Keystone Pipeline

[Jim in CT]

I don't htink the pipeline is a big deal, not going to make a big impact. Politically, it was probably a good move to force Obama to start vetoing the GOP's proposals, just so we can show that when Republicans block liberal proposals, they are called racist obstructionists, but when Obama does the same thing, he i ssticking to his principles.

I don't know that anyone considers the pipeline the #1 is "the #1 concern", but it was a quick way to paint Obama with the same "obstructionist" brush with whichj he has so gleefully painted Republicans for 6 years.

It isn't the #1 issue. I think the #1 issue is the demonstrably fake gender pay gap.

[Raven]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I don't think the pipeline is a big deal, not going to make a big impact.

that is a short sighted opinion i think JIM
because of the vulnerability of it
not to mention the environmental impact

already as we speakblog) the ONLY River with out a dam
in the USA that's running through Yellowstone National Park
has had a pipeline burst where it crosses over it dumping
crude into a semi frozen river making clean up impossible

[JohnR]

Why does Obama in his SOTU address take credit for US Energy Production and then veto the pipeline?

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Nebe, of course we all need to be cautious of too much influence-peddling. I don't like politicians selling themselves either. I don't like it when Republicans whore themselves out to business, nor do I like it when Democrats whore themselves out to labor unions. Both undermine the Democratic process.

Jim, to correct you a bit, the Democrats whore influence to BOTH business and the unions. Clearly, they represent everyone.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by JohnR

Why does Obama in his SOTU address take credit for US Energy Production and then veto the pipeline?



Jim, to correct you a bit, the Democrats whore influence to BOTH business and the unions. Clearly, they represent everyone.

Thanks for straightening me out there...

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Raven

that is a short sighted opinion i think JIM
because of the vulnerability of it
not to mention the environmental impact

already as we speakblog) the ONLY River with out a dam
in the USA that's running through Yellowstone National Park
has had a pipeline burst where it crosses over it dumping
crude into a semi frozen river making clean up impossible

Actually, I meant the pipeline likely wouldn't have a big imapct on jobs or gas prices, etc.

We need some kind of balance between helping people and protecting the environment. We can't deny all technological advances that could conceivably hurt the environment. And we should be able to make it safe with curret technology. When did they build the Alaska pipeline, the 1970's? All the concerns were raised about the environment, and other than maybe being an eyesore to the 0.00001% of Americans who will ever set eyes upon it, it has done no harm (the Exxon Valdez is another story, but that wasn't the fault of the pipeline) while generating jillions of dollars that have been used to build schools and medical clinics in remote areas of Alaska.

[Raven]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Actually, I meant the pipeline likely wouldn't have a big imapct on jobs or gas prices, etc.

as was Tagger's original ASSESSMENT

we have such abundant natural gas but were not utilizing it ENOUGH

if the government would pull their collective heads out of their
azz's and reschedule hemp as a non threatening PLANT
the by product would be thousands of JOBS, ending of farm subsidies
and a creation of perfect OIL for diesels "seeds" by the trillions.

makes me laugh when trucks drive around on used french fry's oil