Here is a pretty simple question for republicans regarding the Keystone Pipeline

[Agit8r]

Libertarians are far-left?

Proof of how far to the left you truly are..

Reason.com is a libertarian publication.

And you continue to prove how far to the left you truly are..

I get it now. Because I'm stating true facts.

The far left never posts "true" facts as you and the OP keep proving..

It is a true fact that a foreign company is using eminent domain against farmers and ranchers, and Republican lawmakers are on the side of the foreign company.

It is equally a true fact that you are too much a partisan stooge to acknowledge their outrageous hypocrisy in the matter.

 

[Kosh]

Proof of how far to the left you truly are..

Reason.com is a libertarian publication.

And you continue to prove how far to the left you truly are..

I get it now. Because I'm stating true facts.

The far left never posts "true" facts as you and the OP keep proving..

It is a true fact that a foreign company is using eminent domain against farmers and ranchers, and Republican lawmakers are on the side of the foreign company.

It is equally a true fact that you are too much a partisan stooge to acknowledge their outrageous hypocrisy in the matter.

Says the irony impaired far left drone!

Speaking of hypocrisy, did the far left drone read what they wrote?

U.S. Senator Reid son combine for China firm s desert plant Reuters

Did not know that Harry Reid was a Republican lawmaker..

 

[Agit8r]

Reason.com is a libertarian publication.

And you continue to prove how far to the left you truly are..

I get it now. Because I'm stating true facts.

The far left never posts "true" facts as you and the OP keep proving..

It is a true fact that a foreign company is using eminent domain against farmers and ranchers, and Republican lawmakers are on the side of the foreign company.

It is equally a true fact that you are too much a partisan stooge to acknowledge their outrageous hypocrisy in the matter.

Says the irony impaired far left drone!

Speaking of hypocrisy, did the far left drone read what they wrote?

U.S. Senator Reid son combine for China firm s desert plant Reuters

Did not know that Harry Reid was a Republican lawmaker..

Whatever your argument might be, the story there involved public land, not private land.

 

[Kosh]

And you continue to prove how far to the left you truly are..

I get it now. Because I'm stating true facts.

The far left never posts "true" facts as you and the OP keep proving..

It is a true fact that a foreign company is using eminent domain against farmers and ranchers, and Republican lawmakers are on the side of the foreign company.

It is equally a true fact that you are too much a partisan stooge to acknowledge their outrageous hypocrisy in the matter.

Says the irony impaired far left drone!

Speaking of hypocrisy, did the far left drone read what they wrote?

U.S. Senator Reid son combine for China firm s desert plant Reuters

Did not know that Harry Reid was a Republican lawmaker..

Whatever your argument might be, the story there involved public land, not private land.

And you just once again proven how far to the left you are..

This should help the far left and defeat any other propaganda they wish to push..

House votes to overturn Supreme Court decision on eminent domain TheHill

 

[Spare_change]

Ask the far left, they are the ones obsessed with infrastructure and only giving that money to unions..

Then again the far left does not understand how the US infrastructure works..

You don't even know what the moderate left is.

And you are not the moderate left nor a liberal! You are far left!

And you're a moron.

GREAT answer!!! Way to contribute!!

 

[Spare_change]

For starters Billy...we're not paying for the Keystone Pipeline like we are for infrastructure spending. The fact that you don't grasp the difference between government approving permits to let private enterprise build things and government simply taking money out of the taxpayers pockets to pay for infrastructure is why you guys have never been able to create jobs.

Yeah no shit it will take taxpayer money. The point is investing in our infrastructure would do a hell of a lot more for our economy. Raising taxes on the wealthy is the only way to do it. Either that, or cut our egregious defense spending to pay for it.

Cutting defense sounds great, but if the idea rather than deficit reduction is to continue down this road of unsustainable debt by just shifting the cost from one part of the government to another, I can't get behind it.

As far as raising taxes to fund new federal government expenditures like roads and other infrastructure, there is no evidence that taking money from one group of people and giving it to another improves the economy by any metric.

Well of course it improves the economy. It creates jobs. How else are we supposed to fix the problem without hiring new people to do it?

Keynes says you're wrong ... and, frankly, so do I.

 

[Spare_change]

For starters Billy...we're not paying for the Keystone Pipeline like we are for infrastructure spending. The fact that you don't grasp the difference between government approving permits to let private enterprise build things and government simply taking money out of the taxpayers pockets to pay for infrastructure is why you guys have never been able to create jobs.

Yeah no shit it will take taxpayer money. The point is investing in our infrastructure would do a hell of a lot more for our economy. Raising taxes on the wealthy is the only way to do it. Either that, or cut our egregious defense spending to pay for it.

Cutting defense sounds great, but if the idea rather than deficit reduction is to continue down this road of unsustainable debt by just shifting the cost from one part of the government to another, I can't get behind it.

As far as raising taxes to fund new federal government expenditures like roads and other infrastructure, there is no evidence that taking money from one group of people and giving it to another improves the economy by any metric.

Well of course it improves the economy. It creates jobs. How else are we supposed to fix the problem without hiring new people to do it?

The Keystone pipeline would create jobs as well, but the far left was against that..

Why does the far left hate job creation?

The pipeline would have created a few hundred permanent jobs. That's it. The rest would be temporary. Either way, it doesn't make any sense not to invest in our infrastructure.

Something wrong with the 20,000 temporary jobs?

 

[Billy000]

For starters Billy...we're not paying for the Keystone Pipeline like we are for infrastructure spending. The fact that you don't grasp the difference between government approving permits to let private enterprise build things and government simply taking money out of the taxpayers pockets to pay for infrastructure is why you guys have never been able to create jobs.

Yeah no shit it will take taxpayer money. The point is investing in our infrastructure would do a hell of a lot more for our economy. Raising taxes on the wealthy is the only way to do it. Either that, or cut our egregious defense spending to pay for it.

Cutting defense sounds great, but if the idea rather than deficit reduction is to continue down this road of unsustainable debt by just shifting the cost from one part of the government to another, I can't get behind it.

As far as raising taxes to fund new federal government expenditures like roads and other infrastructure, there is no evidence that taking money from one group of people and giving it to another improves the economy by any metric.

Well of course it improves the economy. It creates jobs. How else are we supposed to fix the problem without hiring new people to do it?

Keynes says you're wrong ... and, frankly, so do I.

Lol you and I both know i am right. Otherwise, you would have explained why I am wrong.

 

[OKTexas]

Proof of how far to the left you truly are..

Reason.com is a libertarian publication.

And you continue to prove how far to the left you truly are..

I get it now. Because I'm stating true facts.

The far left never posts "true" facts as you and the OP keep proving..

It is a true fact that a foreign company is using eminent domain against farmers and ranchers, and Republican lawmakers are on the side of the foreign company.

It is equally a true fact that you are too much a partisan stooge to acknowledge their outrageous hypocrisy in the matter.

You really don't have any idea how eminent domain works do you? Only the States have the power of eminent domain, not the feds, not private companies. You really need to get a freaking clue so you don't look so damned foolish.

 

[Billy000]

Yeah no shit it will take taxpayer money. The point is investing in our infrastructure would do a hell of a lot more for our economy. Raising taxes on the wealthy is the only way to do it. Either that, or cut our egregious defense spending to pay for it.

Cutting defense sounds great, but if the idea rather than deficit reduction is to continue down this road of unsustainable debt by just shifting the cost from one part of the government to another, I can't get behind it.

As far as raising taxes to fund new federal government expenditures like roads and other infrastructure, there is no evidence that taking money from one group of people and giving it to another improves the economy by any metric.

Well of course it improves the economy. It creates jobs. How else are we supposed to fix the problem without hiring new people to do it?

The Keystone pipeline would create jobs as well, but the far left was against that..

Why does the far left hate job creation?

The pipeline would have created a few hundred permanent jobs. That's it. The rest would be temporary. Either way, it doesn't make any sense not to invest in our infrastructure.

Something wrong with the 20,000 temporary jobs?

Um yeah. They aren't worth fucking up the environment.

 

[Kosh]

For starters Billy...we're not paying for the Keystone Pipeline like we are for infrastructure spending. The fact that you don't grasp the difference between government approving permits to let private enterprise build things and government simply taking money out of the taxpayers pockets to pay for infrastructure is why you guys have never been able to create jobs.

Yeah no shit it will take taxpayer money. The point is investing in our infrastructure would do a hell of a lot more for our economy. Raising taxes on the wealthy is the only way to do it. Either that, or cut our egregious defense spending to pay for it.

Cutting defense sounds great, but if the idea rather than deficit reduction is to continue down this road of unsustainable debt by just shifting the cost from one part of the government to another, I can't get behind it.

As far as raising taxes to fund new federal government expenditures like roads and other infrastructure, there is no evidence that taking money from one group of people and giving it to another improves the economy by any metric.

Well of course it improves the economy. It creates jobs. How else are we supposed to fix the problem without hiring new people to do it?

