2014 Midterms

[Nanker]

 

 

That's not what I'm saying or the point I'm trying to make. This isn't an anti-oil stance or even an environmental one. It's simply a question about what the actual benefits of the pipeline is to the American people. So far, there haven't been any put forward that aren't dubious, or at least aren't enough to completely dismiss the inherent risks in building an oil pipeline over the country's biggest source of fresh water -- one that fuels the agro industry in a huge portion of the country.

But it IS the point that I'm making. The oil is being produced. How does it get from Canuckistan to the Orient/ Middle East? It's either by pipeline or by trainers on retail cars and trucks. All are inherently dangerous to a point. The oil will be moved. Like or not.

[Deranged Rhino]

IIRC didn't they change the route so it doesn't pass over any critical areas?

 

They did, and I should know this better considering my now numerous posts on the issue, but I'm pretty sure there were two areas that could not be avoided. I'll check it out.

 

I've not researched this as much as you. Actually not at all. But how does this fit in making the US energy self-sufficient? Anything that can make the Middle East irrelevent is a big plus to me.

 

I'm coming off a bit more worked up about this issue than I really am. I jumped in when Rob asked a bit about it, mainly because like him I didn't pay attention to it until earlier this year and did some research on it out of pure curiosity. So all that said, I'm not (by any stretch) an expert on this issue.

 

But, my understanding of the refineries where the crude will be processed is that they are all co-owned by Saudi Aramco, meaning the pipeline isn't moving us away from our partnerships in the middle east, if anything it strengthens the Saudi's position on the oil market -- with us taking all the risk.

 

I don't think it's a significant step to making the US energy sufficient unless there's a catastrophic situation where we take the pipeline by force.

 

 

But it IS the point that I'm making. The oil is being produced. How does it get from Canuckistan to the Orient/ Middle East? It's either by pipeline or by trainers on retail cars and trucks. All are inherently dangerous to a point. The oil will be moved. Like or not.

 

Okay, I'm with you now. That's a valid point, but just for the sake of devil's advocate I'd counter with those trucks/trains don't have to go through the heartland of our country to get to the market. It can go through Canada -- making it more expensive and cost prohibitive for TransCanada and its Chinese partners.

 

Unless I'm missing something where they have to transport it through the US?

[Chef Jim]

I'm coming off a bit more worked up about this issue than I really am. I jumped in when Rob asked a bit about it, mainly because like him I didn't pay attention to it until earlier this year and did some research on it out of pure curiosity. So all that said, I'm not (by any stretch) an expert on this issue.

 

But, my understanding of the refineries where the crude will be processed is that they are all co-owned by Saudi Aramco, meaning the pipeline isn't moving us away from our partnerships in the middle east, if anything it strengthens the Saudi's position on the oil market -- with us taking all the risk.

 

Buy the !@#$ers out.

[meazza]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/is-barack-obama-telling-the-truth-about-the-keystone-xl-pipeline-1.2838979

 

Man when the CBC is dissing you, you !@#$ed up hard.

 

Key players in the project insist they won't ship Canadian crude abroad. The State Department, tasked with leading the Obama administration's own review, concurs on the grounds that it would make no economic sense. The U.S. will import more oil than it exports, perhaps for decades to come.

The same guarantee doesn't extend to finished petroleum products. Nobody's offering any promises — let alone hard projections — about what share of the oil that flows through Keystone XL might eventually wind up abroad after it's been refined.

Those exports of finished products are already happening, they're on the rise — and they're being done by American companies.

For that reason, Obama's statement that Keystone XL is about Canada shipping its oil overseas through the U.S., not to it, contains "a lot of baloney."

[Nanker]

What? We need baloney filters in our gas lines now? Oh, for the love of might.

[Tiberius]

What?

 

"The proposed Keystone XL pipeline faces a court challenge in Nebraska, where three property owners contend state lawmakers gave the governor illegal power to take away their land for the project.

 

The Nebraska Legislature transferred to Governor Dave Heineman and, through him, to Calgary-based pipeline builder TransCanada Corp. (TRP), its authority over eminent domain in violation of the state constitution’s separation of powers, the landowners said in a court filing.

