if you think our economy doesn't need them, well...
Oh, also ignoring the fact that this project is actually BETTER for the environment than the status quo... a fact noted by the multiple EIRs done by the State Department.
Don't forget the trillions of tax dollars the oil companies get out of paying.
Sounds like he researched this bill and came to a conclusion that it would be better to veto it. I doubt any partisan behavior had anything to do with as he never striked me as a partisan President. I bet even some republicans secretly wanted this bill vetoed.
FYI - oil is currently flowing through the Keystone pipeline from Alberta all the way to the Gulf Coast, and it's been flowing that far for over a year. It's been flowing to Illinois refineries for almost 5 years. But don't let facts like that stop your hatred for Obama.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
Thank you, Barack. Nice to know who your friends are.
--- Warren Buffet
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
Not important either way. Not worth vetoing, not worth crying about. No change will ensue from signing or vetoing the bill. It's the Benghazi of the left, a nothing burger to rally around.
ROFL, sure "looking for jobs" that's what they are doing with their Obama phones.
We should all feel sorry for them, even though they've been taught to hate modern people. They can't help the fact that they were brainwashed, often from birth.
But not you! You're a clear and rational thinker who would never group a whole bunch of people together for the purpose of marginalizing them.
I've never met anyone who thinks Obama actively wants to make things suck in America. It's just that he isn't any kind of deep thinker, and he doesn't worry too much about about the consequences of his policies. Remember his calm statement "...under my plan, electricity prices would necessarily skyrocket." He wasn't worried about this; he already knew exactly the correct tradeoffs (skyrocketing electricity prices better than world heat death from global warming).
Before the moderators strike me down, think about this: when was the last time Obama changed his mind, or even had a substantive discussion of pros and cons of any of his policies? (I don't even require it to be Obama himself, I'll take anyone from his administration.)
Koch money has gone to support gay marriage. So they've done more to support gay marriage than people who have rainbows on their cars.
That was a pretty long winded arguement with an expected retarded conclusion. Although I, like you, could give a crap about any of this stuff, I don't state presumptuous blather like the federal government "GRANTING" me a goddammed thing. Now, just to prove I'm not a homophobe, I'll even let the government suck my dick. It's when they or like minded people become obsessed with sticking people in the ass, that compel me to state the reason for the separation. This is not about marriage. So shut the fuck up you wierdo.
At the right price point (admittedly not right now) even trucks may become economical.
At the current price point - trains may not remain economical: http://www.cbc.ca/news/busines...
"...when Dan Quayle only accepted a different spelling of potato at a spelling bee..."
I find your revisionist history disturbing. The youth spelled potato correctly, and Dan thought it ought to have an "e" at the end, and asked the student to add a letter. See it for yourself: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wdqbi66oNuI
... Bakken oil came through and made Canadian shale unnecessary. The US has more oil than God, now.
Oil companies are going to go all OPEC on us and start cutting back on production to manipulate prices for maximizing profits.
Canadian oil is a buzz killer. That's why you won't see much opposition to the veto.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
but when Dan Quayle only accepted a different spelling of potato at a spelling bee, he was vilified
That's not what happened. The kid actually spelled potato correctly and Dan Quayle 'corrected' him into spelling it wrong.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
And Quayle wasn't vilified. He was the butt of many jokes, but he deserved to be the butt of all those jokes for being so damned stupid. Recognizing someone's stupidity isn't the same as vilifying them.
why don't they ship the crude from alberta to a port in vancouver? fuck the kochs.
I don't want you to socialize your risk of spilling your oil in our soil and rivers with no benefit to us.
It's going to get there, one way or another. Be it pipeline, rail car, truck, bucket or teaspoon. Stopping the XL portion of keystone won't stop the movement of oil, it just changes how it will get where it's going. And railcars aren't exactly safer than pipelines.
