• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

What is wrong with the Keystone XL?

Nebraska and South Dakota make any decision by Obama irrelevant.

"Two Reasons Why Obama's Keystone Veto Won't Decide Pipeline"

"Despite any rhetorical fireworks, Obama's veto will do little to end the drama of the controversial pipeline. The reason? The multibillion-dollar project faces other challenges in Nebraska and South Dakota—two states that the 1,179-mile (1,897-kilometer) northern leg of the pipeline would cross as it moves oil from Hardisty, Alberta, to Steele City, Nebraska."

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2015/02/150223-keystone-veto-wont-decide-pipeline/
 
bobknightfan said:
I get the feeling that this entire Keystone Pipeline thing is mostly an attempted Republican payoff to the Koch Brothers. You didn't think the Koch Brothers were dumping all that money into GOP campaigns without expecting a good ROI, did you?

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/10/idUS292515702420110210
Click to expand...

LOL. Now that the "it will increase global warming", "it's more dangerous than trains/trucks" and "without the pipeline the oil won't be harvested" arguments have failed, the Koch brothers do seem to be the latest boogie man since the veto on FB this morning. It's almost as if that's something fed from the admin after the veto. Surely they wouldn't do something like that?
 
Last edited:
RacerDeac said:
LOL. Now that the "it will increase global warming", "it's more dangerous than trains/trucks" and "without the pipeline the oil won't be harvested" arguments have failed, the Kock brothers do seem to be the latest boogie man since the veto on FB this morning. It's almost as if that's something fed from the admin after the veto. Surely they wouldn't do something like that?
Click to expand...

You see no problem with two men spending more than the Republican and Democratic National Conventions combined in the 2016 elections?
 
WFFaithful said:
You see no problem with two men spending more than the Republican and Democratic National Conventions combined in the 2016 elections?
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure I made no comment regarding how much the Koch brothers spend.

strawman-full.jpg
 
Last edited:
Liquid Karma said:
Couldn't the same be said of any PAC or lobbyist that uses money to influence policy?
Click to expand...

It's not as if the benefits of not building the pipeline to guys like Soros and Buffet weren't documented back in 2012 when this argument began. But it's fun to watch people root for their favorite extremely influential billionaires as they fight the good fight against the extremely evil spawn of satan billionares they oppose.
 
RacerDeac said:
It's not as if the benefits of not building the pipeline to guys like Soros and Buffet weren't documented back in 2012 when this argument began. But it's fun to watch people root for their favorite extremely influential billionaires as they fight the good fight against the extremely evil spawn of satan billionares they oppose.
Click to expand...

SkinsNDeacs said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Steyer
Click to expand...

Purely on the balance sheet, it's not a very apt comparison. In terms of philanthropy, Buffet and Steyer are both part of the Gates initiative to give away half your wealth, and have given away billions. They've also only contributed somewhere in the tens of millions range towards political activities. The Koch brothers combined have (quite generously) spent around $600MM on charity and literally billions on influence peddling.

I know it's tempting to just say that people who would even render a comparison are all "pubs bad dems good" but y'all brought it up.

Soros is another story, likely. A good boogeyman if we need to play partisan.
 
RacerDeac said:
LOL. Now that the "it will increase global warming", "it's more dangerous than trains/trucks" and "without the pipeline the oil won't be harvested" arguments have failed, the Koch brothers do seem to be the latest boogie man since the veto on FB this morning. It's almost as if that's something fed from the admin after the veto. Surely they wouldn't do something like that?
Click to expand...

That would be pretty amazing if the admin leaked info four years ago in anticipation of this veto.
 
TownieDeac said:
Purely on the balance sheet, it's not a very apt comparison. In terms of philanthropy, Buffet and Steyer are both part of the Gates initiative to give away half your wealth, and have given away billions. They've also only contributed somewhere in the tens of millions range towards political activities. The Koch brothers combined have (quite generously) spent around $600MM on charity and literally billions on influence peddling.

I know it's tempting to just say that people who would even render a comparison are all "pubs bad dems good" but y'all brought it up.

Soros is another story, likely. A good boogeyman if we need to play partisan.
Click to expand...


You made a false comparison by making it look like I was responding to Racer. I wasn't. I actually responded to this post (and quoted it):

Liquid Karma said:
Couldn't the same be said of any PAC or lobbyist that uses money to influence policy?
Click to expand...

On this issue it is perfectly apt comparison. The way things are it is imposable to tell who spends what on what but Steyer has absolutely used his money to influence policy...especially on the issue we are discussing. It could be reasonably argued that his money is the sole reason President Obama vetoed the bill.
 
avalon said:
That would be pretty amazing if the admin leaked info four years ago in anticipation of this veto.
Click to expand...

It would be...but that's not at all what I was implying. Just pointing out that the evil Kochs have become the topic of conversation overnight after the Keystone veto. It seems way too coincidental not to have been a talking point leaked by the admin. It's a good strategy. There's little factual justification left for opposing the pipeline, so blaming the Kochs makes it emotional.
 
TownieDeac said:
I know it's tempting to just say that people who would even render a comparison are all "pubs bad dems good" but y'all brought it up.

Soros is another story, likely. A good boogeyman if we need to play partisan.
Click to expand...

You've got me wrong. I'm "pubs bad dems bad" and enjoy the hypocrisy of both sides on this particular issue. While I agree that they have too much influence, I don't necessarily have an issue with the money Soros or the Kochs spend. My issue is that the government is so centralized and has so much power that their billions spent to influence politics actually makes sense for them.
 
Are you trying to take my Miss Independent title from me?
 
So for now, Buffet's trains >> Koch's pipeline. It's a shame we can't make an objective policy decision.
 
TownieDeac said:
oh please, you're no more moderate than rj
Click to expand...

You missed the reference. Ph said that I try to be Miss Independent. To that I replied I am not, nor have I ever claimed to be independent. Likewise I do not claim to be the moderate...in fact my views are fairly fringe.
 
Democracy in America: Keystone XL and the president's veto

The trouble with the project then is that it has become a political weapon. Unlike bigger topics such as immigration reform, or battling the Islamic State, this one is relatively uncomplicated and the dividing lines are clear. Republicans can thus use it to whack the president for his supposed failure to create jobs, without upsetting anybody or showing up the fractures in their loose coalition. For Mr Obama, it is a chance to appease environmentalists in his base. And so the debate will go on. The best hope for the rest of us is that the fall in oil prices makes extracting Canadian oil unprofitable and the whole thing goes away.
Click to expand...
 
Just build the damn thing and make TransCanada put $50 billion dollars in escrow for potential catastrophic events. It will create 10K jobs for about a year, dwindling down to 500. Then there will be no turning back for the Canucks, so tax the hell out of it's use once it is built. They will be pot committed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top