28 House Democrats Defy Obama, Join GOP to Pass Keystone

See thru the veil.

They don't get kick backs if it doesn't go through.

Its unprofitable but they still defend it. What other reason?

People want to see signs of the gross mismaganment, here is a real good indicator.

a reply to: noeltrotsky

The issue isn't that it affects the environment, which I highly doubt anyone even cares about at this point. The issue is that it encroaches on the Natives' land, which everyone seems to be avoiding. People say they have nothing to do with the past, but they are basically perpetuating their ancestors' sins, just so that they can save money and not have to suffer(going to war is not an excuse, any war with the Chinese will most likely involve nukes and total annihilation, so why worry about that? Plus, the U.S has so many allies that I highly doubt they'll ever be put in a precarious situation.)

Honestly, at this point, why even pretend that we have any morality at all? We are slowly falling into the Chinese's mentality where the strong eats the weak, which if you're a believer in evolution, is probably nothing wrong. It appears that inevitably, only a few countries should exist, the rest must either subjugate, or become extinct, a dangerous mentality to be sure, but if we don't care for the environment, for animals, then it stands to reason that certain ethnicities and races should also not exist. It's still "survival of the fittest," disguised with some concepts as to make it appear that we're morally superior to others.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: rnaa
I read somewhere there would be 50 permanent jobs. I know big whoop.

Yes, pipelines are very efficient. The way the project was sold using 'jobs' was a lie. Lots of work to lay the pipeline but almost nothing after that.

Another big problem I have with the pipeline is that the government is going to use eminent domain to seize private property for a private company that isn't even a US company. Seriously WTF.

I fully understand your point on eminent domain. It is pretty heavy handed. The problem governments have is that sometimes the benefits to the overall country are so important that the loss to that group of people is worth it. Clearly eminent domain needs to be a court monitored process instead of a dictate from the government.

In this case I believe the Oil security provided by the pipeline is worth the eminent domain forcing people off some land. Many wars have been created over Oil and Oil security. It is a real serious concern. I do feel terrible for the ranchers and people who lose the use of their land.

originally posted by: np6888
The issue isn't that it affects the environment, which I highly doubt anyone even cares about at this point. The issue is that it encroaches on the Natives' land, which everyone seems to be avoiding.

You're right, absolutely! People avoid talking about Native rights for a good reason...it's complicated beyond belief!

I don't know if Native groups are going to band together and give 100% to stop this project. I'm sure they could if they really wanted to...but it's a brutal fight and the Federal government in the US doesn't play by the rules like they swear to uphold when they take their jobs.

I like to think that what is good for the country is good for Natives. As long as they get a fair voice in the process then I try to be satisfied. Of course Natives have never had a 'fair voice' so I'm really just avoiding the issue. But at least I know I'm avoiding it!

originally posted by: mikell
a reply to: HUMBLEONE

Technically it will be over it.

Even worse. And we are supposed to believe a corporate shill "Scientist"? Put on a long white lab coat and you can convince people to do anything.

a reply to: noeltrotsky

I fully understand your point on eminent domain. It is pretty heavy handed. The problem governments have is that sometimes the benefits to the overall country are so important that the loss to that group of people is worth it. Clearly eminent domain needs to be a court monitored process instead of a dictate from the government.

In this case there is ZERO benefit to the 'overall country'.

In this case I believe the Oil security provided by the pipeline is worth the eminent domain forcing people off some land. Many wars have been created over Oil and Oil security. It is a real serious concern. I do feel terrible for the ranchers and people who lose the use of their land.

'Oil security' for who, exactly? Most of that oil will be exported either refined or as raw crude. It is one of the dirtiest crudes on the planet (its more bitumen than oil), so it will be expensive to refine and the refining process will have very dirty by-products.

Bottom line is, our politicians vote only to keep their jobs and/or make money. They don't give a crap about the American people or our wishes. Never have...never will. Not under the current rules.

a reply to: xuenchen

You see. That is why our congress is in shambles because of this attitude. Why is peace and working together a bad thing in the conservative world?

a reply to: TheArrow

Better the US benefit from the pipeline than the OPEC countries hold and monopoly over oil. R u a traitor or are u pro America? U a globalist like Soros?

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: xuenchen

You see. That is why our congress is in shambles because of this attitude. Why is peace and working together a bad thing in the conservative world?

What attitude are you talking about?

Obama's?

originally posted by: amfirst1
a reply to: TheArrow

Better the US benefit from the pipeline than the OPEC countries hold and monopoly over oil. R u a traitor or are u pro America? U a globalist like Soros?

The United States can't benefit from a pipeline that isn't making money.

Get the price of oil up over 100 a barrel, and then come back with your sentiments.

Here's an interesting look at it....

Both sides are right here. The fall in the oil price makes the pipeline decision more important, not less.

Let’s just invent some numbers here in order to illustrate the problem. Oil is at $100 a barrel when delivered to the refinery. It costs $40 to produce it in Alberta, $30 to ship it by rail and $5 if the pipeline were built. Yes, they are entirely made up numbers (although not a million miles from reality) just in order to illustrate the decision making process.

So, at that market price of $100 the oil will be produced with or without the pipeline. There’s a $30 profit in each barrel even after paying for rail transport. Now we halve the price to $50 at the refinery. All other costs stay the same. Well, if it costs $40 to produce and $30 to ship then obviously, after a winding down period, none will be produced and none will be shipped (we’ll ignore sunk costs and so on here). This would make Warren Buffett very sad as Berkshire Hathaway makes a fortune out of transporting that oil. But, fine, Buffett is made very sad. So also are all those people who own tar sands properties, Shell, the Koch Brothers and so on. Oh dear, what a pity. And of course Bill McKibben is overjoyed as those tar sands are no longer being mined.

Halving The Price Of Oil Makes Keystone XL More Important, Not Less

a reply to: Bilk22

Are you speaking German ?

a reply to: amfirst1

The US won't benefit from this pipeline at all. About 100 long term jobs will result, while all of the sandy oil goes to China. Are you the traitor? Or are you just a victem on FOX'News' overexposure?