"other than Alberta"
Well, Alberta's politics don't fit well with a lot of Canadians. However, it fits quite well with our western states just to the south. So, strictly as a favor to help you out, all us US-ians would be happy to take it off your hands for a small handling fee. We'd even guarantee no pipelines to be built on Canadian soil.
Deal?
Consider:
If the price of energy is raised the cost of creating, transporting, and housing goods goes up. These costs get passed on to the consumer who then requires a higher wage. Less wealth and capital are created for each joule of energy. Since wealth and capital create future growth, higher energy costs take from the capacity for economic growth. Some people in academia credit the entirety of the industrial revolution to fossil fuels.
Anything that makes energy more expensive in the U.S. destroys jobs much more efficiently than taxation or central planning. All human action hinges on energy consumption. All goods require energy to produce. The XL pipeline wouldn't exist in a non-economic vacuum.
As if the Canadian economy isn't hurting enough, now Obama's gotta go and twist the knife.
Unless you want to live in a 140 F (40 C) world, you need to leave 2/3 of all the coal and tar sands in the ground and not export them like morons.
Earth will get along fine after we kill ourselves off due to our shortsighted nature.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Oh I don't disagree at all. But the oil will still be there when prices rise again.
I'm not complaining about the current plentiful cheap oil myself.
As a Canadian myself, I fully support your right to have the viewpoint you do - as long as you realize you're in the minority and that most Canadians in-the-know don't see investing in additional pipeline infrastructure and new energy technologies as mutually exclusive activities.
"if somebody wants to build a coal power plant, they can. Itâ(TM)s just that it will bankrupt them"
Pull-yourself-up-by-your-bootstraps conservatives make the most hilarious self-appointed victims, don't they?
It's a bit of a mixed bag. It hasn't helped the dollar any - but that's a bit of a mixed bag too I guess.
I think you mean "irregardlessly".
but when Dan Quayle only accepted a different spelling of potato at a spelling bee, he was vilified
That's not what happened. The kid actually spelled potato correctly and Dan Quayle 'corrected' him into spelling it wrong.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
And Quayle wasn't vilified. He was the butt of many jokes, but he deserved to be the butt of all those jokes for being so damned stupid. Recognizing someone's stupidity isn't the same as vilifying them.
So, what's worse?
Making a simple spelling mistake or a self-proclaimed Constitutional law professor saying the US has 57 states?
One is being talked about thirty years later, the other has been pretty much swept under the rug.
Thanks for helping to make the GP's point.
I find that hilarious.
OTOH, more than 58% of Senate Democrats voted for the Iraq war as did 40% of the House Democrats.
I guess Democrats wanted the Iraq war a lot more than they want the pipeline, and they wanted the war *way* more than Republicans ever wanted Obamacare.
Going through BC would be shorter, but there's that little matter of the Rocky Mountains in the way. The route to Hudson's Bay is flat and easier to build through.
Thanks for the knee-jerk reaction assuming I was doing anything other than correcting the misinformation in the GP's post despite the fact that I offered no opinions about anything else.
Can we take down the environmentalism straw man yet?
-Rick
Well, when Obama came to power, global warming was pretty big on the agenda. Now, w/ the freezing temparatures even in the south, doesn't look like it's an issue anymore. With all the snow, he's really scaled global warming back to the point where we're now freezing. So Mr Obama, can you accept that you've done this job very successfully, and stop trying to stop global warming by vetoing this pipeline deal? Too much of a good thing....
Me waits for Americans to want to build a pipeline across Canada for their arctic oil. :D
A better example would be to compare Romney's comment about "binders full of women" as part of a (successful) affirmative action plan to Biden's (repeated) inappropriate contact with females -- including several teenagers.
I looked forward to shipping our dirty oil to the americans! Now it has to go east or west. Ontario is much too strong to let it go through there, and the people of BC will never let the pipeline be built to the west.
Boo! Canadians will hate obama because of this. It was such a great solution to our domestic tar sands blight.
-
By that logic nothing should ever get built. I wonder how many people work full time at the Hoover Dam or the Panama Canal or the Golden gate Bridge?