Keynes says you're wrong ... and, frankly, so do I.

Lol you and I both know i am right. Otherwise, you would have explained why I am wrong.

More proof that this about pushing the far left religious agenda and nothing is based on facts..

 

[Kosh]

Cutting defense sounds great, but if the idea rather than deficit reduction is to continue down this road of unsustainable debt by just shifting the cost from one part of the government to another, I can't get behind it.

As far as raising taxes to fund new federal government expenditures like roads and other infrastructure, there is no evidence that taking money from one group of people and giving it to another improves the economy by any metric.

Well of course it improves the economy. It creates jobs. How else are we supposed to fix the problem without hiring new people to do it?

The Keystone pipeline would create jobs as well, but the far left was against that..

Why does the far left hate job creation?

The pipeline would have created a few hundred permanent jobs. That's it. The rest would be temporary. Either way, it doesn't make any sense not to invest in our infrastructure.

Something wrong with the 20,000 temporary jobs?

Um yeah. They aren't worth fucking up the environment.

Yet the warren buffet oil express is..

 

[TheOldSchool]

Ask the far left, they are the ones obsessed with infrastructure and only giving that money to unions..

Then again the far left does not understand how the US infrastructure works..

You don't even know what the moderate left is.

And you are not the moderate left nor a liberal! You are far left!

And you're a moron.

GREAT answer!!! Way to contribute!!

Another far right drone says nothing. Would you like to, instead, say something?

 

[Spare_change]

For starters Billy...we're not paying for the Keystone Pipeline like we are for infrastructure spending. The fact that you don't grasp the difference between government approving permits to let private enterprise build things and government simply taking money out of the taxpayers pockets to pay for infrastructure is why you guys have never been able to create jobs.

Yeah no shit it will take taxpayer money. The point is investing in our infrastructure would do a hell of a lot more for our economy. Raising taxes on the wealthy is the only way to do it. Either that, or cut our egregious defense spending to pay for it.

Cutting defense sounds great, but if the idea rather than deficit reduction is to continue down this road of unsustainable debt by just shifting the cost from one part of the government to another, I can't get behind it.

As far as raising taxes to fund new federal government expenditures like roads and other infrastructure, there is no evidence that taking money from one group of people and giving it to another improves the economy by any metric.

Well of course it improves the economy. It creates jobs. How else are we supposed to fix the problem without hiring new people to do it?

Keynes says you're wrong ... and, frankly, so do I.

Lol you and I both know i am right. Otherwise, you would have explained why I am wrong.

Some things are too obvious to require explanation.

 

[TheOldSchool]

Yeah no shit it will take taxpayer money. The point is investing in our infrastructure would do a hell of a lot more for our economy. Raising taxes on the wealthy is the only way to do it. Either that, or cut our egregious defense spending to pay for it.

Cutting defense sounds great, but if the idea rather than deficit reduction is to continue down this road of unsustainable debt by just shifting the cost from one part of the government to another, I can't get behind it.

As far as raising taxes to fund new federal government expenditures like roads and other infrastructure, there is no evidence that taking money from one group of people and giving it to another improves the economy by any metric.

Well of course it improves the economy. It creates jobs. How else are we supposed to fix the problem without hiring new people to do it?

Keynes says you're wrong ... and, frankly, so do I.

Lol you and I both know i am right. Otherwise, you would have explained why I am wrong.

More proof that this about pushing the far left religious agenda and nothing is based on facts..

Something about a pineapple comes to mind.

 

[Spare_change]

Cutting defense sounds great, but if the idea rather than deficit reduction is to continue down this road of unsustainable debt by just shifting the cost from one part of the government to another, I can't get behind it.

As far as raising taxes to fund new federal government expenditures like roads and other infrastructure, there is no evidence that taking money from one group of people and giving it to another improves the economy by any metric.

Well of course it improves the economy. It creates jobs. How else are we supposed to fix the problem without hiring new people to do it?

The Keystone pipeline would create jobs as well, but the far left was against that..

Why does the far left hate job creation?

The pipeline would have created a few hundred permanent jobs. That's it. The rest would be temporary. Either way, it doesn't make any sense not to invest in our infrastructure.

Something wrong with the 20,000 temporary jobs?

Um yeah. They aren't worth fucking up the environment.

Oh? You have some proof of that --- even though the EPA approved the package? It's the State Dept that has it hung up --- though, I still haven't figured out what the hell the State Dept is involved in pipeline permitting for.

 

[Steinlight]

For starters Billy...we're not paying for the Keystone Pipeline like we are for infrastructure spending. The fact that you don't grasp the difference between government approving permits to let private enterprise build things and government simply taking money out of the taxpayers pockets to pay for infrastructure is why you guys have never been able to create jobs.

Yeah no shit it will take taxpayer money. The point is investing in our infrastructure would do a hell of a lot more for our economy. Raising taxes on the wealthy is the only way to do it. Either that, or cut our egregious defense spending to pay for it.

Cutting defense sounds great, but if the idea rather than deficit reduction is to continue down this road of unsustainable debt by just shifting the cost from one part of the government to another, I can't get behind it.

As far as raising taxes to fund new federal government expenditures like roads and other infrastructure, there is no evidence that taking money from one group of people and giving it to another improves the economy by any metric.

Well of course it improves the economy. It creates jobs. How else are we supposed to fix the problem without hiring new people to do it?

Keynes says you're wrong ... and, frankly, so do I.

Lol you and I both know i am right. Otherwise, you would have explained why I am wrong.

Those jobs don't last forever, and the expenditures have to be paid for by taking money from elsewhere in the economy through taxes and borrowing. It is only a short term solution that ends of exacerbating the issue in the long run. It is a diversion of monetary resources from economically efficient and profitable ventures towards those that aren't.

 

[Spare_change]

Ask the far left, they are the ones obsessed with infrastructure and only giving that money to unions..

Then again the far left does not understand how the US infrastructure works..

You don't even know what the moderate left is.

And you are not the moderate left nor a liberal! You are far left!

And you're a moron.

GREAT answer!!! Way to contribute!!

Another far right drone says nothing. Would you like to, instead, say something?

Ask the far left, they are the ones obsessed with infrastructure and only giving that money to unions..

Then again the far left does not understand how the US infrastructure works..

You don't even know what the moderate left is.

And you are not the moderate left nor a liberal! You are far left!

And you're a moron.

GREAT answer!!! Way to contribute!!

Another far right drone says nothing. Would you like to, instead, say something?

Sure, if you insist ....

I am appalled that the utter ignorance shown by most of the posters on this thread. The left regurgitates bumper sticker slogans as if that is some grand pontification brought down from on high. Then, when it is challenged, we get personal attacks and sheer repetitiveness instead of coherent, reasoned, and intelligent counter-argument.

Mindless personal attacks and childish name calling seem to be the hallmark, and somehow have replaced intelligent commentary. Frankly, if you were willing to espouse a position, and provide reasoned rationale, there would be something to discuss. Instead, we are subjected to the mindless drivel (like the post in question).

Now - if you want to have an intelligent discussion about the Keystone pipeline, I'll be more than happy to oblige. But ... I won't tolerate childish tantrums and ignorant name calling.

Want to discuss it rationally and intelligently, or do you want to use the issue as some inane excuse to try to show everybody how big your dick is?

 

[Steinlight]

Cutting defense sounds great, but if the idea rather than deficit reduction is to continue down this road of unsustainable debt by just shifting the cost from one part of the government to another, I can't get behind it.

As far as raising taxes to fund new federal government expenditures like roads and other infrastructure, there is no evidence that taking money from one group of people and giving it to another improves the economy by any metric.

Well of course it improves the economy. It creates jobs. How else are we supposed to fix the problem without hiring new people to do it?

The Keystone pipeline would create jobs as well, but the far left was against that..

Why does the far left hate job creation?

The pipeline would have created a few hundred permanent jobs. That's it. The rest would be temporary. Either way, it doesn't make any sense not to invest in our infrastructure.

Something wrong with the 20,000 temporary jobs?

Um yeah. They aren't worth fucking up the environment.

There is no evidence the pipeline would "fuck up" the environment.

 

[OKTexas]

Well of course it improves the economy. It creates jobs. How else are we supposed to fix the problem without hiring new people to do it?

The Keystone pipeline would create jobs as well, but the far left was against that..

Why does the far left hate job creation?

The pipeline would have created a few hundred permanent jobs. That's it. The rest would be temporary. Either way, it doesn't make any sense not to invest in our infrastructure.

Something wrong with the 20,000 temporary jobs?

Um yeah. They aren't worth fucking up the environment.

Oh? You have some proof of that --- even though the EPA approved the package? It's the State Dept that has it hung up --- though, I still haven't figured out what the hell the State Dept is involved in pipeline permitting for.

Actually it has passed all 4 studies conducted by state and they are involved because it crosses an international border. It's the dear leader withholding final approval.