2014 Midterms

[meazza]

It's absolutely mind-numbing.

 

I spent nine-years working for a company in NJ owned by a Jew, and the company had Jews in every department, and the odd thing to me is that unlike the stereotypical gatorman-like knob-gobbling follower, I've ALWAYS found them well-read, well-educated, highly intelligent and incredibly independent, so their allure to progressives never made sense to me.

 

You have to believe that after watching six years of the president pissing all over them and treating Netanyahu like dogschitt, they finally see progressives for the Jew haters they are and are starting to turn.

 

A lot of them aren't fans of Bibi.

[/dev/null]

http://thehill.com/video/in-the-news/223046-after-midterms-michelle-obama-teams-up-withpenguins

 

Michelle Obama and penguins

 

2 of Tom's favorite things.

[Chef Jim]

http://thehill.com/v...up-withpenguins

 

Michelle Obama and penguins

 

2 of Tom's favorite things.

 

What the hell was that???

[IDBillzFan]

One of the best headlines I've read in a while comes from CNN on their main page, under "The Latest" sidebar: Pelosi picks fresh face for key post.

 

Not sure why that's news considering ol' Stretch Pelosi picks up a fresh face every time she returns to California.

[Tiberius]

http://thehill.com/v...up-withpenguins

 

Michelle Obama and penguins

 

2 of Tom's favorite things.

Its all about Tom with you!

[OCinBuffalo]

Keystone Pipeline reality:

 

1. The vote is yet another attempt by Harry Reid to protect a Democrat. It's the same thing he's been doing for 4 years. The #1 Obstructor in the world is Harry Reid. Now, when it suits him to actually have a vote on something? It's only becaue he hopes that vote will help a doomed Democrat not get completely wiped out. I do not want to hear any complaining from the left, about the Republcan Senate, given Harry Reid's "politics over all" approach the last 8 years, and his refusal to allow the Senate to vote on anything for the last 4. (Btw, his approach got Ds asses kicked, so Ds should be pissed at him, not complaining about Rs to us.)

 

2a. The environmental concerns do not conform with reality or common sense. The evil oil is coming out of Canada one way or the other. Canadians "have their price"...for the F'ing oil in the first place...as much as anybody else in the world. I fail to see how "having one's price" is unique to Americans. Therefore, it is a specious comment/conclusion. Reality: everyone has a price for almost anything. What price do the young Muslims currently murdering, raping, and beheading people, place on their souls, never mind their oil? Russian soldiers are invading a foreign country with 0 pretext. What price is every single European willing to place on their personal honor, since they collectively(of course) swore to protect Ukraine? And we are talking about Americans having a price...over a pipeline?

 

Get some F'ing perspective. However, first get in touch with reality, because you can't get perspective without doing that first. Besides, reality misses you.

 

2b. Because the oil is coming out no matter what: the safest way to do it IS the pipeline. Rail transport is the other way, and that is far and away more likely to cause accidents/crush the water table(the "water table" is rapidly becoming a "war on women" cliche) than a pipeline. Again, perspective. Again, reality. Again: common sense. Again: the environtologist shows up as equally willing to lie/distort as the corporate interests he accuses of the same things. They never tell the truth: given the oil no matter what, a pipeline is the best way.

 

3. I love how corporations, which do all sorts of things, and employ all sorts of people, which require energy to do them, end up being the "bad guy" in this story. And again, apparently only America has corporations. (Ahem, one of my past clients, St. Gobain, founded in 1665 in France, might disagree) Reality: given the chance and circumstances EVERY country in the world, and their corporations, would take advantage of the economic opportunities, and take on the risks, of the Keystone Pipeline.

 

But somehow, apparently only the US, and only US corporations, need to be castigated whenever a new pipeline is created. I mean, since we are the only place in the world that has corporations, it follows that we are the only place in the world that has pipelines, right, environtologists? Hence we deserve to be shamed for daring to do what.....everybody the F else would do.

 

Again, reality is required for proper perspective.

[OCinBuffalo]

Oh, and now that this sham "vote" failed to pass the Pipeline?

 

Mary Landrieu is the last Senator to be damned by Harry Reid. She's the leader of the energy committee, and she can't get her own bill passed in a Senate controlled by her own party, that helps LA?

 

Say bye bye. That makes 9.

Edited November 19, 2014 by OCinBuffalo

[DC Tom]

Oh, and now that this sham "vote" failed to pass the Pipeline?

 

Mary Landrieu is the last Senator to be damned by Harry Reid. She's the leader of the energy committee, and she can't get her own bill passed in a Senate controlled by her own party, that helps LA?

 

Say bye bye. That makes 9.

 

Even better: she can't get it past her own party's filibuster.

[Deranged Rhino]

Again, reality is required for proper perspective.

 

What's the payoff, in your mind, to the pipeline being approved and completed? What's the benefit to American citizens?

[Koko78]

What's the payoff, in your mind, to the pipeline being approved and completed? What's the benefit to American citizens?

 

You mean besides a bunch of construction, maintenance and end-line jobs (oh, and the associated federal/state tax revenue)?

 

Can't imagine... It's not like this county needs to create jobs or anything.

[Nanker]

You mean besides a bunch of construction, maintenance and end-line jobs (oh, and the associated federal/state tax revenue)?

 

Can't imagine... It's not like this county needs to create jobs or anything.

 

Well, after B. O. screwed the pooch and left the Canucks holding their valuable commodity in their hands who can blame them for selling to the Red Chinese. They're nice people. At this point, asking what good it will do the US is akin to asking what's Obama to do in the middle east - after he turned his back on his responsibilities there and created a power vacuum that was eagerly filled by some of our staunchest allies in the region... not!

 

One benefit we and probably the world will have if the pipeline is built is the crude would be refined in the US and not in China where their version of the EPA will look the other way at the VOC pollution they create. That is whenever the Chinese version of the EPA gets created... someday.

 

So breathe deep and chalk up another round of golf and fundraising for the Incompetent In Chief.

[Koko78]

Well, after B. O. screwed the pooch and left the Canucks holding their valuable commodity in their hands who can blame them for selling to the Red Chinese. They're nice people. At this point, asking what good it will do the US is akin to asking what's Obama to do in the middle east - after he turned his back on his responsibilities there and created a power vacuum that was eagerly filled by some of our staunchest allies in the region... not!

 

One benefit we and probably the world will have if the pipeline is built is the crude would be refined in the US and not in China where their version of the EPA will look the other way at the VOC pollution they create. That is whenever the Chinese version of the EPA gets created... someday.

 

So breathe deep and chalk up another round of golf and fundraising for the Incompetent In Chief.

 

Sir, why do you hate black people, women and own a horse?

[Deranged Rhino]

You mean besides a bunch of construction, maintenance and end-line jobs (oh, and the associated federal/state tax revenue)?

 

Can't imagine... It's not like this county needs to create jobs or anything.

 

The construction will be temporary job creation -- and far less than the 25,000 jobs expected to be created. Over half of those proposed construction jobs will in fact be outsourced to China and India for steel production. This is not political rhetoric, it's the actual reality of the construction project. The most accurate estimates predict less than 30 permanent jobs will be created by the pipeline. The pipe line is NOT a job creator, at least for US citizens. This is a myth being pushed by international and corporate interests, nothing more.

 

So I ask again, what are the real benefits to the pipeline?

 

As far as I can see it, we're volunteering to run a pipeline across the heart of our country to benefit the Canadians, Saudis and a few international corporations in return for some temporary jobs and less than half of the projected revenue. In other words, we the people are taking all the risks and getting less than a tenth of the rewards of the project. And for what? Not cheaper gas, not more enegery independence for the United States... what is the point for every day Americans to risk the literal heartland of the nation just to help out the Saudis and Canadians?

 

The tax revenues I'd be curious to know more about, but I doubt that it will be substantial source of income to the economy, though I'd love to see any projected estimates of those as it might change my mind. Right now there is almost zero economic impact for getting the pipeline approved and plenty of risk to the most agriculturally important region of our nation. A mistake there could wipe out crop production for decades in the midwest... is that a risk worth taking for less than 30 permanent jobs and 4 billion dollars?

 

I don't think so.

[Nanker]

Not so Greggy. IF the pipeline is built it's probable that the crude will be refined in the US. Those are real jobs, and real taxes will be paid by the oil companies involved and the people working in the distillation processes. Too bad B. O. !@#$ ed over the Canucks and the American people because we could have owned the oil, but they sold it to the Chinese. B. O. doesn't care about the economy. He cares about B. O.

