Obama vetoes keystone XML

[3rdnlng]

nor was the response to which I posted a proper answer. If these guys want to troll so can I.

 

and in my opinion the Republican have been nothing but obstructionists since Obama was elected.

 

GOP leaders are on record saying they wanted Obama to fail (some changed the rhetoric somewhat but not their voting record)

 

when I bring this up the Trolls throw out insults.

I won't let you get away with a statement that is so full of horseshit like the one I bolded above. Name the GOP leaders who wanted Obama to fail, then if you can, place that statement in context.

[FireChan]

A voice of reason. Agreed 100%. Which is my point. A true moderate / centrist would want the parties to work together and not against each other. This my way or the highway BS has to stop.

 

Why do the others here expect something different? They shouldn't. It's much easier to insult the "liberal" and bloviate their party as the only correct party than to actually try to come up with a common solution.

 

Gee should I look for the token Republicans that vote with Obama?

will it prove anything other than the obvious

The President set the "my way or the highway" tone, you !@#$ing idiot. He, paraphrasingly, said that.

 

Look at all the great Presidents in history. Did they play petty sides, or did they bring the parties together to get things done in an agreeable way?

 

This is why you're an idiot. You're arguing against folks' sentiments using their own sentiments and "rah rah Republicans!"

[3rdnlng]

 

It doesn't lessen our dependence on foreign oil (not that we're currently dependent to begin with), it also doesn't bring profit for American companies, rather for Saudi, Chinese and Canadian companies. There's zero benefit for Americans building this pipeline when you factor in the risks and lack of permanent jobs it'll create. It won't impact gas prices either. It's a win for every nation involved but the United States of America.

 

But, political blinders are called that for a reason.

Why does the planned oil pipeline go to the Gulf?

[Deranged Rhino]

I won't let you get away with a statement that is so full of horseshit like the one I bolded above. Name the GOP leaders who wanted Obama to fail, then if you can, place that statement in context.

 

Why does the planned oil pipeline go to the Gulf?

 

The pipeline brings the oil to existing pipelines that will bring to a joint owned Saudi / American run company to process the crude. It goes to the gulf to save TransCanada shipping and time expenses for their tar sand crude. It's making their lives easier, not Americans or American companies. And we the people are asked to carry all the risk.

 

F that.

Edited February 25, 2015 by GreggyT

[GG]

 

It doesn't lessen our dependence on foreign oil (not that we're currently dependent to begin with), it also doesn't bring profit for American companies, rather for Saudi, Chinese and Canadian companies. There's zero benefit for Americans building this pipeline when you factor in the risks and lack of permanent jobs it'll create. It won't impact gas prices either. It's a win for every nation involved but the United States of America.

 

But, political blinders are called that for a reason.

 

I could have sworn we had an earlier discussion where I mentioned that you parroting a flawed NYT piece doesn't help your cause.

 

Fact - increased oil production of Canadian oil sands does limit dependence on OPEC oil

Fact - a new leg of pipeline would extend to the Dakotas extraction operations (last I checked, Dakotas are part of the 57 US states)

Fact - oil heading to the gulf wouldn't just be transported to tankers carrying oil overseas because most of USA's refining capacity is in the gulf

Fact - even if every ounce of the Canadian oil was exported, it would still add to the GLOBAL supply of a standard commodity product, which would affect the price of a standard commodity product no matter where it was produced.

 

But, other than that, Mrs. Lincoln ...

[Deranged Rhino]

 

I could have sworn we had an earlier discussion where I mentioned that you parroting a flawed NYT piece doesn't help your cause.

 

Fact - increased oil production of Canadian oil sands does limit dependence on OPEC oil

Fact - a new leg of pipeline would extend to the Dakotas extraction operations (last I checked, Dakotas are part of the 57 US states)

Fact - oil heading to the gulf wouldn't just be transported to tankers carrying oil overseas because most of USA's refining capacity is in the gulf

Fact - even if every ounce of the Canadian oil was exported, it would still add to the GLOBAL supply of a standard commodity product, which would affect the price of a standard commodity product no matter where it was produced.

 

But, other than that, Mrs. Lincoln ...

 

We did, and then, like now, I told you my research comes from source material not the NYT. It's a bad deal for Americans and despite months of debate no one has given me any source material that proves otherwise, only regurgitated talking points from either the right or the left.

 

Fact: We've already reduced our dependence on OPEC oil by developing our own oil at home. The oil market is FLOODED currently as we're trying to punish the petrol-dollar power of mother Russia. This pipeline does nothing to help our dependence in the big picture.

