ADVERTISEMENT

Pipeline Veto

UNCWayno

Hall of Famer
Gold Member
Aug 1, 2002
4,968
42
48
I know it's very late but I cannot believe with the crew we have on here that there has been no commentary on the veto of the pipeline bill today. I'm sure it's coming but I really would have expected something before now. When a country has the natural resources that ours does and it's so called leaders chose to ignore what it would do to help our national economy it's just beyond me. We've got two long years to endure before this group of people will hopefully be out of our hair for good.
 
Obama finally kept his word. He vetoed the pipeline. It was not b/c of economics, environmental concerns, jobs, etc. It was pure politics. They are still studying the effects of the Keystone Pipeline............after 6 YEARS, We won WW 2 in less time. ISIS does not have anything to worry about for at least 2 more years.
ashamed0003.r191677.gif
 
The pipeline would originate in the Canadian hinterlands and run to the Gulf of Mexico. My understanding is that production at the source continues to grow despite the lack of a pipleline but is transported through other less efficient means (e.g. by train).

If you're asking who actually owns the oil, not sure.
 
typical politics, good for the country, JOBS, safe transport of oil, and veto it.


even after he said he would vote for it several times. I hate that guy
 
Some on here keep mentioning that these are our resources and they are not. The pipeline is to transport Canadian oil to gulf ports from what I remember.

Also, to the last post. When did Obama say he would vote for it? I have always heard that he would veto it, not vote for it.

From what I have read (previously when we discussed this about a year ago). Most of the jobs created here would be temp jobs and that Canada would profit from this more than the US. That may have changed. If there are minimal environmental concerns I don't have a problem with building it though.
 
Originally posted by lovetheHeels!:
Some on here keep mentioning that these are our resources and they are not. The pipeline is to transport Canadian oil to gulf ports from what I remember.

Also, to the last post. When did Obama say he would vote for it? I have always heard that he would veto it, not vote for it.

From what I have read (previously when we discussed this about a year ago). Most of the jobs created here would be temp jobs and that Canada would profit from this more than the US. That may have changed. If there are minimal environmental concerns I don't have a problem with building it though.
I don't know about you, but I sure as hell would rather do business with the canucks up north than the Arabs - especially during this time of great unsettlement in that region.

And are temp jobs bad? Isn't some work better than no work for the people trying to survive?
 
Originally posted by gunslingerdick:
Originally posted by lovetheHeels!:
Some on here keep mentioning that these are our resources and they are not. The pipeline is to transport Canadian oil to gulf ports from what I remember.

Also, to the last post. When did Obama say he would vote for it? I have always heard that he would veto it, not vote for it.

From what I have read (previously when we discussed this about a year ago). Most of the jobs created here would be temp jobs and that Canada would profit from this more than the US. That may have changed. If there are minimal environmental concerns I don't have a problem with building it though.
I don't know about you, but I sure as hell would rather do business with the canucks up north than the Arabs - especially during this time of great unsettlement in that region.

And are temp jobs bad? Isn't some work better than no work for the people trying to survive?

They're highly likely union jobs, at least 90% I'd guess . . . 3500 or so for a couple years.

Are you all union hating pubbies gonna be okay with that . . ?
 
Originally posted by gunslingerdick:
Originally posted by lovetheHeels!:
Some on here keep mentioning that these are our resources and they are not. The pipeline is to transport Canadian oil to gulf ports from what I remember.

Also, to the last post. When did Obama say he would vote for it? I have always heard that he would veto it, not vote for it.

From what I have read (previously when we discussed this about a year ago). Most of the jobs created here would be temp jobs and that Canada would profit from this more than the US. That may have changed. If there are minimal environmental concerns I don't have a problem with building it though.
I don't know about you, but I sure as hell would rather do business with the canucks up north than the Arabs - especially during this time of great unsettlement in that region.

