Keystone XL Fails to Pass Senate 59 - 41

[Ame®icano]

In 90 days, Keystone will pass the Senate ... gloat while you can.

It will still be 59-41.....

But it'll only need 51 to pass then.

Wow are you people obtuse.

It will need 60 votes. The democrats will filibuster it and it won't go anywhere no matter who controls the senate. republicans won't have 60 seats to break the democratic filibuster.

The same thing that happened today will happen the next time the republicans try to violate the constitution and take the decision out of the State Department and Obama's hands. The constitution says that it's not the congress that approves international projects and permits. The constitution says it's the State Department and the President who approves such things.

Yet here you republicans are. Condemning democrats for upholding the constitution. None of you people respect that document beyond the second amendment.

Oh, that... Constitution. Right.

And what Constitution says about immigration, or profiling by IRS, or executing laws on books, or recess appointments, or guns rights, or use of military...

 

[Iceweasel]

Republicans are the ones who destroyed America
Republicans are the ones who killed US oil production
Republicans are the ones who drove up Gasoline Prices
Obama increased US energy production every year!

Dayuum. Sounds like you'd suck the turds right out of his ass.

 

[BlackSand]

Keystone XL dead in Senate . GOP picks up another Senate seat in Louisiana.

If Landrieu loses her seat, it won't change the balance on Keystone. She supports the pipeline.

That would be true except for the fact 13 Democrats voted with Senator Landrieu in attempts to pass the legislation.

Now it is possible those Democrats won't vote for the measure when Senator Landrieu's political career is not hanging in the balance ... But that would just be another example of how those Senators don't care about the project, legislation or environmental impact ... And were simply using the legislation in attempts to buy votes.

.

 

[Dana7360]

America has had enough of large Corporations using scare tactics to gain more profits.

Incorrect since they are the ones that buy and pay for these politicians regardless of party..

Heavy Hitters Top All-Time Donors 1989-2014 OpenSecrets

The irony of you solidifying my point..........

The irony of proving my comments by proving yours incorrect!

If you are correct then show where the "Left" said we can't make a refinery closer to the oil source........that's the point.

I'm sure you can make 101 posts about the Left wanting alternative energy, because to not make them would be ignorance.

But let's see one that attacks the issue at hand. You stated the Left wouldn't allow oil refineries near Canada and that's why it has to go all the way through the nation to Texas.............basic ignorance......

It's topic time. Go ahead. Show your links.

Actually, there's a very huge and extensive refinery less than an hour's drive south of Canada. It's in Anacortes Washington. It's where the Alaskan pipeline ends. The refinery is huge and more than one oil company is there. It's been expanded throughout the years. It could handle the canadian tar sands just fine. Without the dirty tar sands going through the middle of our nation and destroying the only water source for that area. It's right on Puget Sound so shipping the refined oil would be extremely easy.

Puget Sound Refinery - United States

Anacortes, Wash. | TSOCORP

 

[Dana7360]

Keystone XL dead in Senate . GOP picks up another Senate seat in Louisiana.

Which would be less expensive to the tax payer?

A refinery where the oil comes from or a pipeline that drives through America, it's nature, it's water sources, it's private property to make it's way to a refinery in idiot Texas?

No need for a pipeline if you aren't invested in it. Just make a refinery where the oil comes from.

Well since the far left set things up this way you will have to convince them to allow the building of more refineries.

You get to work on convincing the far left to allow this to happen by changing existing laws..

Report back when you have accomplished this..

I'm sure you can make a post/link/some information of the Left turning down refineries and you aren't just being stupid here. I'll love to read it if you have that information........Since your name is Kosh and your posts in the past

Which would be less expensive to the tax payer?

A refinery where the oil comes from or a pipeline that drives through America, it's nature, it's water sources, it's private property to make it's way to a refinery in idiot Texas?

No need for a pipeline if you aren't invested in it. Just make a refinery where the oil comes from.

Well since the far left set things up this way you will have to convince them to allow the building of more refineries.

You get to work on convincing the far left to allow this to happen by changing existing laws..

Report back when you have accomplished this..

So you think I have to convince the Left of more refineries........not convince the Right of Common Sense.

As it turns out, I'm not party person. You are stupid if you are stupid, no matter the party. Thanks for playing.

Not saying you were just telling you who you had to get behind the actions..

However since you refuse to acknowledge the real problem on who is behind this (the far left and their neo-Nazi environmentalists) then I have to call into question your comments..

