[TheRealThing]

Poll-- "A Fox News poll finds most American voters support building the proposed Keystone XL oil pipeline. In addition, just over half blame the Obama administration for the recent increase in gas prices.

By a wide 70-23 percent margin, voters support building the pipeline that would transport oil from Canada to refineries in the United States."


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/03/...z2OgGoug4c


And, just how long has this administration been sitting on the Keystone Pipeline Project? "In Washington, a presidential Administration releases news it doesn’t like at 5 p.m. on Fridays. So it pays to pay attention when everyone is leaving work for the weekend. Late last Friday, the State Department released a positive environmental review of the Keystone XL pipeline. President Obama has been delaying this pipeline—which would carry oil from Canada to refineries in Texas—for more than three years."

Late last Friday, the State Department released a positive environmental review of the Keystone XL pipeline. President Obama has been delaying this pipeline—which would carry oil from Canada to refineries in Texas—for more than three years. http://blog.heritage.org/2013/03/04/obam...-pipeline/


In spite of the weighty negative impact in matters of both the US economy and national defense, I say he'll try to tough it out and keep the quash on the pipeline until after he leaves office. What say you?

[TheRealVille]

The Keystone pipeline is a go, isn't it?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post...isan-vote/

[TheRealThing]

The Keystone pipeline is a go, isn't it?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post...isan-vote/

I hope so but many look for Obama to veto the project again.

[RunItUpTheGut]

We need stuff like this right now.

I hope thosein congress are smart enough to come up with something that wont eventually fail like all of the new deal policies, but no matter what side of the aisle your on, we need jobs in this country, and a lot of them.

[Hoot Gibson]

The Keystone pipeline is a go, isn't it?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post...isan-vote/

Why do you bother to post links to articles that you have not read yourself?

[TheRealVille]

Why do you bother to post links to articles that you have not read yourself?

I posted it as a question, right? What makes you think I didn't read it?


"The Senate voted 62 to 37 Friday in favor of constructing the Keystone XL pipeline, the controversial project that would transport heavy crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta, to Gulf Coast’s refineries."

[Hoot Gibson]

I posted it as a question, right? What makes you think I didn't read it?


"The Senate voted 62 to 37 Friday in favor of constructing the Keystone XL pipeline, the controversial project that would transport heavy crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta, to Gulf Coast’s refineries."

Because I did read it. The vote was non-binding. Furthermore, even if it had been binding, it fell short of a veto-proof majority and Obama still has not said that he plans to allow construction to go forward. How many jobs has Obama cost this country in the past three years while he tried to score points with the radical environmentalists? How many millions of dollars have Americans spent on gasoline because of record high prices that might have been mitigated by an agreement on its construction? Obama is a job killer.

[TheRealThing]

Because I did read it. The vote was non-binding. Furthermore, even if it had been binding, it fell short of a veto-proof majority and Obama still has not said that he plans to allow construction to go forward. How many jobs has Obama cost this country in the past three years while he tried to score points with the radical environmentalists? How many millions of dollars have Americans spent on gasoline because of record high prices that might have been mitigated by an agreement on its construction? Obama is a job killer.

This pretty well tells you what democrats think is important, their jobs! From RV's article --- "The 17 Democrats who voted yes included every single possibly vulnerable incumbent facing reelection next year, from 34-year veteran Baucus to first-term Sen. Mark Begich (Alaska)."

These guys know full well they are running over the will of the people and is further evidence of the liberal agenda.

[TheRealThing]

"The US State Department released its final Keystone XL environmental impact statement Friday afternoon, triggering a 90-day deadline for President Obama to make a final decision on the controversial oil pipeline.

Keystone XL will not pose a significant environmental threat, Friday's report concludes, echoing past studies by the State Department. That seemingly paves the way for Mr. Obama to eventually approve the pipeline, ending more than five years of debate over what has become a flash point in US energy."
http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/Ene...ourt-video


It's 45 days till the first day of spring and coincidentally, that will be less than a week shy of the one year anniversary of this thread and the prediction that the Pipeline will not be forthcoming during this administration. Bill O'Reilly thinks that the president will approve the project in time to give hurting Democrats the cover they need to win their reelection bids in the coming mid-terms. :popcorn:

[TheRealThing]

Tick Toc. The days, weeks and months keep ticking by and still no pipeline project. The Keystone XL Pipeline was first approved by Canadian authorities in 2010 and the US EPA immediately declared the impact study inadequate.