And are temp jobs bad? Isn't some work better than no work for the people trying to survive?
That's not my point though. People keep saying that this is American oil (the OP) and that it will provide thousands of long term jobs to support their argument and from what I have seen awhile back neither is true. Also, I read that the pipeline already runs into the US from Canada, the Keystone pipeline will extend it to the Gulf ports so it can be shipped to other countries not here.
 
Originally posted by lovetheHeels!:

Originally posted by gunslingerdick:
Originally posted by lovetheHeels!:
Some on here keep mentioning that these are our resources and they are not. The pipeline is to transport Canadian oil to gulf ports from what I remember.

Also, to the last post. When did Obama say he would vote for it? I have always heard that he would veto it, not vote for it.

From what I have read (previously when we discussed this about a year ago). Most of the jobs created here would be temp jobs and that Canada would profit from this more than the US. That may have changed. If there are minimal environmental concerns I don't have a problem with building it though.
I don't know about you, but I sure as hell would rather do business with the canucks up north than the Arabs - especially during this time of great unsettlement in that region.

And are temp jobs bad? Isn't some work better than no work for the people trying to survive?
That's not my point though. People keep saying that this is American oil (the OP) and that it will provide thousands of long term jobs to support their argument and from what I have seen awhile back neither is true. Also, I read that the pipeline already runs into the US from Canada, the Keystone pipeline will extend it to the Gulf ports so it can be shipped to other countries not here.
But the US will make money off the shipping. And I would assume that it would also provide jobs. No?
 
Originally posted by lovetheHeels!:


Originally posted by gunslingerdick:

Originally posted by lovetheHeels!:
Some on here keep mentioning that these are our resources and they are not. The pipeline is to transport Canadian oil to gulf ports from what I remember.

Also, to the last post. When did Obama say he would vote for it? I have always heard that he would veto it, not vote for it.

From what I have read (previously when we discussed this about a year ago). Most of the jobs created here would be temp jobs and that Canada would profit from this more than the US. That may have changed. If there are minimal environmental concerns I don't have a problem with building it though.
I don't know about you, but I sure as hell would rather do business with the canucks up north than the Arabs - especially during this time of great unsettlement in that region.

And are temp jobs bad? Isn't some work better than no work for the people trying to survive?
That's not my point though. People keep saying that this is American oil (the OP) and that it will provide thousands of long term jobs to support their argument and from what I have seen awhile back neither is true. Also, I read that the pipeline already runs into the US from Canada, the Keystone pipeline will extend it to the Gulf ports so it can be shipped to other countries not here.
More oil available on the world market = lower chance of the US fighting a war in the ME.

Less oil available on the world market = greater chance of the US fighting a war in the ME.

Do you like wars or not?
 
The REAL reason this was Vetoed = Warren Buffet

Warren Buffet owns Burlington Northern Railroad that is transporting the Fracking operation supplies, Oil and Natural gas. The Keystome pipeline would threaten his rail operation.

Warren Buffet has been a huge Obama supporter and financier. This has nothing to do with "environmental concerns" even though that is what they say. That is a lie.

Crony capitalism and politics at it's best. Obama plays that game better than the "Rich" Republicans. Solyndra, etc....
 
Originally posted by eec212020:
Originally posted by lovetheHeels!:


Originally posted by gunslingerdick:

Originally posted by lovetheHeels!:
Some on here keep mentioning that these are our resources and they are not. The pipeline is to transport Canadian oil to gulf ports from what I remember.

Also, to the last post. When did Obama say he would vote for it? I have always heard that he would veto it, not vote for it.

From what I have read (previously when we discussed this about a year ago). Most of the jobs created here would be temp jobs and that Canada would profit from this more than the US. That may have changed. If there are minimal environmental concerns I don't have a problem with building it though.
I don't know about you, but I sure as hell would rather do business with the canucks up north than the Arabs - especially during this time of great unsettlement in that region.

And are temp jobs bad? Isn't some work better than no work for the people trying to survive?
That's not my point though. People keep saying that this is American oil (the OP) and that it will provide thousands of long term jobs to support their argument and from what I have seen awhile back neither is true. Also, I read that the pipeline already runs into the US from Canada, the Keystone pipeline will extend it to the Gulf ports so it can be shipped to other countries not here.
More oil available on the world market = lower chance of the US fighting a war in the ME.