[Deranged Rhino]

Not so Greggy. IF the pipeline is built it's probable that the crude will be refined in the US. Those are real jobs, and real taxes will be paid by the oil companies involved and the people working in the distillation processes. Too bad B. O. !@#$ ed over the Canucks and the American people because we could have owned the oil, but they sold it to the Chinese. B. O. doesn't care about the economy. He cares about B. O.

 

The crude will be refined in Port Arthur facilities, which are largely co-owned by Saudi state oil company. Less than a handful of permanent jobs will be created, even in the refining process as those facilities are already staffed and running. Again, less than 30 permanent jobs will be created by the pipeline. Less than thirty! That's a crappy jobs program, especially considering the risks.

[Azalin]

The construction will be temporary job creation -- and far less than the 25,000 jobs expected to be created. Over half of those proposed construction jobs will in fact be outsourced to China and India for steel production. This is not political rhetoric, it's the actual reality of the construction project. The most accurate estimates predict less than 30 permanent jobs will be created by the pipeline. The pipe line is NOT a job creator, at least for US citizens. This is a myth being pushed by international and corporate interests, nothing more.

 

So I ask again, what are the real benefits to the pipeline?

 

As far as I can see it, we're volunteering to run a pipeline across the heart of our country to benefit the Canadians, Saudis and a few international corporations in return for some temporary jobs and less than half of the projected revenue. In other words, we the people are taking all the risks and getting less than a tenth of the rewards of the project. And for what? Not cheaper gas, not more enegery independence for the United States... what is the point for every day Americans to risk the literal heartland of the nation just to help out the Saudis and Canadians?

 

The tax revenues I'd be curious to know more about, but I doubt that it will be substantial source of income to the economy, though I'd love to see any projected estimates of those as it might change my mind. Right now there is almost zero economic impact for getting the pipeline approved and plenty of risk to the most agriculturally important region of our nation. A mistake there could wipe out crop production for decades in the midwest... is that a risk worth taking for less than 30 permanent jobs and 4 billion dollars?

 

I don't think so.

 

take a look at the maps linked to the article below. all things considered, I really don't believe the addition of the Keystone pipeline will have much of a negative impact. FWIW I never believe numbers provided by either supporters or detractors in situations like this, but I don't see how building and maintaining the pipeline can hurt us economically.

 

http://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Oil-Pipelines-Criss-Cross-the-United-States-Why-the-Fuss-Over-Keystone-XL.html

[Alaska Darin]

The construction will be temporary job creation -- and far less than the 25,000 jobs expected to be created. Over half of those proposed construction jobs will in fact be outsourced to China and India for steel production. This is not political rhetoric, it's the actual reality of the construction project. The most accurate estimates predict less than 30 permanent jobs will be created by the pipeline. The pipe line is NOT a job creator, at least for US citizens. This is a myth being pushed by international and corporate interests, nothing more.

 

So I ask again, what are the real benefits to the pipeline?

 

As far as I can see it, we're volunteering to run a pipeline across the heart of our country to benefit the Canadians, Saudis and a few international corporations in return for some temporary jobs and less than half of the projected revenue. In other words, we the people are taking all the risks and getting less than a tenth of the rewards of the project. And for what? Not cheaper gas, not more enegery independence for the United States... what is the point for every day Americans to risk the literal heartland of the nation just to help out the Saudis and Canadians?

 

The tax revenues I'd be curious to know more about, but I doubt that it will be substantial source of income to the economy, though I'd love to see any projected estimates of those as it might change my mind. Right now there is almost zero economic impact for getting the pipeline approved and plenty of risk to the most agriculturally important region of our nation. A mistake there could wipe out crop production for decades in the midwest... is that a risk worth taking for less than 30 permanent jobs and 4 billion dollars?

 

I don't think so.

I don't get where the 30 jobs comes from. The Alyeska pipeline has over 800 jobs. Why is this one so significantly less?

 

I also don't understand how getting more oil into the global market doesn't affect pricing.

 

I'd be shocked if this pipeline had any real environmental effect. This is America. We're the best in the world at this stuff and we actually pay attention when things go wrong. I'm a hell of a lot more concerned about shipping stuff across the ocean from the Middle East or the Soviet Union.

[IDBillzFan]

I don't get where the 30 jobs comes from. The Alyeska pipeline has over 800 jobs. Why is this one so significantly less?

 

I also don't understand how getting more oil into the global market doesn't affect pricing.

 

I'd be shocked if this pipeline had any real environmental effect. This is America. We're the best in the world at this stuff and we actually pay attention when things go wrong. I'm a hell of a lot more concerned about shipping stuff across the ocean from the Middle East or the Balkans.

 

It's all crap. Every ounce of it from one end of the political spectrum to the other. The pipelines makes sense to everyone except the extreme environmentalists, who have given tens of millions of dollars to have Barry keep it shut down.

 

Barry doesn't care about the pipeline anymore than he cares about gay rights. Both drive him truckloads of cash, so he gobbles their knobs, takes their cash, lines up post-presidency speaking engagements, and let's the rest of the dolts in DC trip over themselves in the process.

Edited November 19, 2014 by LABillzFan

[Deranged Rhino]

I don't get where the 30 jobs comes from. The Alyeska pipeline has over 800 jobs. Why is this one so significantly less?

 

I also don't understand how getting more oil into the global market doesn't affect pricing.

 

I'd be shocked if this pipeline had any real environmental effect. This is America. We're the best in the world at this stuff and we actually pay attention when things go wrong. I'm a hell of a lot more concerned about shipping stuff across the ocean from the Middle East or the Soviet Union.

 

The job figures have come out in the past few months from a few different sources.

 

http://www.newsweek.com/state-department-keystone-xl-pipeline-would-only-create-35-permanent-jobs-228898

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-02-13/keystone-s-thousands-of-jobs-fall-to-20-when-pipeline-opens-1-.html

 

Cornell's GLI school released this: http://www.ilr.cornell.edu/globallaborinstitute/research/upload/GLI_keystoneXL_Reportpdf.pdf

 

Pricing is not going to be impacted mainly because of the shale boom. We're already producing 70% more oil globally, and even more domestically, than ever before. The oil going through the pipeline will still be put into the market with or without the pipeline (which is why the CO2 threat the greenies are hitting so hard is silly), so it's really just a way to cheapen the cost for TransCanada, it's Chinese partners, and the Saudi owned companies that are going to be refining the sludge.

 

I'm not making an environmental argument here, but rather an economic one. Though the environmental factors certainly play into my opinion. I agree with you the chances of a spill are small (despite recent spills in similarly built pipelines in Michigan that's still costing us untold millions of dollars and has yet to be contained), the question should be are even those small risks worth it? If you're Chinese, Canadian, or Saudi the answer is yes. If you're an American politician who gets campaign donations from big energy, then the answer is yes. But if you're an American, I'm not so sure the answer is the same. If something does go wrong, no matter how slim the chances, we're the ones that are going to pay for it. And in return we get less than a handful of jobs and about 4 billion.

 

I don't think that's a good deal at all.

 

 

It's all crap. Every ounce of it from one end of the political spectrum to the other. The pipelines makes sense to everyone except the extreme environmentalists, who have given tens of millions of dollars to have Barry keep it shut down.

 

Barry doesn't care about the pipeline anymore than he cares about gay rights. Both drive him truckloads of cash, so he gobbles their knobs, takes their cash, lines up post-presidency speaking engagements, and let's the rest of the dolts in DC trip over themselves in the process.

 

This is the problem. It's been sold to you as a Barry vs America issue when it's not. This is a bad deal for Americans as it stands, but a great deal for the Chinese, Saudis and Canadians. You should really refocus your argument and ask yourself if you'd rather help those nations at the (possible) expense to our own for little to no economic benefits. I bet your answer would change if you thought about it in those terms rather than the snake oil the pols have been pushing for close to a decade now.

[IDBillzFan]

This is the problem. It's been sold to you as a Barry vs America issue when it's not. This is a bad deal for Americans as it stands, but a great deal for the Chinese, Saudis and Canadians. You should really refocus your argument and ask yourself if you'd rather help those nations at the (possible) expense to our own for little to no economic benefits. I bet your answer would change if you thought about it in those terms rather than the snake oil the pols have been pushing for close to a decade now.

 

It hasn't been sold to me. It is straight up Barry doing what he needs to do to keep getting Tom Steyer's money. If not, perhaps Barry could explain this to us. Perhaps he could break it down simply and say "Look, this helps the Chinese and Saudis, but not us, and here is why this helps them and this is why we should drop it."

 

But no. He's too much of a divisive money-grubbing dumbass to do something like that. Better to let other people discuss it for him so he can later say "Well, maybe we just need to improve our messaging."