Rail is a bottleneck on the tar sands, as the developers aren't going to mine far beyond their capcity to transport the product, which is why they want the pipeline. Which gives more time for a less fascist government to replace Harper, or just forget about the whole project with the current cheap price of oil. But once you've got an investment like a completed pipeline, you're going to want to get your money back, even if means waiting years for the price of oil to go back up.
If I'm living in the past, you're living in the future. The only clean energy that is viable in the least right now is nuclear and that is getting so expensive now that the expansion of nuclear energy production is pretty much *not* feasible. When solar and wind power and heck, tidal or whatever else is on the horizon, become economically feasible, I'll be all over it. Who wouldn't? Abundant energy and clean too? F'n eh! Tell me when it exists.
And you are clueless about "a few rich Canadians". You obviously have no idea how many people benefit from the oil industry in Canada. I'm not rich, but I am Canadian, and I have engineering projects all over the country directly related to the oil sands.
Canada's third largest import from the US is chemical products and sixth largest import is petroleum and coal products. Almost $50B worth of these items annually. Do you have any idea how sad and obtuse you sound with your "we don't want your environmentally bad oil here" BS?
The stupidity is that Quayle didn't realize there were two valid and correct spellings of potato/potatoe, and refused to accept a valid spelling.
That is to be clear, "potatoe" was a spelling accepted in the 20th century, used by some respected publishers, up until the "Quayle incident". See: http://blog.oxforddictionaries...
See, I showed that a person on the right and on the left can both be wrong about the same subject.
Anarchists aren't against rules, they're against rulers. Libertarians are just fine with rulers, so long as they are "job creators", otherwise known as robber barons and oligarchs. Oh, and the "property rights" fetish, when the property is owned by the aforementioned barons and oligarchs.
You are a doofus. He was handed a card with the semi-archaic and less preferred spelling "Potatoe" by the teacher. He accepted the spelling he was given by the class teacher, exactly as hermitdev stated. Your team blinders have you so wrapped up in the echo chamber that you can't see it even when it is shoved in your face. Not only that, but the spelling "potatoe" was still in widespread use at the time... Even the vaunted New York Times used that spelling through the 80's. So no, not "so damned stupid". (interestingly, after this event the use of the alternate spelling completely disappeared, so he served at least one function).
He was and still is vilified. Team politics requires that someone must be vilified. Team R has been less adept at this, but they had Bill and Hillary for most of the pre-Obama era. Team D fully demonized Gingrich, then Dole, Bush, Reagan before them.... This enables taking things out of the realm of discussing the merits of one economic policy over another policy and into the world of "good versus evil", which requires much less thinking. Despite what I'll presume is your opinion of yourself as an intelligent and informed citizen, you a one of the useful idiots that you decry when they cheer on the other team. The only difference is whether you are wearing a red shirt or a blue shirt while you cheer.
The Obama administration (and the Obama campaign) ran around taking credit for the subsidies, that is how they became tied to Obama. Just like he ran around taking credit for Pelosi's healthcare reform. Sure, the administration was marginally involved in that process, but only just. The real deal was worked out in the Pelosi and Reid leadership conferences. I don't think it was even the administration's choice to take a bite of that particular elephant at the time, it was his caucus that forced the issue to the front of the line. But he jumped in front of the parade and took the credit, so Obamacare stuck.
I never understood why the Democrat leadership in the House and Senate didn't stand up for themselves more after passing the reform bill. They busted their asses to get that legislation passed with marginal help from the White House. They should have gotten more credit. And they should have been more pissed at the implementation of their law as well.
Well, he was in fact against gay marriage before he was for it. Loudly so, in fact. (but now we learn that he was really for it when he was against it, but he wisely understood that the bumpkins in the US who were way out in front of him on the issue were not ready for gay marriage and therefore he had to oppose it so that he could bring them along over time. So he really deserves all the glory for being so progressive. Even though he did exactly diddly squat to help gay rights.)