So you are digging deeper. I'm sure you must have a link to "Environmentalists" that used government to stop the building of a refinery near Canada................Otherwise, you are just a puppet.

Well I am sure you have the information to prove the far left (and their environmental Nazi groups) will support refineries to be built anywhere including near Canada

I am all for building the refineries closer to the source. I know of one in Wyoming that opened, but if you see how long it took to get that through and what it took you will understand my comments..

Ground was broken in N. Dakota..

However the far left had very little to do with wanting them built, thus upholding my comments on who you really have to convince..

Actually the oil refinery in Anacortes Washington is perfect to refine that tar sand.

It doesn't need to be built, it's already built. It's been expanded many times throughout the decades and no one has had any problems with the building or expansion. There's more than one oil company refining oil and I'm sure they would be very happy to refine the canadian tar sand.

 

[Dana7360]

Keystone XL dead in Senate . GOP picks up another Senate seat in Louisiana.

Which would be less expensive to the tax payer?

A refinery where the oil comes from or a pipeline that drives through America, it's nature, it's water sources, it's private property to make it's way to a refinery in idiot Texas?

No need for a pipeline if you aren't invested in it. Just make a refinery where the oil comes from.

Well since the far left set things up this way you will have to convince them to allow the building of more refineries.

You get to work on convincing the far left to allow this to happen by changing existing laws..

Report back when you have accomplished this..

I'm sure you can make a post/link/some information of the Left turning down refineries and you aren't just being stupid here. I'll love to read it if you have that information........Since your name is Kosh and your posts in the past

Well since the far left set things up this way you will have to convince them to allow the building of more refineries.

You get to work on convincing the far left to allow this to happen by changing existing laws..

Report back when you have accomplished this..

So you think I have to convince the Left of more refineries........not convince the Right of Common Sense.

As it turns out, I'm not party person. You are stupid if you are stupid, no matter the party. Thanks for playing.

Not saying you were just telling you who you had to get behind the actions..

However since you refuse to acknowledge the real problem on who is behind this (the far left and their neo-Nazi environmentalists) then I have to call into question your comments..

So you are digging deeper. I'm sure you must have a link to "Environmentalists" that used government to stop the building of a refinery near Canada................Otherwise, you are just a puppet.

Well I am sure you have the information to prove the far left (and their environmental Nazi groups) will support refineries to be built anywhere including near Canada

I am all for building the refineries closer to the source. I know of one in Wyoming that opened, but if you see how long it took to get that through and what it took you will understand my comments..

Ground was broken in N. Dakota..

However the far left had very little to do with wanting them built, thus upholding my comments on who you really have to convince..

"Well I am sure you have the information to prove the far left (and their environmental Nazi groups) will support refineries to be built anywhere including near Canada"

Your post shows your ignorance of the topic and politics in general. I have no need to prove my stance because no one ever tried to make a refinery near Canada. Only small brains like you jumped to the conclusion that the only place we can refine oil is in Texas. And you are not alone.

You do understand the makers of the Pipeline invested large amounts of money to politicians who fight for a pipe over American property. If the pipeline went over your "down home" house, would you want to give it up? They are going to seize property to run it and it will run over America's biggest water source just years after showing they can corrupt an entire GULF of water.

It's time you grew a brain and stopped fighting for the profits of others and started fighting for your own well being.

Sorry but someone did build a refinery just south of canada. It's where the Alaskan pipeline ends. The refinery is in Anacortes Washington. It's been there since the 1970s. It's been expanded many times though the years.

It's a very huge facility with more than one oil company refining oil there.

 

[Dana7360]

America has had enough of large Corporations using scare tactics to gain more profits.

Incorrect since they are the ones that buy and pay for these politicians regardless of party..

Heavy Hitters Top All-Time Donors 1989-2014 OpenSecrets

The irony of you solidifying my point..........

The irony of proving my comments by proving yours incorrect!

If you are correct then show where the "Left" said we can't make a refinery closer to the oil source........that's the point.

I'm sure you can make 101 posts about the Left wanting alternative energy, because to not make them would be ignorance.

But let's see one that attacks the issue at hand. You stated the Left wouldn't allow oil refineries near Canada and that's why it has to go all the way through the nation to Texas.............basic ignorance......

It's topic time. Go ahead. Show your links.

There's already an oil refinery near Canada.

The reason why they want to send that tar sand to Texas is that Texas will give them a huge tax break with very little regulations or oversight.

 

[JimH52]

Spo

America has had enough of large Corporations using scare tactics to gain more profits.