[TheRealThing]

"The State Department will “extend the government comment period on the Keystone XL pipeline, likely postponing a final decision on the controversial project until after the Nov. 4 midterm elections,” Reuters reported on Friday afternoon. The organization credited the information to a 1:30 call with Congressional staff."
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/04...-midterms/

This will not happen during this administration's tenure.

[TheRealThing]

[SIZE="2"]"Oil prices shot higher Thursday, after the seizure of two Iraqi cities by militants shook market confidence in the reliability of the country's crude exports.

The price of a barrel of Brent crude reached $112.29 on London's Intercontinental Exchange, just 10 cents below the 2014 high. U.S. WTI crude, traded on the New York Mercantile Exchange, rose above $106 a barrel for the first time since September 2013." [/SIZE]http://money.msn.com/investment-advice/n...9fac7e53ef

Let's see. We're dependent on Russia for rocket engines and space travel in general. We're dependent on the volatile Middle East for precious oil. It's incredible to me to think that so many American voters are willing to cast their fate to the wind by electing folks to high office, who think the USA has gotten too big for her britches. And, who have made it abundantly clear that they intend to take the US down to average status by world standards. The reason for this national insanity is justifiable only in their pea brained liberal minds, but hey, they're Democrats, right? Vote for them anyway.

At any rate, according to administration officials, Iraq will become Hell's Kitchen long before America steps in again. History doesn't record many examples of the victor having sacrificed much in blood and treasure, then to mindlessly leave the battlefield never to return but, we know Iraq to be one such case.

This country needs oil to survive. Poised at our northern border are those who would gladly build a pipeline to our beloved land, that would offset the need for we Americans to buy any more oil from our sworn enemies of the Arab World. It only makes good liberal sense then, to deny ourselves that oil in the name of protecting the environment. Liberal logic 101 :rockon:

Every day the energy noose gets tighter and tighter around the neck of the working man. Prices will skyrocket and our way of life will change. The hope from Barack's campaign slogan is pretty much shot but, the change part is likely to be a real juggernaut.

[RunItUpTheGut]

I only have one thing to say to that.
Drill baby drill.

[TheRealThing]

I only have one thing to say to that.
Drill baby drill.

I'm with you. But Barack thinks he's saving the earth by limiting oil usage through oppressive regulations and extraordinarily high prices. Even if that means rolling the dice on issues of national defense.

[RunItUpTheGut]

^
Of course, its barack.

[TheRealThing]

^Up in this thread I posted on Feb 2nd that Bill O'Reilly said the President will have to approve the pipeline to help get the Dems reelected in the coming mid-terms. Since that time we have learned that the President put off a decision on the pipeline until after the mid-terms.

I'm telling you, he'll never consciously go against the earth worshippers on this. No matter how dire the need, it will always be trumped by ideology.

[TheRealThing]

With scandals coming up more often than anyone can possibly keep track of with any degree of lucidity, the Keystone XL Pipeline project has seemingly faded from folk's minds. It seems now that Canada may be thumbing it's nose at the US. And the green loons may actually succeed in denying America a much needed source of energy right out from under our noses.

EXCERPT---
"In this period of national gloom comes an idea -- a crazy-sounding notion, or maybe, actually, an epiphany. How about an all-Canadian route to liberate that oil sands crude from Alberta’s isolation and America’s fickleness? Canada’s own environmental and aboriginal politics are holding up a shorter and cheaper pipeline to the Pacific that would supply a shipping portal to oil-thirsty Asia.

Instead, go east, all the way to the Atlantic.