 

Fact: The new pipeline won't profit American companies, the construction costs won't either as much of the steel and labor is coming from China and India.

 

Fact: Irrelevant. Let TransCanada pay more to ship their oil to the gulf in tankers or on rails.

 

Fact: See point one.

Edited February 25, 2015 by GreggyT

[GG]

 

We did, and then, like now, I told you my research comes from source material not the NYT. It's a bad deal for Americans and despite months of debate no one has given me any source material that proves otherwise, only regurgitated talking points from either the right or the left.

 

How is it bad for Americans, when it significantly increases the global oil output and provides a very safe & efficient delivery of a GLOBAL COMMODITY.

 

Surprised no one linked the obvious (which was also discussed at the time of the horrible Quebec train disaster)

 

"Activists get their jollies blocking pipeline construction, but the crude still flows through your neighborhood"

[IDBillzFan]

A true moderate / centrist would want the parties to work together and not against each other. This my way or the highway BS has to stop.

 

Let me put it so simply that even you can figure it out: Keystone was a bipartisan bill. Period. The President vetoed a bipartisan bill for his own fundraising interests. Please tell us again who is obstructing.

 

You can. But you won't. Because...well...BUSHCHENEYRUMMYPALINOREILLY!!!

 

 

 

There's a difference between wanting him to fail and wanting him to have a single term. A thinking person like yourself should know that. BF4E and gatorman? Not so much.

Edited February 25, 2015 by LABillzFan

[Deranged Rhino]

 

There's a difference between wanting him to fail and wanting him to have a single term. A thinking person like yourself should know that. BF4E and gatorman? Not so much.

 

 

The man hadn't even been president for a minute and that was the leader of the GOP saying they would oppose him at every turn. And then, for four years, did exactly that. I'm sorry, but it's completely phoney and historically inaccurrate to argue anything but the GOP Congress had it out for Obama from day one. You like to talk about the lack of leadership displayed by this executive (and you could -- and have -- make an excellent case for that) but it's hollow and meaningless unless you're willing to apply the same critique to your own party leadership.

 

The country is in the position we're in today because of the attitude of McConnel and the GOP as well as Obama and the left. It takes two.

[3rdnlng]

 

 

The pipeline brings the oil to existing pipelines that will bring to a joint owned Saudi / American run company to process the crude. It goes to the gulf to save TransCanada shipping and time expenses for their tar sand crude. It's making their lives easier, not Americans or American companies. And we the people are asked to carry all the risk.

 

F that.

So, a Republican leader didn't want Obama to get a second term? Why do you think your video only consisted of 7 seconds?

[Deranged Rhino]

So, a Republican leader didn't want Obama to get a second term? Why do you think your video only consisted of 7 seconds?

 

Oh, the rest of the speech doesn't help your case. It's out there if you wish to watch. I have.

[3rdnlng]

 

The man hadn't even been president for a minute and that was the leader of the GOP saying they would oppose him at every turn. And then, for four years, did exactly that. I'm sorry, but it's completely phoney and historically inaccurrate to argue anything but the GOP Congress had it out for Obama from day one. You like to talk about the lack of leadership displayed by this executive (and you could -- and have -- make an excellent case for that) but it's hollow and meaningless unless you're willing to apply the same critique to your own party leadership.

 

The country is in the position we're in today because of the attitude of McConnel and the GOP as well as Obama and the left. It takes two.

What is wrong with the opposition party opposing policies that they believe are wrong for the country?

[Deranged Rhino]

What is wrong with the opposition party opposing policies that they believe are wrong for the country?

 

Nothing. Unless your motive is party over country.

[IDBillzFan]

 

The man hadn't even been president for a minute and that was the leader of the GOP saying they would oppose him at every turn. And then, for four years, did exactly that.

 

In the end, though, they actually did what was asked of them by the people, who not only handed the GOP the Congress after Obama's first two years but also the Senate after six and absolutely crushed whatever structure the left had at the state and local levels. You would think if the GOP were as bad as the left makes them out to be, the left would still hold a majority, no?

 

And again...the didn't want the president to fail. They wanted the other side to only have one term. (Note: I think McConnell's comment was stupid red meat to Heritage. I'm just sayin'....)

[Deranged Rhino]

 

In the end, though, they actually did what was asked of them by the people, who not only handed the GOP the Congress after Obama's first two years but also the Senate after six and absolutely crushed whatever structure the left had at the state and local levels. You would think if the GOP were as bad as the left makes them out to be, the left would still hold a majority, no?

 

And again...the didn't want the president to fail. They wanted the other side to only have one term. (Note: I think McConnell's comment was stupid red meat to Heritage. I'm just sayin'....)

