Meet the Billionaire Pulling the Democrats' Strings on Keystone XL

a reply to: teamcommander

Good question.

But we need to take a close look at the entire Keystone picture.

Lots of pipe is already in use.

Keystone Pipelines wiki with maps and info

a reply to: xuenchen

Doesn't the existing pipeline go to refineries inside the US which means the fuel produced actually benefits the nation?

From what I have read the proposed extension of the pipeline would then take the old infrastructure out of the picture and would bypass the rest of the country so they could export all of the fuel.

Who exactly would that benefit?

a reply to: Grimpachi

Like everything, it's complicated.

Here's one viewpoint.... fwiw.

Myths & Facts Will refined products from Keystone XL be exported?

a reply to: xuenchen

They kind of avoid answering directly by saying we only transport the crude. That's all fine and dandy however the refineries on the coast they wish to transport to have been reported to have plans to then export the refined product.

I do not see the benefit to the American people in making it easier for companies to export fuel especially when the cost of building the pipeline will cost us 7 billion and actually eliminate US jobs in the near future.

They aren't even willing to pay for their own pipeline to me that is just more corporate welfare. If we have to pay 7billion I would prefer to see that money going into building renewable energy plants that don't have a huge Eco impact on the environment and creates far more sustainable jobs. Or better yet let's not pay for any corporations toys. Especially not Chinas toys they already have plenty of our money they don't need anymore.

a reply to: OpinionatedB

Did you have this much to say when the BLM went on the raid at the Bundy Ranch? I bet not! Save the tortoise at all cost is the rally cry of Progressives and environmentalists..........please, I hope you cared as much about the Bundys as you do this alliance.

a reply to: Grimpachi

So I'm guessing you would support Harry reid and his solar plant deal with the Chinese because its renewable energy? Why is it ok with Progressives what dirty deals Harry does? I have not heard one Progressive declare the BLM was acting in government overreach, but here on the Xl pipeline y'all are whining big time. Oh and the crazy thing is that the reason they wanted the grazing land was to move the tortoises to make the environmentalists happy....so move the cattle so you can move the tortoises so the Chinese can take our sovereign land....and who is making the profit?
I would mention also that coal in Montana is already being shipped to China. Where is your outrage over that? Oh right no rare tortoises are harmed. By the way, the BLM trampled a tortoise burrow in their raid.

originally posted by: buster2010
One minute people want to cry about Reid and the Chinese solar plant but they seem to no problem with a pipeline that will be shipping oil from a Chinese owned oil company. China now holds 100 percent of Nexen, a tar sands and shale gas company, and also has major stakes in McKay River, Dover, Long Lake and other Canadian tar sands projects. So it's ok to sell out America's independence to the Chinese when the Republicans back it but it's not ok when the Democrats back it.

Well did you have a problem with Harry Reid and family selling sovereign land to the Communist Chinese? Or was it ok because it's solar and you love tortoises ?

a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

Way to go. You just completely ignored what I wrote then asked questions to which I just answered and went on to assert a false position on my behalf even about crap I neither mentioned or don't have an opinion on.

You could so be a politician with that level of misdirection and dishonesty.

You even did a slight of hand trying to switch attention to a different issue. Well I am pretty sure I can tell wich party your in even though you never even stated your own position on any of it you just tried to falsely speak for me.

The politics runs strong with you.

a reply to: Grimpachi

Isn't this all political? It is silly to pretend it isn't, even on a forum where they don't want politically driven discussion....but I digress, I have seen who supports the XL Pipeline and who supports Harry Reid and his Chinese solar energy deal and who does not support the Bundy Ranch and who does support a rancher alliance opposing the XL pipeline. It is all part of the same deal. Whether people on this forum like it or not, here is the trend....Progressives support alternative energy even if it removes ranchers rights, but oppose natural gas because it reportedly goes against native Indian rights. How predictable is that....
I might add that statists who believe in the Nanny State and Big Government have no problem with government overreach on a single rancher, but seem to revel in the collective nature of a group of ranchers involving native Indians as long as it opposes development of natural gas. Soooo support a collective of ranchers but not the rights of a single rancher...because goodness knows cattle fart and contribute to co2, unless it's against a natural gas pipeline and then suddenly Progs are with the ranchers. Again, more predictability.