 

Today they asked Judge Stephanie Stacy in Lincoln, the state capital, to strike down that legislation."

 

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2013-09-27/keystone-pipeline-eminent-domain-foes-seek-nebraska-court-order

Edited November 22, 2014 by gatorman

[Nanker]

It's okay. Obama said he could do it.

[Tiberius]

It's okay. Obama said he could do it.

I told you this pipeline would become a Monarch, but no one listened. Taking peoples land and giving them to foreign companies. Wow!

[Nanker]

At this point, WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE? Obama screwed the pooch and so the Canucks sold the oil to the Chinese instead of to Americans. At this point, WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE? At this point, WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE? At this point, WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE? At this point, WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE? At this point, WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE? At this point, WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE?

[OCinBuffalo]

At this point, WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE? Obama screwed the pooch and so the Canucks sold the oil to the Chinese instead of to Americans. At this point, WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE? At this point, WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE? At this point, WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE? At this point, WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE? At this point, WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE? At this point, WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE?

Which....is bascially what we have to look forward to for the entirety of 2016.

 

As I said when it happened: "I can't wait for the "What Difference Does It Make"?" Chia Pet in 2015-6.

 

This is why I doubt Hillary can win. All she's been doing since her campaign began(and make no mistake, it began with her book tour) is self-destructing. Add that to her inexorable link with Obama's Administration(um, she was on the damn Cabinet, as Secretary of State, not Interior, or Labor....try to spin your way out of that!), and it's a losing proposition.

 

Massive change needs to occur for these fundamentals to change. Or, the Ds can always run Warren....(please! please! please!)

[/dev/null]

Louisiana held their runoff last night and as expected, Mary Landrieu lost her bid for a 4th term. Republicans will hold a 54-44-2 majority in the next Senate, a pickup of 9 seats.

 

Louisiana held a pair of House runoffs as well, with the Republicans holding both seats.

 

Arizona's 2nd District is still undecided and will go thru a recount. The Republican challenger has about a 150 vote lead over the Democrat incumbent.

[Koko78]

Louisiana held their runoff last night and as expected, Mary Landrieu lost her bid for a 4th term. Republicans will hold a 54-44-2 majority in the next Senate, a pickup of 9 seats.

 

Louisiana held a pair of House runoffs as well, with the Republicans holding both seats.

 

Arizona's 2nd District is still undecided and will go thru a recount. The Republican challenger has about a 150 vote lead over the Democrat incumbent.

 

Why do so many people hate women and blacks? This certainly can't be an indictment of the ineffective and irrational liberal policies enacted against the will of the people, so it must be racism and mysoginy.

[OCinBuffalo]

That's not what I'm saying or the point I'm trying to make. This isn't an anti-oil stance or even an environmental one. It's simply a question about what the actual benefits of the pipeline is to the American people. So far, there haven't been any put forward that aren't dubious, or at least aren't enough to completely dismiss the inherent risks in building an oil pipeline over the country's biggest source of fresh water -- one that fuels the agro industry in a huge portion of the country.

Horsecrap.

 

I outlined the benefits in detail(detail, because this way you have nowhere left to go) above. You have yet to refute any of the benefits I've listed. That's largely because I seriously doubt you have a proper understanding of the material necessary to understand these benefits.

 

As many here have said: Oil is a market.

 

If you don't understand how markets work, and, if you don't understand economcis(the subject, not Keynesian Eonomics, the doctrine, which only represents one school of economic thought, and has been proven to ineffective on multiple occasions by the other schools), then there's little chance you are going to understand, never mind accept, the benefits.

 

What you are basically doing in this thread is repeating the same false premises, framing them as "questions", and then ignoring what is said that refutes pretty much everything you are saying, and asking the same false premise questions over again.

 

Now, I'm not saying economics is a sure thing, and, I'm on record here saying every school has been proven to be effective in certain situations. But, what you cannot deny is that for 80 years Democrats have been screaming "infrastructure = economic success".

 

The pipeline, by defnition, is infrastructure.

 

So, your choice is now:

1. Hyporcrisy

2. STFU and build the damn thing

Edited December 7, 2014 by OCinBuffalo

[TakeYouToTasker]

In addition to what OC is talking about, the necessity for building the pipeline is bigger than that.

