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

[Agit8r]

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

It's in the fine print:

"Effective Date- This Act shall take effect upon the first day of the first fiscal year that begins after the date of the enactment of this Act, but shall not apply to any project for which condemnation proceedings have been initiated prior to the date of enactment."

Bill Text - 112th Congress 2011-2012 - THOMAS Library of Congress

Of course TransCanada begain proceedings back in 2011:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/18/u...-fight-over-pipeline.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

 

[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.

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.

TransCanada has been suing the ranchers, if they won't grant access:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/18/u...-fight-over-pipeline.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

 

[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?

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.

You're still bullshitting.

 

[Kosh]

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

It's in the fine print:

"Effective Date- This Act shall take effect upon the first day of the first fiscal year that begins after the date of the enactment of this Act, but shall not apply to any project for which condemnation proceedings have been initiated prior to the date of enactment."

Bill Text - 112th Congress 2011-2012 - THOMAS Library of Congress

Of course TransCanada begain proceedings back in 2011:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/18/u...-fight-over-pipeline.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

And the far left narrative continues to run..

President George Bush issued Executive Order 13406 which stated that the federal government must limit its use of taking private property for public use with just compensation for the purpose of benefiting the general public, wording mirrored in the U.S. Constitution. Bush’s Order 13406 limits the use of eminent domain so it may not be used for the purpose of advancing the economic interest of private parties to be given ownership or use of the property taken. While Bush’s Order applies only to the Feds, it certainly colors the same powers of the States and has an effect on the appellate courts.

 

[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.

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.

TransCanada has been suing the ranchers, if they won't grant access:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/18/u...-fight-over-pipeline.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

TransCanada suspends efforts to seize Nebraska land for Keystone - Fuel Fix

TransCanada Corp puts Nebraska land buy on hold for pipeline suit Financial Post

Looks like this will have it's day in court as the far left looses all it's talking points once again..

 

[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?

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.

You're still bullshitting.

The irony impaired far left drones and their comments!

 

[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?

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.

Yeah no shit it would take more taxing. It should. That's part of being a citizen of the country. Taxing the wealthy is how you do it. Not because that's what's fair, but because that's what's realistic. That's where the most revenue can be generated. It will be expensive.

You're also forgetting what these jobs would boost: consumer spending. Sure most of them would be temporary, but imagine how much money would be pumped into the market with all these paychecks?

 

[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?

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.

Yeah no shit it would take more taxing. It should. That's part of being a citizen of the country. Taxing the wealthy is how you do it. Not because that's what's fair, but because that's what's realistic. That's where the most revenue can be generated. It will be expensive.

You're also forgetting what these jobs would boost: consumer spending. Sure most of them would be temporary, but imagine how much money would be pumped into the market with all these paychecks?

Another post proving how far to the left you are.

 

[Billy000]

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.

Do you honestly think republicans took the environment into account with this pipeline? Of course not. They have no fucking idea what it will do. I think it's safe to say there will be repercussions.

 

[Kosh]

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.

Do you honestly think republicans took the environment into account with this pipeline? Of course not. They have no fucking idea what it will do. I think it's safe to say there will be repercussions.

Just like 2010 and 2012 right?

 

[Agit8r]

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.

TransCanada has been suing the ranchers, if they won't grant access:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/18/u...-fight-over-pipeline.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

TransCanada suspends efforts to seize Nebraska land for Keystone - Fuel Fix

TransCanada Corp puts Nebraska land buy on hold for pipeline suit Financial Post

Looks like this will have it's day in court as the far left looses all it's talking points once again..

Naturally, once they saw they didn't have the votes to override the veto.

 

[Kosh]

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.

TransCanada has been suing the ranchers, if they won't grant access:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/18/u...-fight-over-pipeline.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

TransCanada suspends efforts to seize Nebraska land for Keystone - Fuel Fix

TransCanada Corp puts Nebraska land buy on hold for pipeline suit Financial Post

Looks like this will have it's day in court as the far left looses all it's talking points once again..

Naturally, once they saw they didn't have the votes to override the veto.

And once again the far left shows why they do not understand these issues..

 

[Steinlight]

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.

Do you honestly think republicans took the environment into account with this pipeline? Of course not. They have no fucking idea what it will do. I think it's safe to say there will be repercussions.

You aren't taking into account the environmental impact. You just have a bias against any innovation as it pertains to fossil fuels.

Even the State Department, which certainly isn't conservative by any stretch, has noted in its report that there would be a negligible impact if any on overall emissions and the environment as it pertains to the Keystone XL pipeline.

I don't think it is safe to trust your opinion at all, there is no evidence behind it and it is an economically harmful position you are taking.

State Department releases Keystone XL final environmental impact statement - The Washington Post

 

[bripat9643]

Why are your elected leaders so obsessed with the Keystone Pipeline yet do not at all care about fixing our crumbling infrastructure, which aside from fixing the crisis itself, would also create jobs?

For one thing, the pipeline won't cost the taxpayer's a dime. In fact, It will bring in revenue and create jobs. You have to a certified moron to be against it.

So-called "infrastructure" spending will only send checks to parasites.

 

[Obiwan]

Why are your elected leaders so obsessed with the Keystone Pipeline yet do not at all care about fixing our crumbling infrastructure, which aside from fixing the crisis itself, would also create jobs?

The pipeline would help prevent train wrecks, like we're getting now. No trains = no wrecks. Seems that's not important to the Democrats if they can't blame the Republicans and throw money at the problem, though.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Isn't this the same speech about infrastructure that we have heard from Obama since he first addressed the nation? Just how many times will the Democrats recycle that speech as an excuse to spend more government money? Especially since interstate highways and bridges are the responsibility of the STATE to maintain and not the Federal government, which is why we have measures in place to collect revenue like "tolls". Our Federal government should not be responsible for the states' mismanagement of their budget.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Why are your elected leaders so obsessed with the Keystone Pipeline yet do not at all care about fixing our crumbling infrastructure, which aside from fixing the crisis itself, would also create jobs?

787 billion bucks wasn't enough?

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Why are your elected leaders so obsessed with the Keystone Pipeline yet do not at all care about fixing our crumbling infrastructure, which aside from fixing the crisis itself, would also create jobs?

They only care about using imminent-domain against those ranchers, and for the benefit of their corporate cronies.

Just how many times have we seen imminent domain being utilized with the expansion, or the additional building, of interstates to try and relieve traffic congestion? Yet you would support infrastructure spending as your solution to create jobs? Resorting to that reasoning simply makes no sense.

 

[Oldstyle]

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.

Jesus, Billy...get a clue...will ya! Raising taxes doesn't "do a lot for our economy"! Did ANY of you far left drones ever take a college economics class?

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

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.

If you are SO worried about cutting government spending, then passing Obamacare to expand on the government's slice of the overall healthcare budget is not the way to do it. Not to mention all those additional federal unemployment extensions which generates no additional revenue for every dollar in interest added to our national debt.