How YOUR Senator Voted On Keystone XL

[Ernie S.]

And George Soros and Powell Jobs contributed as much or more to the Democrat effort. So what?

I probably gave the impression that I'm a big fan of Democrats when I'm not. The only thing positive I can say about them is that they're not Republicans. Tell me what Soros and Powell have done and maybe I'll condemn them as harshly as I do the Kochs.

Soros' currency trading record is pretty much common knowledge to anyone that ever looks at the dark side of their icons. Why not do a bit of research.

As for Powell Jobs, I'm sure she is a nice lady, but she does spread around Steve's apple bucks to any Progressive that asks.

I have no interest in soros. the wingers certainly do, though.

you should concern yourself more with the Koch's and the lies they tell the right.

and neither soros nor powell nor apple have anything to do with the fraud of the pipeline.

Ahh but Warren Buffet does. He makes billions transporting oil by rail and truck, billions he stands to lose when Keystone is built.

You're smarter than that, Jill. Read something besides the DNC talking points.

that's a nice defection. and if I relied on DNC talking points I'd rely on other things. but I don't. so it's a non-issue. you hon, have been watching too much fake news.

I rarely watch FOX. I probably watch more CNN and MSNBC. The difference is I look at multiple sources and ferret out the bullshit.

Well, off to work. Y'all have a great day.

 

[Redfish]

Glad my two voted no.

but I love the pretend concern of the right for the 44 permanent jobs that would be created by endangering our environment and enriching multi-national corporations.

maybe they should put their passion into an infrastructure program that would create real jobs.

nahh

oh...and for the idiots who run around saying "don't vote", voting matters as you can see, which ever way you come down on this issue. (and every other issue)

and thousands of construction jobs are a bad thing? When people tout other infrastructure jobs they get all giddy when talking about the construction jobs created.

44 jobs on the Pipeline only, which ignores the additional jobs created at the feed end, and at the discharge end, and the increased refining jobs. Yes, the feed end jobs go to Canadians, but is that a bad thing?

How many permanent jobs does a solar plant or a wind turbine generate?

the 44 ignores none of those things. you just don't appreciate the hoax being outed. as for construction jobs, why don't you care about them unless the environment is being undermined. where are the jobs programs to actually help the average person in this country and rebuild our failing infrastructure?

i'll ignore the wind turbine thing because it's silly.

I work in wastewater treatment, so I love any infrastructure job, so that dog will not hunt.

All jobs are equal, but some are more equal than others.

This is a oil line, there are thousands of others out there, and the oil will get from point a to point b somehow. You idiots are basically stopping the safest way of doing it just because "carbon bad, unga bunga"

and most of our 'failing infrastructure" is related to auto use. WAIT i thought cars are evul as well??????

You are talking to an engineer here on an engineering topic, and are thus out of your weight class.

all jobs are not equal. some benefit us as a society (for example, infrastructure jobs like roads, high speed transit, bridges, tunnels, etc). the pipeline benefits no one but a Canadian oil company and the multi-national corporations while undermining our environment and, arguably violating a number of treaties with native American tribes along the way. (though I have far more looking into that to do before I accept it as true).

I am making no observation as to engineering techniques. I leave that to you and others who know about that area. I am, however, commenting on the utility of a project that benefits no one but multi-national corporations and, ultimately, employes a handful of people.

The pipeline will keep oil off the rails and roads and benefit different multi-national corporations.
Yes, someone will make money no matter how oil is moved. You seem to have a problem with just who makes it.

like most libs, she is just repeating what her prophets have told her to say. Liberals are not allowed to think independently.

 

[Dot Com]

Keystone is not going to get built. It still has more environmental studies that are open, a lawsuit by Nebraska, and now lawsuits from Native American tribes, since the pipeline would violate legal treaties.

By the time all this is litigated, solar and other alternatives will have a much tighter grip and dirty oil will not be so attractive.