Or wait...did you support the Bundys? Did it bother you that in spite of the fact that supposedly the whole cattle roundup was in lieu of the rights of tortoises, the BLM destroyed tortoise burrows and killed cattle to boot? I do apologize if in my "misdirection" and "dishonesty" and "sleight of hand" I misunderstood what your opposition to the XL pipeline is about. And you DID say that you would support "renewable" energy" (which would include solar, wind, and geothermal), rather than a natural gas source(presumably because the environmentalists are against fracking, which supposedly taints groundwater with chemicals, but the documentary produced by the Left is not exactly truthful about that either, which is another predictable thing). So I do apologize if I did not understand your stance. I also should have directed the rancher alliance to another person, but it was easier to work two people into one post.
But again, it is predictable that certain groups of people will defend anything the Democrats do, and the billionaires who support Democrat policies, and which groups hate the Koch brothers, even when the Kochs give money to hospitals to help people. So predictable, but maybe I got you wrong?

a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

YeAh you actually got a ton of things wrong about me except what I have clearly stated that I stand for already in this thread.

You seem pretty preoccupied in labeling people to groups or pigeonholing them. Perhaps you want there to be a larger divide than there already is in this country. Sorry friend but by your definitions of groups I don't belong in any of those categories.

Believe it or not there are people that form their own opinions on issues not by political affiliations but by the issues themselves. Does that bother or bewilder you the fact that there are people who have their own ideas on issues and it doesn't matter which group backs or is against those issues because that has no bearing on the issue itself to us?

I have no problem talking about an issue which is what I had originally posted on but you make the conversation real hard to converse about because it seems you think because I am against one thing you can assume I am for or against a bunch of other things because I guess that's part of some political party that you just assume I follow. That is a crazy way of thinking IMO that I just can't follow and have no reason to entertain.

So I am not realy interested in the halfdozen other things you brought up but this pipeline I do have an interest in and a opinion on which if you go back a few posts I think I was pretty clear about.

a reply to: Grimpachi

Hey Grimp, I appreciate that you do not wish to associate expressly with one group or another and that you come to your own conclusions. Given the political climate lately, this country has been very divided and the current admin has divided it more than I've ever seen in my lifetime. Pardon my being used to seeing a pattern in most people who oppose a particular thing, such as the XL Pipeline. I have observed almost exclusively certain groups opposing Keystone, but there are a few freethinkers about.
I know that some of the other things I have brought up are not relevant but I beg to differ. For one thing, certain people do tend to attack the Koch bros on any number of issues, while certain other people point out the involvement of Soros in practically everything. While the Koch bros are more Libertarian thinking, Soros is exclusively Progressive/Socialist. It's just the way it is. Progressives hate the Kochs and whatnot. But this Tom Steyer I never heard of before. Some of the most powerful people pulling strings are never heard of or talked about in media.
Anyway, I did give you an opportunity to tell me whether you believed in certain particular things, and you declined to give me an answer. I even apologized and you just balked at my whole post. So whatever. I am inclined to think you are throwing red herrings at me. I could be wrong though.

a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

You say you gave me the opportunity to tell you what I believed in.. certain issues important to you.

You call that an opportunity well I call that something else. I do believe most if not all of those issues have their own threads correct? If I have a strong enough stance on those issues that I wish to share they can be found in those threads on those topics. I don't make a habit of kowtowing to people when they whish me to declare my position on what they find relevant in threads that are about other issues.

You say you see patterns but so do I. There always seem to be a group of people that will enter threads on specific issues and it seems they do everything in their power to cloud the issue or change the subject maybe that is on purpose or maybe they just do not know how to discuss issues on their own merit but it has never been instrumental in reaching a better understanding of each others views and reasons.

I have stated I am for renewable energy in fact I plan to write a thread in the near future about the subject hopefully sheding a different light on it but I am certain there will be those that for lsack of a better word will troll it. But only time will tell. As far as renewables go I couldn't care less who backs them whether its is Soros or Koch to be frank I dont give a damn about the backers. Throwing around names like that means absolutly nothing to me. The programs or the actual issues do. I look at each issue for its own merits I hate Glen Beck style connect the dots or his Kevin Bcon game. I have zero intrest in it. To me that all just divides people further it mudys the water.

Th things I do care about are good ideas that benifit the nation or bad ideas that will destroy it regardless of the label you stick on it and those are the issues you will see me speak up on. Right now the issue is the pipeline whch I see as detrimental to the nation and no amount name droping or trying to ty it to outside issues will change that. I do look at figures, contracts, proposals, track records enviromentaly, and especialy the reasoning for wanting this pipeline. So far from what I have seen that pipeline will not benifit the American people.

Another thing I see a lot of is people shooting down articles because of the source sometimes that is justified but not because of slant only if they are known for lies. As long as the facts are correct I don't care because I will find the opposit slant somewhere to find a ballance. I see that all to often people cant argue the information so they argue the source.