 

Oh, it was absolutely red meat. I know the game, as do you. My panties aren't in a wad over it (and weren't when he made the comments originally), they only get in a wad when you/3rd/and company tweak my nose;)

[TakeYouToTasker]

Gee should I look for the token Republicans that vote with Obama?

will it prove anything other than the obvious

 

You could have expected Republicans to work with the President to find areas of common ground, and to come to reasonable compromises, with both parties giving in on some issues in order to forge working agreement, the way that Bill Clinton worked with an opposition congress.

 

Instead, President Obama literally told Republicans that they "could sit in the back"; and rammed through legislation which had bipartisain opposition, in violation of Constitutional law-making processes. He then instructed Harry Reid not to advance any bills through the Senate solely because he was not interested in working with Republican lawmakers, and did not wish to give them the opportunity to offer amendments to any bills that may make it to the floor.

 

The honest truth is, you'll never get to know if this Republican Congress would have worked with the sitting Democratic President, as they did with President Clinton, because the President never gave them the chance.

Edited February 25, 2015 by TakeYouToTasker

[keepthefaith]

 

It doesn't lessen our dependence on foreign oil (not that we're currently dependent to begin with), it also doesn't bring profit for American companies, rather for Saudi, Chinese and Canadian companies. There's zero benefit for Americans building this pipeline when you factor in the risks and lack of permanent jobs it'll create. It won't impact gas prices either. It's a win for every nation involved but the United States of America.

 

But, political blinders are called that for a reason.

We still buy a significant amount of oil from the Mid-East region. We should do the pipeline even if for no other reason than to provide a source of oil that we may need if the most unstable part of the world becomes a less reliable source of oil. Since when are short term jobs of no benefit? Seems like they were a huge benefit back when the stimulus bill was being force fed to us. Oh by the way, construction jobs are all short-term. When projects are completed, those jobs end and people are only employed if the next project is ready and funded.

Edited February 25, 2015 by keepthefaith

[Dante]

 

We did, and then, like now, I told you my research comes from source material not the NYT. It's a bad deal for Americans and despite months of debate no one has given me any source material that proves otherwise, only regurgitated talking points from either the right or the left.

 

Fact: We've already reduced our dependence on OPEC oil by developing our own oil at home. The oil market is FLOODED currently as we're trying to punish the petrol-dollar power of mother Russia. This pipeline does nothing to help our dependence in the big picture.

 

Fact: The new pipeline won't profit American companies, the construction costs won't either as much of the steel and labor is coming from China and India.

 

Fact: Irrelevant. Let TransCanada pay more to ship their oil to the gulf in tankers or on rails.

 

Fact: See point one.

Just a aside. Is the flooding of oil by the Saudis hurting our domestic producers as well. Seems like it's a effort to put all competition out of business so they can do the cartel thing again. I totally agree on the russian thing as well.

[Tiberius]

You could have expected Republicans to work with the President to find areas of common ground, and to come to reasonable compromises, with both parties giving in on some issues in order to forge working agreement, the way that Bill Clinton worked with an opposition congress.

 

Instead, President Obama literally told Republicans that they "could sit in the back"; and rammed through legislation which had bipartisain opposition, in violation of Constitutional law-making processes. He then instructed Harry Reid to to advance any bills through the Senate solely because he was not interested in working with Republican lawmakers, and did not wish to give them the opportunity to offer amendments to any bills that may make it to the floor.

 

The honest truth is, you'll never get to know if this Republican Congress would have worked with the sitting Democratic President, as they did with President Clinton, because the President never gave them the chance.

oh brother!

[Deranged Rhino]

We still buy a significant amount of oil from the Mid-East region. We should do the pipeline even if for no other reason than to provide a source of oil that we may need if the most unstable part of the world becomes a less reliable source of oil. Since when are short term jobs of no benefit? Seems like they were a huge benefit back when the stimulus bill was being force fed to us. Oh by the way, construction jobs are all short-term. When projects are completed, those jobs end and people are only employed if the next project is ready and funded.

 

The pipeline doesn't help the US with its oil dependency because the US doesn't own the oil going through those pipes -- Saudi Arabia and Canada do. So, you see, the pipeline is helping the Saudis keep their stranglehold on the oil monopoly. It's not deterring them or fostering American independence at all. The construction of the pipeline, which could be a boon for jobs, won't be because the supplies and contractors are going to be Indian, Chinese and Canadian largely -- not American workers.

 

The entire project is designed to help the Saudis, Canadians, Chinese and to a lesser extent India. The US is on the bottom of the list in terms of nations that will benefit from this.