None of the "lawsuits" have any merit and mean nothing...the XL misses the Sioux reservation by 19 miles....it's tossed out before it begins. The state of Nebraska has already been satisfied with the new route...And no environmental study could possibly prefer filling and offloading RR tanker cars over a sealed pipeline.....you lose, loser.

link?

 

[martybegan]

and thousands of construction jobs are a bad thing? When people tout other infrastructure jobs they get all giddy when talking about the construction jobs created.

44 jobs on the Pipeline only, which ignores the additional jobs created at the feed end, and at the discharge end, and the increased refining jobs. Yes, the feed end jobs go to Canadians, but is that a bad thing?

How many permanent jobs does a solar plant or a wind turbine generate?

the 44 ignores none of those things. you just don't appreciate the hoax being outed. as for construction jobs, why don't you care about them unless the environment is being undermined. where are the jobs programs to actually help the average person in this country and rebuild our failing infrastructure?

i'll ignore the wind turbine thing because it's silly.

I work in wastewater treatment, so I love any infrastructure job, so that dog will not hunt.

All jobs are equal, but some are more equal than others.

This is a oil line, there are thousands of others out there, and the oil will get from point a to point b somehow. You idiots are basically stopping the safest way of doing it just because "carbon bad, unga bunga"

and most of our 'failing infrastructure" is related to auto use. WAIT i thought cars are evul as well??????

You are talking to an engineer here on an engineering topic, and are thus out of your weight class.

all jobs are not equal. some benefit us as a society (for example, infrastructure jobs like roads, high speed transit, bridges, tunnels, etc). the pipeline benefits no one but a Canadian oil company and the multi-national corporations while undermining our environment and, arguably violating a number of treaties with native American tribes along the way. (though I have far more looking into that to do before I accept it as true).

I am making no observation as to engineering techniques. I leave that to you and others who know about that area. I am, however, commenting on the utility of a project that benefits no one but multi-national corporations and, ultimately, employes a handful of people.

If the pipeline makes it cheaper to get the oil to market, even foreign markets, it lowers prices in general and makes everyone get cheaper fuel. And considering the oil will get out somehow, and a pipeline is the safest method of doing so, your environmental concerns ring hollow.

and when corporations benefit, stockholders benefit, and considering most of us are indirect stockholders in our pensions and 401k's I fail to see the view that we do not benefit financially even if we don't pull a drop of oil out of the line for local use, which is not determined to be true at all yet.

and again, your side has a habit of forgetting all the ancillary jobs created when it comes to things you don't like (but bulking them up when it involves things you do like). Thinks like increased port activity, and potential refining increases.

again, if you look at the article I linked. the pipeline does NOT make gas cheaper.

i'm not the one who forgets the ancillary jobs (which, again, are transient). i'm simply pointing out that the trade off for this particular project isn't worth it. and the right really has no standing to talk about job creation and ancillary jobs since every time a jobs program is discussed the answer from the right is cut taxes for the people who don't need them cut so we can pretend that money actually ends up benefitting workers.

it increases the supply of oil to market, and lowers the cost of transport, how does that impact prices usually?

my entire industry is transient, the upgrade of old and construction of new wastewater treatment plants. The pipeline is solid construction work, covering multiple trades. Its not like this hasn't been done before.

Do you bitch and moan about a new NG line in your street every time a new house goes up?

 

[TooTall]

Well, extreme wealth is behind the hold up of Keystone. Warren Buffet stands to make more billions shipping oil by rail.

I'll be no more of a supporter of Warren Buffet transporting this stuff than I would be of the Kochs.

Why is that? The Koch brothers made their money running businesses with thousands of employees. Do you even know how Soros made his millions?

 

[TooTall]

and thousands of construction jobs are a bad thing? When people tout other infrastructure jobs they get all giddy when talking about the construction jobs created.

44 jobs on the Pipeline only, which ignores the additional jobs created at the feed end, and at the discharge end, and the increased refining jobs. Yes, the feed end jobs go to Canadians, but is that a bad thing?