I don't care one way or another if the Keystone pipe get's built or not. I realize the jobs created would be good paying for construction, but would lack long term sustainability. But a good short term job beats no job or being on welfare. It means more paying taxes and more supporting the economy. In the end its really a short term win for environmentalists who will loose come next President who most likely will want to win a majority of support and not just a small minority. It means Obama may win the battle but not the war. Oil is a commodity that will not be going away any time soon. Government changes and while Obama seems to have the veto power to stop these projects now. His time is ending soon and the likely prospect of the pipeline happening eventually is pretty strong. Obviously Obama does not want to take credit for something he does not believe in. But sometimes I think he misses his ability to represent all Americans and not just a minority. After all Obama had some involvement in wasting tax dollars on clean energies like Solyndra and yet fails to see the benefits of a pipeline. When you are President you have to sometimes look at the greater good of all America rather then just your convictions. Obama's biggest weakness as President was not being able to compromise for the greater good of America. If he was going to maintain such strict convictions, he should have stayed a Senator. A President needs to be more then someone with a narrow ideology and purpose.
Public vs private.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Joe Biden is a square shooter. Joe Biden for 2016!
The XL pipeline would provide only temporary jobs for the construction of the pipeline. It might require a few dozen permanent jobs for maintenance and other costs associated with any ongoing concern. Then again, the US firms (if any) charged with maintaining the pipeline once it's built may not hire anyone new for these roles.
Not quite. This is from the US state department:
"The Keystone XL project, if built, would support 42,000 jobs over its two-year construction period. The report notes that building the pipeline would support approximately 42,100 direct and indirect jobs and contribute roughly $3.4 billion to the economy (that's about 0.02 percent of GDP).
About 3,900 of those jobs would be temporary construction jobs. After two years, once built, the pipeline would support 50 jobs."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/01/31/four-takeaways-from-the-state-departments-review-of-the-keystone-xl-pipeline/
Also:
"The State Department thinks blocking the Keystone XL pipeline would have only a small impact on tar-sands production and climate change. So what happens if Keystone XL gets blocked? Here the State Department seems pretty confident that the oil will find its way to market anyway — especially by rail."
"Transporting oil by rail carries more environmental risks than by pipeline. The report adds that, if the pipeline gets blocked and producers are forced to ship by rail or truck instead, overall transportation emissions for the oil in question could even increase by 28 to 42 percent. That's because there would be more trains and trucks burning diesel fuel and more rail terminals using electricity."
"A plan fiendishly clever in its intricacies"- Homer Simpson
"Mr. Obama retains the authority to make a final judgment on the pipeline on his own timeline. The White House has said the president would decide whether to allow the pipeline when all of the environmental and regulatory reviews are complete"
It is not his goddam authority to do this and if we had anything in Congress but a bunch of progressive whores who have never read the Constitution they would override this veto and tell him to go f&^k himself, in writing, using that exact language.
and your a dip shit, there fixed it for you
At least the President can't be bought. His terms almost over Way to go Barry!
You sound grumpy, Steen.
"You have no reason to not believe me"
Talk about illogical! Do you think we all have the attention span of a cracked-out ferret or something? Every post on this site is not a "new" one and I don't forget who you people are when I go to sleep at night. Khallow lives up to his name. He's quite callow and generally someone I find despicable- assuming that Khallow isn't a "character" just for Slashdot. You? Fuck. I don't know. You're flip floppy or something. One day you're beating the libertardian drum while supporting these teabaggers you claim to not like and then the next day you're jerking Obama off. Your beliefs apparently are tied to your mood that day. I happen to agree with your logic in your post probably because, I too, know teabaggers are just racist rednecks trying to fool us all. But something else I know because "I was there" and my anecdotes also equal data are that every single person I've met who spelled Mark with a C were total assholes. I was in the military, too, so I have met a fuck ton of people. Not a one of those C Marks were decent folks. They were driven and relatively successful because of that but they weren't people you'd want to hang around. You'd more likely end up collateral damage.