Thus was born Energy East, an improbable pipeline that its backers say has a high probability of being built. It will cost C$12 billion ($10.7 billion) and could be up and running by 2018.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-10-08...obama.html

If this happens the US will be left out in the cold, literally. Oh we all know that little electric cars and guys sitting around all winter in jammies with footies in them while sipping hot chocolate are the liberal vision for a green earth. But, the reality of America's needs are a bit more complex and a lot less simplistic. Folks would do well to try to remember how painful it has become to pay for things like their monthly electric bill and the new normal which is to fuel up one's car somewhere just shy of the half tank mark. No coal, no gas, and no jobs in either industry, while suffering skyrocketing electricity prices to boot. I can't see where there would be any question in whether to vote for Republicans this time around. Things are much more expensive now and a 62.8 labor participation rate is killing the stock market at present. IRA's and pensions are in peril, and so is the future.

[TheRealVille]

With Marcellus Shale, and the other shale below that,(can't remember the name), with the oil produced in America, not Canada, why are republicans so inflated with the keystone? Is it just politics? Those two shales are going to create tons more jobs than the 2000 construction, and 50 permanent jobs that Keystone offers.


http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2014...ost-expect

[TheRealVille]

Marcellus, Utica, and Devonian shales are where the Appalachian energy money is located. Keystone is very small marbles, compared to these sites. Not to mention all the other shales across the US. FTR, we not only get gas from these shales, we get huge oil reserves. Keystone, with it's small return, is only a political tool, to sway uninformed voters.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shale_gas_i...ted_States

[TheRealThing]

Marcellus, Utica, and Devonian shales are where the Appalachian energy money is located. Keystone is very small marbles, compared to these sites. Not to mention all the other shales across the US. FTR, we not only get gas from these shales, we get huge oil reserves. Keystone, with it's small return, is only a political tool, to sway uninformed voters.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shale_gas_i...ted_States

Wrong, the US uses around 19 million barrels of crude daily. The Keystone XL Pipeline would bring in 700 thousand barrels daily. That's not small potatoes it's liberal spin. Spin BTW, designed to divert attention away from the real issue. That being this administration's bent to reduce the United State's so-called carbon footprint. In other words, in the opinion of this administration, gasoline "needs" to get up to around 5 dollars a gallon so that many folks will not be able to afford to buy it. You don't sneeze at viable sources of energy, especially those literally laid in your lap, considering the volatility of the Middle East. They will never willingly allow the Keystone Pipeline to go forward. Neither would they ever allow industry to produce oil from any of the sites you have mentioned. It would be against the dictates of their green earth goddess.

It's just another example of the absurd musings of the left. And another way they are trying to manipulate society in an effort to remake the world in the image of their pot influenced master of self delusion, John Lennon.

Were it to be the unfortunate case that liberals stay in power, they will keep their boot on the neck of industry or die trying. Therefore the anti-fracking crowd that puts out all the malarkey of the sort you have put forth, would through legislation and regulation, eventually shut down any hope of getting fossil fuels from any source, much less the sites you mention.

[nky]

With Marcellus Shale, and the other shale below that,(can't remember the name), with the oil produced in America, not Canada, why are republicans so inflated with the keystone? Is it just politics? Those two shales are going to create tons more jobs than the 2000 construction, and 50 permanent jobs that Keystone offers.


http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2014...ost-expect

why can't we do both?

[TheRealThing]

why can't we do both?

Exactly, we can't turn our backs on any source of energy, much less one that would supply 700 thousand barrels of oil every day. It was an attempt by RV to confuse the real issue which is that this administration has denied oil and jobs to thousands of people who desperately need them. This idea that a pipeline would somehow be an unjustified nuisance or an unacceptable threat to the environment is at best an absurd overreach by the left. That is the premise of this thread BTW, Obama will never allow the pipeline to go forward because of the La-La Lander's irrational stand against the use of fossil fuels. Hence the all the foot dragging and hem hawing. Heck, this thread is already a year and a half old, much less the smoke and mirrors associated with the stonewalling. Anybody who wants to be reasonable can see the truth.

Using that line of rationale, we shouldn't be putting gas stations all over the place because just one of them would be a drop in the bucket compared to total consumption. This is America, let's bring it on and vote out the loons.