The one group I try to stay clear of are fanatics but they can be found on both sides and I rarely agree with any of them. IMO it is the fanatics that are destroying the country the ability to debate or find common ground. I cant stand them.

Maybe that is why I like to stick to the issues and argue the merits of each. It is kind of funny I am talking about this now because an old thread I authored recently was revived it is called When did Moderate Become an Epithet it wasn't very popular, but still I liked it because I just wrote it in a spur of moment rambling thoughts of disgust in our current political climate.

Anyway it seems the issues I gravitate towards are fairly cut and dry in my opinion and I just don't have an interest in jumping down rabbit holes on them. Not always but mostly. So I am sorry that your disipointed I didn't feel the need to fill out your questionare of your hot topics but I am not going to either as I dont believe they have any bearing on the proposed pipeline or whether it would benifit this country or hurt it.

a reply to: Grimpachi

Do we really have to break all these things down into tiny little components so that people don't have to be uncomfortable when the issue as a whole is discussed? Really, one can pretend that the environmentalists desire to place animals and plants over humans cannot be separated entirely from the XL pipeline issue. We can pretend all we want that we only care that the pipeline is not going to be beneficial to Americans, but not everyone agrees on that point, as many people have pointed out that it will create jobs in a sorely depressed job market. So what say you about that? Energy as a whole in America has to be considered, as Progressives clearly want to sack the coal industry as well as put down fracking, and I guess because they really believe that solar and wind should replace at all costs, even if poor people cannot afford their electric bill from it. Such is the way of Progressive altruism.
Interestingly, some opposition may not even be that altruistic, but rather financial, like this gulfdogs.wordpress.com...

a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

As I said I like to evaluate each issue without muddying the water.

Do we really have to break all these things down into tiny little components so that people don't have to be uncomfortable when the issue as a whole is discussed?

Well when talking about the pipeline I think it is perfectly fine to include issues that are included to the pipeline.

Really, one can pretend that the environmentalists desire to place animals and plants over humans cannot be separated entirely from the XL pipeline issue.

The only animal I am worried about is the human animal and environmentally speaking if our source of water becomes tainted because of an oil spill I would consider that a problem.

We can pretend all we want that we only care that the pipeline is not going to be beneficial to Americans, but not everyone agrees on that point, as many people have pointed out that it will create jobs in a sorely depressed job market.

Now you are addressing the issue. So how many jobs? For how long? After it is built how many permanent jobs are left? From what I have read they say it will actually eliminate jobs once it is built for a net loss. That in my opinion is a bandaid for the job market which only covers up the problem for a short time and the wound actually gets bigger. If you can show that is false I would be inclined to change my mind.

So what say you about that? Energy as a whole in America has to be considered, as Progressives clearly want to sack the coal industry as well as put down fracking, and I guess because they really believe that solar and wind should replace at all costs, even if poor people cannot afford their electric bill from it. Such is the way of Progressive altruism.

Now you have gone on to other issues with the typical progressive blah, blah, blah, yada, yada. I already told you I don't care whom the information comes from, but I do care if the information is factual/correct. The pipeline as far as I know isn't tied to fracking, solar, or wind. Those are three separate issues and the only thing they have in common is they are energy sources.

AS far as the cost of energy goes well if you have anything factual numbers wise that you can present I would be happy to look at it, but otherwise that is a claim from you which I see no supporting evidence to back it up.

Anyway back to the issue of jobs being created by the pipeline well that has been a real issue but if we are only talking about a thousand jobs for 6 months or even a year then I can't get behind that. They are temporary jobs and a temporary fix I want to see long term solutions.

On top of that the project is said to cost you and I 7 billion dollars to put maybe a 1 thousand people to work for a year and at the end of the project those thousand people will be right back where they started without jobs and it is said there will be a net loss in permanent jobs plus I haven't seen anything to suggest the pipeline will do anything to lower energy cost for the US.

Does that about sum up the proposed pipeline project? Whats there not to love about that. lol

Interestingly, some opposition may not even be that altruistic, but rather financial, like this gulfdogs.wordpress.com...

It says some that have voted against the pipeline have between 15 and 50k invested in Kinder Morgans diversified energy which is a competing interest that has a proposal for another pipeline of the same nature.