 

We, as a nation, must embrace the idea of having dozens and dozens of pipelines. We have more energy capacity in unutilized resources in the state of North Dakota than exists in the entire Middle East, and that's just a small fraction of what we have. In order to access these resources, and become not only energy independent, but a net exporter of energy; we have to embrace pipelines.

 

Given existing American business infrastructure and economic and political stability relative to the rest of the world, cheap energy is bringing back high end manufacturing jobs.

 

Pipeline construction has the potential to unleash a wave of economic growth in this country unseen since the middle of the last century.

[keepthefaith]

In addition to what OC is talking about, the necessity for building the pipeline is bigger than that.

 

We, as a nation, must embrace the idea of having dozens and dozens of pipelines. We have more energy capacity in unutilized resources in the state of North Dakota than exists in the entire Middle East, and that's just a small fraction of what we have. In order to access these resources, and become not only energy independent, but a net exporter of energy; we have to embrace pipelines.

 

Given existing American business infrastructure and economic and political stability relative to the rest of the world, cheap energy is bringing back high end manufacturing jobs.

 

Pipeline construction has the potential to unleash a wave of economic growth in this country unseen since the middle of the last century.

 

Dems won't be on-board until they figure out how to tax it.

[Deranged Rhino]

As many here have said: Oil is a market.

 

And that oil is going to the market with or without the pipeline, enriching the Canadians, Saudis, and Chinese along the way. The pipeline's construction will not increase the amount of oil in the market, merely make it cheaper for those nations to refine the crude. They get a cut in cost and Americans get stuck with all the risk.

 

PS: I figure in here you can say what you really want to say about me without the gestapo looking over your shoulder.

[OCinBuffalo]

Given existing American business infrastructure and economic and political stability relative to the rest of the world, cheap energy is bringing back high end manufacturing jobs.

Which, is why the Democratic Civil War, that has already begun(I would say we are comparatively right around the time that Lincoln got elected) will be bigger and bloodier than the pretend Republican Civil War ever was.

 

Look, we already have the "Middle States"(analogy) wavering over which side to choose. Chuck Schumer just played save ass on Obamacare. You think if somebody ties the pipeline to manufacturing jobs in Upstate, he's going to fight for the environtologists? Hilarious. It's not going to take much for more many "middle state" Ds especially those in Appalachia(including Mark Warner, who just squeaked by) to play save ass on Tasker's point above, especially once the unions start throwing their weight around. Surprises will abound. Watch for Dick Durbin(IL) suddenly being a pipeline supporter!

 

The 2 sides:

Unions. Consisting of mostly white males. Last I checked white males are leaving the D party in droves. If the unions want to retain their political power, they can't afford to "find out where their people are going, so that they can lead them."

Vs.

Environtologists, Hollywood. Last I checked these people are calling for moving the party even further to the left (WTF?) and to "purify" it, as if that isn't precisely what they've already done over the last 10 years, and "throwing $ at" that goal (the VC who dumped all that $ on the D Senate to block the pipeline, remember?).

 

Yeah, a purge is the last thing the D party needs, but it's so apropos isn't it? Leftists sending each other to the gulag...is pretty much what leftists do.

 

At some point, somebody is going to fire on Ft. Keystone Pipeline. And, that's when the "phony war" will begin. Phony war meaning the 8 or so months where everybody is waiting for the other side to blink, and pretends that the war isn't coming or real.

 

Sooner or later, the troops will be put in the field, the cannons taken out of the armory. I'd say that's right around a year from now, when Obama is a lame...micro-organism...that lives in some duck's ass.

 

Somebody has to control where the D party goes next. It will either be the unions, based on the promise of more manufacturing "good jobs", "middle class", etc. Or it will be the wingnuts, with the same old tired-ass 2004 global warming scam rhetoric we all know by heart.

 

Either way, as Tasker says, the D party has about a 60% chance of destroying itself, and that's with good leadership(meaning not Obama, Reid or Pelosi). I'd move that number to 85% if they have bad leadership. Not 100%, because: things like the Chia Pet actually exist in this world, and if people can buy that....