Less oil available on the world market = greater chance of the US fighting a war in the ME.

Do you like wars or not?
FYI, that oil still makes it to the world market just not through the Gulf. That's just a stupid choice the US admins keep making. there are plenty of other choices too, we just refuse to explore them.
 
Originally posted by lovetheHeels!:


Originally posted by eec212020:

Originally posted by lovetheHeels!:



Originally posted by gunslingerdick:


Originally posted by lovetheHeels!:
Some on here keep mentioning that these are our resources and they are not. The pipeline is to transport Canadian oil to gulf ports from what I remember.

Also, to the last post. When did Obama say he would vote for it? I have always heard that he would veto it, not vote for it.

From what I have read (previously when we discussed this about a year ago). Most of the jobs created here would be temp jobs and that Canada would profit from this more than the US. That may have changed. If there are minimal environmental concerns I don't have a problem with building it though.
I don't know about you, but I sure as hell would rather do business with the canucks up north than the Arabs - especially during this time of great unsettlement in that region.

And are temp jobs bad? Isn't some work better than no work for the people trying to survive?
That's not my point though. People keep saying that this is American oil (the OP) and that it will provide thousands of long term jobs to support their argument and from what I have seen awhile back neither is true. Also, I read that the pipeline already runs into the US from Canada, the Keystone pipeline will extend it to the Gulf ports so it can be shipped to other countries not here.
More oil available on the world market = lower chance of the US fighting a war in the ME.

Less oil available on the world market = greater chance of the US fighting a war in the ME.

Do you like wars or not?
FYI, that oil still makes it to the world market just not through the Gulf. That's just a stupid choice the US admins keep making. there are plenty of other choices too, we just refuse to explore them.
FYI, I know this. The point was about using oil to ship oil. ( Trains and trucks use oil as a fuel source )

We agree on the stupid choice part. Which other fuel source would replace oil?
 
Originally posted by eec212020:
Originally posted by lovetheHeels!:


Originally posted by eec212020:

Originally posted by lovetheHeels!:



Originally posted by gunslingerdick:


Originally posted by lovetheHeels!:
Some on here keep mentioning that these are our resources and they are not. The pipeline is to transport Canadian oil to gulf ports from what I remember.

Also, to the last post. When did Obama say he would vote for it? I have always heard that he would veto it, not vote for it.

From what I have read (previously when we discussed this about a year ago). Most of the jobs created here would be temp jobs and that Canada would profit from this more than the US. That may have changed. If there are minimal environmental concerns I don't have a problem with building it though.
I don't know about you, but I sure as hell would rather do business with the canucks up north than the Arabs - especially during this time of great unsettlement in that region.

And are temp jobs bad? Isn't some work better than no work for the people trying to survive?
That's not my point though. People keep saying that this is American oil (the OP) and that it will provide thousands of long term jobs to support their argument and from what I have seen awhile back neither is true. Also, I read that the pipeline already runs into the US from Canada, the Keystone pipeline will extend it to the Gulf ports so it can be shipped to other countries not here.
More oil available on the world market = lower chance of the US fighting a war in the ME.

Less oil available on the world market = greater chance of the US fighting a war in the ME.

Do you like wars or not?
FYI, that oil still makes it to the world market just not through the Gulf. That's just a stupid choice the US admins keep making. there are plenty of other choices too, we just refuse to explore them.
FYI, I know this. The point was about using oil to ship oil. ( Trains and trucks use oil as a fuel source )

We agree on the stupid choice part. Which other fuel source would replace oil?
Okay, I read it to mean you didn't know that.


Natural gas, coal, shale oil. I read an article that the US is now #1 oil producer in the world.
 
I'm just so sick and tired of BOTH sides walking the Party Line I could puke!

bi-partisan means "Do it MY way" to all of them.
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT