Jump to content

Obama To Approve Keystone Pipeline?


Rambler
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 63
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

He said all along that he wouldn't approve it without the final results of the environmental impact statement, Goober. He never said it was a bad idea in principle, only to implement it without having all of the information available. Your idiot GOP politicians pushed his decision at a date that was way too early for the EIS to try to make it seem that he was not on board for energy independence and he was smart enough to stare them down.

Now that it came in, there's no reason to hold it up except for a bunch of folks in Oklahoma who already said they don't want it coming through their state. If it gets approved, that's what you wanted, so what's with the name calling? Are you six years old?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually considering the implications of something before approval? Sounds smart to me.

I still don't see the point in this scramble for oil that will barely make a dent in US prices. I have an easy time imagining that we'll end up burning down our country so we can save a nickle, rather than effect any change in our consumption.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually considering the implications of something before approval? Sounds smart to me.

I still don't see the point in this scramble for oil that will barely make a dent in US prices. I have an easy time imagining that we'll end up burning down our country so we can save a nickle, rather than effect any change in our consumption.

Don't try to use logic with the Idiot Brigade on these boards. Logic serves that if there is enough gas to be obtained from the Canada pipeline, it doesn't matter whether it comes here or goes to China because the overall effect would increase supply on the market. However, they seem to believe that we will get the gas for cheaper because it comes through the U.S. SMH.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh please... "He waited on the pipeline and lost the deal to China because he's so logical".

Some people would defend Obama even if he came to your house and raped your family... Ridiculous.

You are forgetting the cost to transport oil across the ocean. It's not just what they can sell oil for here vs there, you also have to factor in transport costs...

It is...

Price to sell oil here via a cheap transport method (pipeline)

vs

Price to TRANSPORT AND sell oil over there via oil tankers.

The pipeline makes it far easier and cheaper to transport oil from Canada to the US than it would be put it on oil tankers and ship it across the ocean.

Based on Canada's previous actions, they get the best deal in this order:

1) Sell oil to US via pipeline

2) Ship oil via tankers to China and sell oil there.

3) Sell oil to US with no pipeline

Canada was willing to do (1) first then when Obama rejected the pipeline they went to option 2.

If transportation was the determining factor, it would cost more for us to get oil in the U.S. than it does for Europe, which is much closer to the source. However, it does not. Transportation is not a determining factor in how much we pay for gas. If it was, we wouldn't be sending oil from Alaska overseas and they wouldn't be buying it from us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When they declined previously, they stated that they wanted to see a full report of what the impact woudl be, and to collect all the available informaiton so they could make a fully informed decision. That's exactly what they did, regardless of whatever unprovable, ridiculous conspiracy theory you want to trump up. Some people will ignore reality and simple logic in an effort to bash Obama indiscriminately.

Any nation or company can and will sell oil for whatever price they please. The cost of shipping oil does not offset the FAR higher prices companies can get from locations not in the US.

Stop whining and pay the going rate for gas in the US, which is still far lower than most other nations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If transportation was the determining factor, it would cost more for us to get oil in the U.S. than it does for Europe, which is much closer to the source. However, it does not. Transportation is not a determining factor in how much we pay for gas. If it was, we wouldn't be sending oil from Alaska overseas and they wouldn't be buying it from us.

It has been interesting to see the arguments Steve has conjured out of thin air to argue against the free market. I'm curious about where he will go next to bash Obama.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We drill a lot more of our own oil than Europe. You also have to factor in taxes, tariffs, currency rates, etc... Right now the Euro is still more valuable than the dollar. In other words, Europeans can come here and have a shopping spree. We go over there and lose our shirt.

All you have to do is look at Canada's actions to see where their head was.

Canada: "Hey US, build a pipeline and we will sell you oil"

Obama: "Sorry no pipeline"

Canada: "OK then selling to China is our best deal"

Forget partisan B.S., that's common sense and logic. Use your head.

It's neither common sense, nor business logic. Canada was aware of the environmental impact study and was more than willing to wait before entering any agreement with China. If they were to sell to China, it's because they got a better offer, not because they couldn't wait a month or so for a definitive result from the survey. Stop sniffing Diesel fumes, that stuff kills the few brain cells you have left.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have admitted that the President is wrong on a number of occasions, so I'm not sure where you're going with that angle.