 

It is possible, and I say possible, for "middle state" unions to end up allying with business-oriented Republicans, against the Environtologists. You want to see a civil war? That's a civil war.

[OCinBuffalo]

And that oil is going to the market with or without the pipeline, enriching the Canadians, Saudis, and Chinese along the way. The pipeline's construction will not increase the amount of oil in the market, merely make it cheaper for those nations to refine the crude. They get a cut in cost and Americans get stuck with all the risk.

 

PS: I figure in here you can say what you really want to say about me without the gestapo looking over your shoulder.

For the last time, the pipeline doesn't run to China. It runs to Louisiana, where most of our refineries are. So WE will be selling the refined crude. IF you can't even be bothered to know where the F the thing is being built, or where it goes, what are you doing? Seriously.

 

And, as Tasker said, there's NO EXCUSE for us having to import a single drop of oil. We can and should be exporting it. Never mind using OUR cheap oil to fuel new manufacturing jobs, here, in this country, where we CAN compete with China on cost, IF we spend less on energy. The Chinese people aren't going to put up with $.30/hour and having to don NBC gear(gasmasks) just to get a cup of noodles forever. There's already entire books about this. They've already had 2 full-on Billionare flights from their markets because those guys thought "the end has finally come = the currency manipulation has finally killed us". It's just a matter of time.

 

And, when that time does come, the entire world better have enough oil on hand to sell them, or we're talking war. They already have 50 million men with 0 chance of getting laid. You add economic chaos to that, and then add the people being knowingly exploited for all these years? We damn well better start building things here again, otherwise, it's likely, never mind possible, that we return to the 1930s, while China gets all medieval on their own asses.

 

Dude, I have 0 reason to insult you. I'm merely trying to help you get your head out of the ass of the non-fact brokers.

 

EDIT: Oh, and unfortunately for you, you're going to have to choose a side. Either you're with the unions, or, you're with the environtologists. There will be no Henry Clay to come save your asses. Not when we are talking Democrats, and Power.

Edited December 8, 2014 by OCinBuffalo

[B-Man]

Has President Obama ‘lost’ more Democratic seats in Congress than other modern presidents? .............POLITIFACT says yes.

 

 

The story looks worse if you add governorships and state legislatures. . . .

 

 

 

.

 

 

 

 

 

.

Edited December 8, 2014 by B-Man

[OCinBuffalo]

Has President Obama ‘lost’ more Democratic seats in Congress than other modern presidents? .............POLITIFACT says yes.

 

 

The story looks worse if you add governorships and state legislatures. . . .

Followed closely by the Democrat temper tantrums that ensue over Gerrymandering.

 

Let's look at the score:

Ds nominated a far-left dumbass over the more centrist, pragmatic lady, who would never have done anything to damage herself, never mind the party.

Score 10 for the Ds, for having an "inspirational leader" but, socre 3 for the Rs, because: dumbass.

 

Said dumbass is not the owner of the team, nor is he the GM, he's just the head coach, and therefore, goes out and runs the Saul Alinsky playbook, exactly as instructed by his GMs and owners, thereby alienating the American public, and getting destroyed in 2010. Thus enabling the Rs to take over more State Houses than they ever had before.

Score defenive TD 7 for the Rs.

 

These newly controlled State Houses Gerrrymander the hell out of their states.

Score 7 for the Rs

 

2012 comes along and dumbass wins, but little changes in the House/Senate or the State Houses.

Score 3 for the Ds

 

2014 comes along, and again, dumbass listens to his GMs and Owners, keeps running the same awful playbook, and sets brand new records for Ds getting their asses kicked.

Score 7 for the Rs. And then another 7 on the ensuing fumble/TD by the Ds, because the Rs taking the Senate by so many means they keep it in 2016.

 

Now, the Ds are losing 31-13 = down by 3 scores(and you need 2, 2 pt conversions to win), and there's about 8 mins left on the clock(because you know that next year Obama is merely going to be a lame...micro-organism...that lives in some duck's ass.)

 

That's the score of this game. Who is truly responsible for the Gerrymandering?

Edited December 9, 2014 by OCinBuffalo