How many permanent jobs does a solar plant or a wind turbine generate?

I would say the decrease on environmental emissions
the 44 ignores none of those things. you just don't appreciate the hoax being outed. as for construction jobs, why don't you care about them unless the environment is being undermined. where are the jobs programs to actually help the average person in this country and rebuild our failing infrastructure?

i'll ignore the wind turbine thing because it's silly.

I work in wastewater treatment, so I love any infrastructure job, so that dog will not hunt.

All jobs are equal, but some are more equal than others.

This is a oil line, there are thousands of others out there, and the oil will get from point a to point b somehow. You idiots are basically stopping the safest way of doing it just because "carbon bad, unga bunga"

and most of our 'failing infrastructure" is related to auto use. WAIT i thought cars are evul as well??????

You are talking to an engineer here on an engineering topic, and are thus out of your weight class.

all jobs are not equal. some benefit us as a society (for example, infrastructure jobs like roads, high speed transit, bridges, tunnels, etc). the pipeline benefits no one but a Canadian oil company and the multi-national corporations while undermining our environment and, arguably violating a number of treaties with native American tribes along the way. (though I have far more looking into that to do before I accept it as true).

I am making no observation as to engineering techniques. I leave that to you and others who know about that area. I am, however, commenting on the utility of a project that benefits no one but multi-national corporations and, ultimately, employes a handful of people.

If the pipeline makes it cheaper to get the oil to market, even foreign markets, it lowers prices in general and makes everyone get cheaper fuel. And considering the oil will get out somehow, and a pipeline is the safest method of doing so, your environmental concerns ring hollow.

and when corporations benefit, stockholders benefit, and considering most of us are indirect stockholders in our pensions and 401k's I fail to see the view that we do not benefit financially even if we don't pull a drop of oil out of the line for local use, which is not determined to be true at all yet.

and again, your side has a habit of forgetting all the ancillary jobs created when it comes to things you don't like (but bulking them up when it involves things you do like). Thinks like increased port activity, and potential refining increases.

again, if you look at the article I linked. the pipeline does NOT make gas cheaper.

i'm not the one who forgets the ancillary jobs (which, again, are transient). i'm simply pointing out that the trade off for this particular project isn't worth it. and the right really has no standing to talk about job creation and ancillary jobs since every time a jobs program is discussed the answer from the right is cut taxes for the people who don't need them cut so we can pretend that money actually ends up benefitting workers.

I would say the 43% decrease in environmental emissions according to the State Department benefits everyone. The decreased danger from rail tankers derailing, spilling and causing a fire or explosion is a benefit. The danger from large tanker trucks having an accident on a freeway is less and a benefit.
And anyone who believes Van Jones assessment of how many jobs will be permanent is a fool.

 

[BullKurtz]

the 44 ignores none of those things. you just don't appreciate the hoax being outed. as for construction jobs, why don't you care about them unless the environment is being undermined. where are the jobs programs to actually help the average person in this country and rebuild our failing infrastructure?

i'll ignore the wind turbine thing because it's silly.

"jobs programs"? Where have we heard that before? Oh yeah, your Priestess Hillary claims business don't create jobs...only Unca Sugar can do that. Do you even know how this country got so rich or care? No, you don't mind living free and safe from the tyrants, and getting the best lifestyle on the planet, but you don't have a clue what created it. Deep down you know solar energy can't possibly run this country....and what about the thousands of eagles and hawks that are cut to pieces by those wind turbine blades, death-spiraling to the ground to be eaten by opportunistic coyotes. How come "climate guru" RFK Jr. wouldn't allow a wind farm near the Kennedy compound but they're okay for us commoners? The only possible reason you're a liberal is either that you're mentally ill, or make a living from some democrat source.....one doesn't preclude the other. My bet is you refuse to listen to the voice in your head that keeps telling you you're a sucker, the hatred for free enterprise and a sovereign America is so ingrained you ignore your little remaining common sense.

 

[g5000]

The stuff has to have chemicals added to it & be heated to flow. It cost more to extract move & refine than its worth not to mention the catastrophic environmental impact of that powder keg.

That's going to happen regardless. XL pipeline or no XL pipeline.

 

[g5000]

and thousands of construction jobs are a bad thing? When people tout other infrastructure jobs they get all giddy when talking about the construction jobs created.

Bingo.

This whining about the Keystone construction jobs only being temporary is bullshit.

EVERY construction job is temporary.

That's the nature of the work. You finish one construction job, you move on to the next one. Except the fuckwads want to prevent that next job from being there.

 

[Care4all]

Well, extreme wealth is behind the hold up of Keystone. Warren Buffet stands to make more billions shipping oil by rail.

I'll be no more of a supporter of Warren Buffet transporting this stuff than I would be of the Kochs.

Why is that? The Koch brothers made their money running businesses with thousands of employees. Do you even know how Soros made his millions?

but aren't you just SWAPPING jobs, at the very most? You're killing all the trucker's permanent jobs hauling the stuff now and trading those jobs in for temporary construction jobs? Taking from Peter to give to Paul?

 

[Freewill]

Glad my two voted no.

but I love the pretend concern of the right for the 44 permanent jobs that would be created by endangering our environment and enriching multi-national corporations.

maybe they should put their passion into an infrastructure program that would create real jobs.

nahh

oh...and for the idiots who run around saying "don't vote", voting matters as you can see, which ever way you come down on this issue. (and every other issue)

Two suggestions, 1. quit driving your car or anything else that uses oil. Especically oil already traveling through pipelines. 2. Shut your pie hole, the people spanked your ilk last election time for your and your obstructionists to STFU. The Alaskan pipeline works just fine this one will too.

 

[Freewill]

and thousands of construction jobs are a bad thing? When people tout other infrastructure jobs they get all giddy when talking about the construction jobs created.

Bingo.

This whining about the Keystone construction jobs only being temporary is bullshit.

EVERY construction job is temporary.

That's the nature of the work. You finish one construction job, you move on to the next one. Except the fuckwads want to prevent that next job from being there.

Think of the illegals that can be put to work. Temporary or not.

 

[Freewill]

Both of PA Senators voted for the passage. Nice to see some bi-partisan common sense from my elected officials.

so when it's a rightwing issue, it's bi-partisan to vote for it?

and when it's a liberal issue, it's patriotic to obstruct?

ya.

Gosh your logic is twisted. When the vote is bi-partisan it is bi-partisan that is what is said, what you responded with is just plain idiotic. The reason you don't understand bi-partisanship is that we have had 8 years of Pelosi and Reid. 8 years of them not even attempting to get along. pay back time.

 

[BullKurtz]

BTW.....the fact that light sweet crude from the Bakken will co-mingle with the heavier tar sand oil from Calgary means the cracking and refining process in the Gulf separates the bulk oil they receive into several different products. What that means is that most of what will be shipped overseas to asia are products and solvents we have no use for in the US anymore. The gasoline and fuel oil products will stay in the USA and compete for market share, meaning a lower price for us. What I believe will happen next is the section of pipeline from Oklahoma to the Gulf will be approved instead of the shorter route through Nebraska. It accomplishes the same thing only much more slowly which probably raises the cost to prohibitive levels. The Canucks only other alternative since they can't go west to Vancouver, is to go east to Hudson Bay, north and then west through the Arctic Ocean to the Pacific. Imagine oil tankers in those pristine waters.

 

[martybegan]

Well, extreme wealth is behind the hold up of Keystone. Warren Buffet stands to make more billions shipping oil by rail.

I'll be no more of a supporter of Warren Buffet transporting this stuff than I would be of the Kochs.

Why is that? The Koch brothers made their money running businesses with thousands of employees. Do you even know how Soros made his millions?

but aren't you just SWAPPING jobs, at the very most? You're killing all the trucker's permanent jobs hauling the stuff now and trading those jobs in for temporary construction jobs? Taking from Peter to give to Paul?