[TheRealThing]

This has been a liberal attempt to deny the US of further sources of crude oil based on an ideological argument from the start. Hiding behind plausible deniability has been an elaborate administration hoax. There is no threat to the environment if we build the pipeline. It is rather, a global warming ploy and Obama will never go along with it.


EXCERPT---
"The White House says President Obama will veto any congressional legislation that approves the Keystone XL pipeline.

"If this bill passes this Congress, the president wouldn't sign it," White House press secretary Josh Earnest said."
END---
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2015...house-says

[TheRealVille]

Exactly, we can't turn our backs on any source of energy, much less one that would supply 700 thousand barrels of oil every day. It was an attempt by RV to confuse the real issue which is that this administration has denied oil and jobs to thousands of people who desperately need them. This idea that a pipeline would somehow be an unjustified nuisance or an unacceptable threat to the environment is at best an absurd overreach by the left. That is the premise of this thread BTW, Obama will never allow the pipeline to go forward because of the La-La Lander's irrational stand against the use of fossil fuels. Hence the all the foot dragging and hem hawing. Heck, this thread is already a year and a half old, much less the smoke and mirrors associated with the stonewalling. Anybody who wants to be reasonable can see the truth.

Using that line of rationale, we shouldn't be putting gas stations all over the place because just one of them would be a drop in the bucket compared to total consumption. This is America, let's bring it on and vote out the loons.

That's the rub, it wouldn't be for us. It would be coming through us, to a port in the Gulf, to get loaded on a ship, and taken overseas. That's where the republican lie comes into play. This is strictly a political stunt by the right. This oil does not help the US.

[TheRealThing]

That's the rub, it wouldn't be for us. It would be coming through us, to a port in the Gulf, to get loaded on a ship, and taken overseas. That's where the republican lie comes into play. This is strictly a political stunt by the right. This oil does not help the US.

I don't accept that line of anti-logic. All these reasons why the pipeline would not benefit the US are just inventions meant to give cover to administration ideologues, and are put in place to divert attention away from the real underlying issue. Liberals don't like fossil fuels. That's why they want the price to go up to at least 5 dollars a gallon. Many people will not be able to afford it at that point and usage will go down along with the fictitious 'carbon footprint.' End of story.

They're a bunch of earth worshippers who think they're saving mother earth. It's bull from the get go and it's hard for me to believe you can line up with all the fairies given your line of work. Thankfully, the influence liberals have only goes so far as frackers have thumbed their noses at being controlled by the government, and developed a new technology that single handedly delivered the US economy from the doldrums of global recession. A technology BTW, that is centered in the fossil fuels industry, which despite all the renewable energy blather, still remains the only source of energy we have to exploit, and likely will ever be.

BTW, look back at post number 2 in this thread. Which one of us had the best handle on the potential for construction of the pipeline? Your boy is a hopelessly deluded ideologue, and he's predictable to a fault.

[tvtimeout]

40 jobs!!! Lets spend 2 billion to get 40 jobs!!! That's not big government at all is it? Oh wait Kock brothers need to get paid!!! Call it for what it is...a joke!!! I wish our Senator would spend more time talking about coal then keystone... oh wait Kock borthers need paid!!! (I know it is Koch for the record)

[SKINNYPIG]

40 jobs!!! Lets spend 2 billion to get 40 jobs!!! That's not big government at all is it? Oh wait Kock brothers need to get paid!!! Call it for what it is...a joke!!! I wish our Senator would spend more time talking about coal then keystone... oh wait Kock borthers need paid!!! (I know it is Koch for the record)

Is government/tax dollars going to pay for the pipeline?

[TheRealVille]

Again, this oil lands on a tanker, and shipped out.

[TheRealThing]

Again, nearly two years ago you said it was a go (post #2) and I said according to what I'd seen, he'd veto the darn thing if it came down to it (post 3).

Now he comes out and officially declares he will veto construction of the pipeline so, who was right?

[TheRealThing]

Is government/tax dollars going to pay for the pipeline?

Of course not Skinny. I already posted the actual source of funding for the pipeline in a different thread and TV ignored it. So here we go again and he still thinks tax dollars will build the pipeline. :igiveup: