Keystone Pipeline: Louisiana

[Flash Walken]

What is the substantive, evidence based argument that Obama should be operating differently than he currently is?

Where is the evidence that this project will create more than a few thousand short term jobs?

Where is the evidence of how this will benefit the US economy?

Where is the evidence that this will do anything to help greenhouse gas emissions which the US has just recently pledged to reduce?

Sounds like a lot of crying that he won't just do what other people want him to do.

So far, the only argument I've seen to the contrary is that energy = good and that rail is worse than pipelines.

[ExiledFlamesFan]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

What is the substantive, evidence based argument that Obama should be operating differently than he currently is?

Where is the evidence that this project will create more than a few thousand short term jobs?

Where is the evidence of how this will benefit the US economy?

Where is the evidence that this will do anything to help greenhouse gas emissions which the US has just recently pledged to reduce?

Sounds like a lot of crying that he won't just do what other people want him to do.

So far, the only argument I've seen to the contrary is that energy = good and that rail is worse than pipelines.

It's called democracy. The American people elected officials who are in favour of building the pipeline.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by ExiledFlamesFan

It's called democracy. The American people elected officials who are in favour of building the pipeline.

Well, they elected Obama, twice, who isn't.

So what about Democracy?

[ExiledFlamesFan]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Well, they elected Obama, twice, who isn't.

So what about Democracy?

Did you miss the recent election?

Times change. Public opinion changes. Obama was last elected as president 2 years ago.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Well, they elected Obama, twice, who isn't.

So what about Democracy?

They also elected Democrats and Republicans who are in favor of building the pipeline.

I mean, disapprove of the pipeline based on environmental concerns all you want, but don't pretend that Obama is doing anything else other than trying to salvage a trainwreck of a Presidency by suddenly deciding to take a stance against that evil Canadian oil despite many in his own party wanting it to be built.

This isn't a Democrat against Republican issue.

[Flash Walken]

Trainwreck of a presidency? Ok then...

[Flames in 07]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

What is the substantive, evidence based argument that Obama should be operating differently than he currently is?

Where is the evidence that this project will create more than a few thousand short term jobs?

Where is the evidence of how this will benefit the US economy?

Where is the evidence that this will do anything to help greenhouse gas emissions which the US has just recently pledged to reduce?

Sounds like a lot of crying that he won't just do what other people want him to do.

So far, the only argument I've seen to the contrary is that energy = good and that rail is worse than pipelines.

You make it seem like this is a small point. Its massive. Railing the material is expensive and dangerous.

No Keystone = massive wealth transfer from Cdn Companies producing to US companies or US subs refining. That transfer happens everyday and is one of the largest transfers at prices below the actual value of the material in the history of earth. Canada media has never picked it up on reporting this but Canada is giving away its most valuable resource, mostly to America, at a value that is way lower than its actual worth.

Any other country on the planet wouldn't stand for it, but this one does, mostly because it doesn't understand what's going on.

[Azure]

According to the teamsters commercial on Sportsnet, there is a rail accident every 60 seconds in Canada.

Sounds pretty dangerous.

[burn_this_city]

I thought it was 1 every 60 hours. The commercial is funny, I wonder how many truck accidents there are in that time frame.

[RinkRat]

Trains.....efficient but not nearly as much as a pipeline, but I also hate trains with a passion, which is sad as I'm a railway employee. Two significant derailments on the crowsnest subdivision in the last two weeks alone.

Share price is skyrocketing but maintenance is out the door now, for the rails and the engines.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Azure

According to the teamsters commercial on Sportsnet, there is a rail accident every 60 seconds in Canada.

Sounds pretty dangerous.

Sounds like rail could use more regulation.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

I thought it was 1 every 60 hours. The commercial is funny, I wonder how many truck accidents there are in that time frame.

60 hours does sound a lot more realistic number.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Sounds like rail could use more regulation.

It certainly does, and with the big boom in rail traffic the past few years, its obvious that the safety/regulation part of it was neglected.

But, it will never be as efficient as a pipeline. And the oil will flow either way. Better it flow by pipeline.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by Flames in 07

You make it seem like this is a small point. Its massive. Railing the material is expensive and dangerous.

No Keystone = massive wealth transfer from Cdn Companies producing to US companies or US subs refining. That transfer happens everyday and is one of the largest transfers at prices below the actual value of the material in the history of earth. Canada media has never picked it up on reporting this but Canada is giving away its most valuable resource, mostly to America, at a value that is way lower than its actual worth.

Any other country on the planet wouldn't stand for it, but this one does, mostly because it doesn't understand what's going on.

So why would anyone expect the American President to support a pipeline that would help put an end to that transfer of wealth to his country?

[Azure]

Because it ensures stable supply of oil to American refineries from their biggest trading partner for years to come?

[Mike F]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

It would be an interesting study, because Obama has gotten a reputation as a president who has a higher priority in terms of fund raising then past presidents.

I mean would the worst thing that happens if Obama approves Keystone is that he doesn't get invited to one of George Clooney's fundraisers?

If you don't like Obama's focus on fund raising, blame it on Citizens United and the rise of Super PACs more than Obama's supposedly unprecedented money focused priorities.

Every president after Obama will have to spend an inordinate amount of time fundraising until they fix their ridiculous campaign finance issues.

[DuffMan]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

So in otherwords nothing different from his first 6 years except that he's done as much to make himself look like an idiot).

You're either an idiot or in some serious denial.

Aside from dragging the country out of a recession, pulling troops out of some foreign wars, not letting the auto industry go bankrupt, disposing of OBL etc. etc., all the while fighting obstruction and resistance at every step from people like you I guess.

Here's a list that is probably a few years old by now with citations of some of his many other accomplishments.

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/02...ith-citations/

But that's ok, you keep believing whatever the republicans say. Kind of like the people in his own party being against him. Do you have any evidence of this? Or is it just something you've heard?

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Azure

Because it ensures stable supply of oil to American refineries from their biggest trading partner for years to come?

The supply is already stable, and growing predictably.

Seriously, what is the motivation here to proceed in a different way than he has?

[DuffMan]

Originally Posted by Mike F

If you don't like Obama's focus on fund raising, blame it on Citizens United and the rise of Super PACs more than Obama's supposedly unprecedented money focused priorities.

Every president after Obama will have to spend an inordinate amount of time fundraising until they fix their ridiculous campaign finance issues.

Hello Koch brothers

[Derek Sutton]

Senate does not approve, one vote short. On CNN right now.