There is a shortage of long haul truckers as it is, other things will come in to pick up the slack. Same goes with rail transport.

If safety and environmental concerns such as spills are your top priority, a pipeline is the safest way to go.

 

[Care4all]

Well, extreme wealth is behind the hold up of Keystone. Warren Buffet stands to make more billions shipping oil by rail.

I'll be no more of a supporter of Warren Buffet transporting this stuff than I would be of the Kochs.

Why is that? The Koch brothers made their money running businesses with thousands of employees. Do you even know how Soros made his millions?

but aren't you just SWAPPING jobs, at the very most? You're killing all the trucker's permanent jobs hauling the stuff now and trading those jobs in for temporary construction jobs? Taking from Peter to give to Paul?

There is a shortage of long haul truckers as it is, other things will come in to pick up the slack. Same goes with rail transport.

If safety and environmental concerns such as spills are your top priority, a pipeline is the safest way to go.

Will our government have to use eminent domain to take American citizens homes and land away from them for a foreign country's needs?

 

[jillian]

Glad my two voted no.

but I love the pretend concern of the right for the 44 permanent jobs that would be created by endangering our environment and enriching multi-national corporations.

maybe they should put their passion into an infrastructure program that would create real jobs.

nahh

oh...and for the idiots who run around saying "don't vote", voting matters as you can see, which ever way you come down on this issue. (and every other issue)

Two suggestions, 1. quit driving your car or anything else that uses oil. Especically oil already traveling through pipelines. 2. Shut your pie hole, the people spanked your ilk last election time for your and your obstructionists to STFU. The Alaskan pipeline works just fine this one will too.

quiet, loon

 

[JoeNormal]

Well, extreme wealth is behind the hold up of Keystone. Warren Buffet stands to make more billions shipping oil by rail.

I'll be no more of a supporter of Warren Buffet transporting this stuff than I would be of the Kochs.

Well, extreme wealth is behind the hold up of Keystone. Warren Buffet stands to make more billions shipping oil by rail.

I'll be no more of a supporter of Warren Buffet transporting this stuff than I would be of the Kochs.

Why is that? The Koch brothers made their money running businesses with thousands of employees. Do you even know how Soros made his millions?

Where do you see the name Soros in my post?

 

[mudwhistle]

Glad my two voted no.

but I love the pretend concern of the right for the 44 permanent jobs that would be created by endangering our environment and enriching multi-national corporations.

maybe they should put their passion into an infrastructure program that would create real jobs.

nahh

oh...and for the idiots who run around saying "don't vote", voting matters as you can see, which ever way you come down on this issue. (and every other issue)

gy & Resources
Keystone XL: The benefits and costs of a controversial pipeline

On Dec. 1, 2010, TransCanada Corp. hit send on a news release proclaiming the benefits of its Keystone XL pipeline. A new study, it said, showed that the $7-billion project would create 13,000 jobs, would spur a further 118,000 “spinoff jobs” and would “inject into the U.S. economy” $20-billion.
For Canada, Keystone XL also looked like a clear benefit, with 830,000 barrels a day of promised new pipeline capacity to accommodate the surging oil sands.

Keystone XL The benefits and costs of a controversial pipeline - The Globe and Mail

 

[Dot Com]

here you go extraction dupes:

Feinstein Remarks on Keystone XL Pipeline - Press Releases - News Room - United States Senator Dianne Feinstein

According to the National Energy Technology Laboratory, by the time oil from Keystone makes it to a car in the form of gasoline, it has already produced 80 percent—80 percent—more greenhouse gas emissions than typical crude oil.

Here’s how the math works out.

Producing, refining and combusting oil from Keystone will release up to 27 million metric tons more carbon dioxide every year than would be produced from burning the same volume of crude oil.

Those additional emissions are equivalent to the emissions of 5.7 million cars on the road, or eight coal-fired power plants.

worth noting again.