So see, Marc, I now have my "facts" too. I dunno what happened to you lately man. I already noted your assholery earlier in this thread and in case you were unaware, you've had a mental change over the past couple months. Your mind closed. Not to ideas or moral things, but to discussion and viewpoints. You are bitching at Khallow about having his mind made up, but you do too. What you've been doing recently is dropping whatever your wall-of-text might be, and then insulting everyone who responds in opposition. You then restate the exact same wall o text and tell said "hater" that they've become closed minded and you refuse to waste your time discussing the subject any more. You might as well just post AC if that's all you're going to do.
While Khallow and Bobbied are douchebags, your final response paragraph here is just sad. You gave that fucker the high ground because you went full emotional retard. You never go full emotional. People like Palin, Bachman, Pelosi, GWB, Rumsfeld, and McCain are the ones who go full emotional retard and look how that turns out. They can quickly sway the opinions of their listeners and motivate people to do stupid things but it has unilaterally been the case that once the hysteria dies down, that plan they had that we implemented was dumb, short sighted, expensive, and universally hated. Since I've listened to you for a good 5 years now, I realize you probably have expensive custom canvas paintings of all of those people minus Pelosi or maybe those people torturing Pelosi but my point is, that you don't have to sink to their level.
You need a /. break dude. Everyone toxic poster here combined with the stressful realities our world is currently dealing with will make you a jaded person. /. is supposed to be entertainment ergo it is supposed to be "fun". If /. isn't fun for you anymore, you should play a new game. Hell your first step could be similar to what I'm doing. I simply post AC now. This allows you to be as vile or as nice as you feel like with the added benefit that since you won't have that glaring megabox of response messages, you won't feel the need to get into a 500 post flamewar to "prove" your point. You simply fire and forget. It'll make you feel good, I promise. Your only pitfall you'll encounter is that after time goes on and you work out all of that pent up troll anger, you'll start to feel like those AC posts don't matter and that you aren't "contributing". Khallow may define his self worth through his political world view but you define your self worth from influencing others, gathering their attention, and controlling the message. The testical term for that is a white knight. You're pretty fucking white, dude.
Kentucky, the Virginias, Alabama, Mississippi, Tennessee, Georgia, Louisiana, Texas, the Carolinas, Missouri, and possibly Florida. Those are the only eastern states in a block that typically respond to disagreements with "retarded nigger" right off the rip that I can think of.
Someone named Akbar wants the Canadians to send all of their unused uranium to Asia? Color me shocked!
The "number of vetoes" is just like the "number of executive orders" ... a meaningless number. The content, scope, and context are what matter. Barack Obama had to veto NOTHING for his 1st two years because the House and Senate were his BY SUPERMAJORITIES. For years 3-6 of his administration, Harry Reid ran the Senate in an unprecedented manner; he blocked all legislation from the Republican house by just sticking it in his desk drawer as though it did not exist, thereby avoiding all debates and votes (the nation was left to run on CR's because not even budgets were debated and voted upon) ... no Republican could have gotten away with this but Harry and Obama were counting on the mainstream press to cover for them - which ABC,CBS,NBC,MSNBC,PBS, CNN, the HYT and WaPo predictably DID.
The House passed over 400 bills... but Harry Reid refused to allow them to be debated or voted on in the Senate... because if he had allowed debate and votes, many of his members would have had to vote "yes" on many of them or explain some very absurd "no" votes to their constituents and if they had voted "yes" then the bills would have gone to Obama (who did not want to be seen vetoeing all that stuff).
FYI - oil is currently flowing through the Keystone pipeline from Alberta all the way to the Gulf Coast, and it's been flowing that far for over a year. It's been flowing to Illinois refineries for almost 5 years. But don't let facts like that stop your hatred for Obama.
The proposed XL extension would almost double the capacity of the pipeline and add access to the pipeline from eastern Montana. So I think the grandparent was correct in asserting that rail accidents would decrease as a result of the pipeline extension.