1st my position on a competing pipeline is the same as this one. I am against it based off the information I have atm. Keep in mind I have just read a little on it since your post. As far as 15 to 50k invested in the company if you want to make an issue out of that you can but I am not so inclined. They have diversified interest and projects. Their average stock is at about $75.35. Is being invested in them nefarious? Well I don't know but I certainly don't support a pipeline by them either. Maybe the guy should withdraw his investment from that company if he was smart he would that would certainly clear things up a bit but to be honest with you 15 to 50k isn't that much to those people. Hell I might even have stock in them through my 401 I would have to look. Now 50K to me is a large sum, but to people who have millions I wouldn't think so.

When it comes to politicians and investments...well that issue I could write a thread about because I really don't believe they should have the liberties to profit off of legislative decisions like they do now but as my grandmother it is what it is.

Political corruption...you don't say. Anyway my position about the pipeline has nothing to do with the left or right as I have said before it is about whether I believe it would be a benefit to the nation or a detriment and as things stand and the information I have seen I see it as a detriment.

a reply to: Grimpachi

It says some that have voted against the pipeline have between 15 and 50k invested in Kinder Morgans diversified energy which is a competing interest that has a proposal for another pipeline of the same nature.

Um yes, that was my point exactly, that not all opposition to the pipeline is because it is viewed as detrimental to the environment, but that won't stop people from using the environment as an excuse. Just like Harry Reid and co used the desert tortoise endangerment as a reason to round up Bundy's cattle, when in fact, it was the land grab for profit. Agenda 21 is not about saving the environment, even though it is purported to be so. This is why I am deeply suspicious of those environmentalists who keep saying that fracking is contaminating groundwater in the areas where it is being done, because there is almost always an underlying motive. Agenda 21 is a serious thing because it is a concerted effort to bring UN policies into American cities and towns via manufactured consensus. And what are those policies? Well Smart Meters for one....and "sustainable" solutions which are designed to reduce consumption of energy and resources, but which target affluent Americans in an effort to bring economic justice to other nations. Our CIC has sacked the coal industry for no other reason than that his environmentalist base believe that it is dirty and should be replaced with solar and wind. I think all these people should go to India sometime and see what people are burning to keep warm at night.

a reply to: Grimpachi

Another thing I see a lot of is people shooting down articles because of the source sometimes that is justified but not because of slant only if they are known for lies.

Oh right but it's exactly what you just did to me last night on another thread...oh it's sorcha faal it can't have anything of value blah blah blah

So what exactly is the detriment to the US if they do the alternate pipeline route? I understand it will create a lot of jobs in one of the most depressed job market since the 70's. Ok so some people declare that it will be shipped off to China, and that is why I wonder why that is not acceptable but Reid selling off federal land to the Chi Coms is fine....also we ship coal to China too, and the environmentalists are opposed to building a shipping port here, but I doubt it's because they don't like China. They take issue with the trains carrying coal and say that coal dust is flying off the top of the cars.
Ok what other issues with the pipeline? Some people say that fracking of Canadian tarsands is causing environmental problems for surrounding areas and that is why they oppose the pipeline. I guess they must oppose the existing one as well.

a reply to: Grimpachi

See, these Democrats who oppose the XL pipeline have shares in competing pipeline and are using the environment as an excuse

The State Department found that rejecting the Keystone pipeline would not stop crude from Canadian oil sands being extracted, refined, exported (whether by pipeline, rail, or tanker), and burned.
However, Kaine maintains that he is opposed to the deal because of its impact on the environment.

“Building this pipeline would dramatically ramp up capacity for tar sands oil that moves us in the opposite direction of an innovative, make-it-cleaner approach,” he said in his statement.

freebeacon.com...

This is exactly why I have a problem with people using the environment as an excuse for their own profit-making deals.

a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

Wow you really are all over the place. To be fair I did say if a source is known for lies and well you picked a source known for lies. It wasnt the slant it is the fact they don't tell the truth. I hope you can understand the difference. You did provide a different source which I excepted and I am still reading over.

You are going to so many different subjects that are not even connected I am beginning to wonder about you.

The only thing relevant in all of what you have typed has been about the jobs. I have asked this of you repeatedly and you never answer but I will one more time.

How many jobs? For how long? Once the pipeline is built will there be a net loss or a net gain in jobs?

Now remember they want 7 billion from us for the proposed pipeline. 7 thousand people could be millionaires with that but I think it will create about 1 thousand jobs for 1 year. Soit only costs us about 7 million dollars per person to give them a job for 1 year. Sorry but that doesn't work for me.

a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

Well maybe you should read something about the corrosive qualities of the tar sands because from what I have learned they may as well be pumping sand paper. Do you have any idea what happens when something is sanded down too much such as the inside of a pipe.

You seem very concerned with who is invested in what. I think that blinds you.

So tell me how you feel about giving 7 billion dollars to a company so they can make more.