It's also hypocritical that you would accuse others of partisan hackery while simultaneously calling the President's motives into question in the same post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

funny how that didn't apply with the healthcare bill

you know....that whole we have to pass it to know whats in it crap?

You act like it was talked about for one day then just passed.

This is something that has been talked about for decades in some form or another. And this particular bill for the most part was talked about for a year.

Granted the Pelosi comment was stupid and ill advised but despite how people on the right want to make it sound The president did NOT just wake up on a monday think to himself " hey lets pass this and it gets passed on a Tuesday.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You act like it was talked about for one day then just passed.

This is something that has been talked about for decades in some form or another. And this particular bill for the most part was talked about for a year.

Granted the Pelosi comment was stupid and ill advised but despite how people on the right want to make it sound The president did NOT just wake up on a monday think to himself " hey lets pass this and it gets passed on a Tuesday.

really? so you are saying that Congress and the American public got a chance to see what was in the bill before it was passed?

just because we talked about something that we would like to see as law means we shouldn't review the bill before passing it?

GTFO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sure some people did say that, but after deliberating for ages, I can't imagine why, other than to stall the bill.

I recall Pelosi's comment as being more bluncer than substance.

It's certainly possibel that they coudl have considered the bill further before voting, I just don't see why, after the endless debate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sure some people did say that, but after deliberating for ages, I can't imagine why, other than to stall the bill.

I recall Pelosi's comment as being more bluncer than substance.

It's certainly possibel that they coudl have considered the bill further before voting, I just don't see why, after the endless debate.

I also don't recall the details being available to the public, but then that seems to be the norm from our government despite promises of transparency

Link to comment
Share on other sites

really? so you are saying that Congress and the American public got a chance to see what was in the bill before it was passed?

just because we talked about something that we would like to see as law means we shouldn't review the bill before passing it?

GTFO.

Quite frankly yes.

They debated about it and debated and the republicans kept drawing out the conversation about things that were really not part of the conversation IE death panels and that sort of language.

This particular bill was talked about and debated in congress for a year. The characterization that some how people had no clue what was in it or the repercussions and the consequences were not considered at all is flat out wrong.

The law WAS reviewed

Just like the idea that gets floated around that the republicans were shut out of the process.....that is not wrong but a strait up bold face lie.

You may not agree with it or like it but do not mischaracterize it as something that was just pushed through with little to no debate or review.

Factcheck.org did many many pieces on some of the misconceptions of the bill

like this one

http://www.factcheck.org/2011/03/no-secret-bachmann-gets-it-wrong/

There are other examples.... could it have been debated longer??/ Sure..... it can always be debated longer, but would it really have made a difference??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also don't recall the details being available to the public, but then that seems to be the norm from our government despite promises of transparency

IT WAS available to the public.

Once again Fact check

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/twenty-six-lies-about-hr-3200/

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/private-insurance-not-outlawed/

Information was available if you wanted to find it. those were just 2 examples.

If the information was not available they could not dispute those claims.

Now I realize those were just about the house bill......... but most of what was signed into law WAS the house bill. So the point still stands

The process was not perfect by any stretch but the idea that some how it was thought up, never debated, was all done in secret and just passed one a whim is patently false.

But back to topic at hand the whole notion that some how Obama is wrong in doing this or even wrong in delaying it...

You know the person that spearhead the delay??/

The REPUBLICAN Governor of Nebraska.

http://www.factcheck.org/2011/11/pre-thanksgiving-leftovers/

http://www.governor.nebraska.gov/news/2011/11/15_pipline.html

"While there have been a number of factors that have brought us to this point, the catalyst for this extraordinary series of events was the calling of the Special Session. For months, Nebraskans have been clear about our position on the pipeline - we support the pipeline. However, we’re opposed to a route through the environmentally sensitive Sand Hills. Citizens voiced their opinions at public hearings in Atkinson and Lincoln and at the Legislature’s three public hearings. Through our persistence and determination, the State Department heard our concerns. Additionally, TransCanada has heard our concerns and has voluntarily agreed to change the route."

So basically yeah thread over

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...