Incorrect since they are the ones that buy and pay for these politicians regardless of party..

Heavy Hitters Top All-Time Donors 1989-2014 OpenSecrets

The irony of you solidifying my point..........

The irony of proving my comments by proving yours incorrect!

If you are correct then show where the "Left" said we can't make a refinery closer to the oil source........that's the point.

I'm sure you can make 101 posts about the Left wanting alternative energy, because to not make them would be ignorance.

But let's see one that attacks the issue at hand. You stated the Left wouldn't allow oil refineries near Canada and that's why it has to go all the way through the nation to Texas.............basic ignorance......

It's topic time. Go ahead. Show your links.

There's already an oil refinery near Canada.

The reason why they want to send that tar sand to Texas is that Texas will give them a huge tax break with very little regulations or oversight.

So after the pipeline is built, if it is built, do the jobs go away?

 

[Carla_Danger]

Let's cut thru all the bullshit and get real.

Will refined products from Keystone XL be exported?

It should be noted that Keystone XL transports crude oil, not refined products.

TransCanada is an energy infrastructure company. We build energy infrastructure like pipelines, natural gas-fired power plants and wind farms.

We don’t actually extract or own a single molecule of oil or natural gas that we transport.

We are contracted to build the infrastructure to safely deliver those molecules to their destination.

We don’t own the oil we transport, much like a moving company doesn’t own your bed during a move.

Myths Facts Keystone XL Pipeline

This pipeline would be used to transport oil to the Gulf, loaded on Tankers, then sold on the worldwide oil market to the highest bidder. There are ZERO guarantees that any of this oil stays in America.

What are you going to do? This crude is going to the Gulf refineries no matter what. We are your number one supplier.

Rail or truck or pipeline. Pick your poison. Block the pipeline? Okey dokey what next?

Block all rail transport from Canada to the US? Or block all tankers from Canada to the US?

Because it might not all stay in the US?

You need the crude.

Or are you going to legislate that your very own US companies who have purchased the crude not be able to sell it anywhere but in America?

That would be very Venezuelan of you.

We already know they're not gonna sell it here; that's what she just said.

Strange post, TD.

Who cares if they sell it here. The pipeline itself would provide jobs NOW and it would be REFINED here.

Do you dumbfucks think that they are going to ship unrefined oi down to the Gulf Coast and then what ship it to China to be refined? Yeah , that would be MUCH more cost efficient than simply having the refineries that the pipeline itself goes to refine it.

Jesus

No one said it's going to be refined in China, you boob.

 

[Carla_Danger]

Spo

Incorrect since they are the ones that buy and pay for these politicians regardless of party..

Heavy Hitters Top All-Time Donors 1989-2014 OpenSecrets

The irony of you solidifying my point..........

The irony of proving my comments by proving yours incorrect!

If you are correct then show where the "Left" said we can't make a refinery closer to the oil source........that's the point.

I'm sure you can make 101 posts about the Left wanting alternative energy, because to not make them would be ignorance.

But let's see one that attacks the issue at hand. You stated the Left wouldn't allow oil refineries near Canada and that's why it has to go all the way through the nation to Texas.............basic ignorance......

It's topic time. Go ahead. Show your links.

There's already an oil refinery near Canada.

The reason why they want to send that tar sand to Texas is that Texas will give them a huge tax break with very little regulations or oversight.

So after the pipeline is built, if it is built, do the jobs go away?

All but 35.

 

[Carla_Danger]

This pipeline would be used to transport oil to the Gulf, loaded on Tankers, then sold on the worldwide oil market to the highest bidder. There are ZERO guarantees that any of this oil stays in America.

What are you going to do? This crude is going to the Gulf refineries no matter what. We are your number one supplier.

Rail or truck or pipeline. Pick your poison. Block the pipeline? Okey dokey what next?

Block all rail transport from Canada to the US? Or block all tankers from Canada to the US?

You need the crude.

Or are you going to legislate that your very own US companies who have purchased the crude not be able to sell it anywhere but in America?

That would be very Venezuelan of you.

we dont need the crude.

Give me a break.

Plas we're your number one supplier for many reasons. A major reason is energy security.

Your own government said so.

Media Note
Office of the Spokesman
Washington, DC
March 14, 2008


Keystone Pipeline Presidential Permit
On March 14, the Department of State issued a Presidential Permit authorizing TransCanada Keystone Pipeline LP to construct, operate and maintain facilities related to the Keystone crude oil pipeline project.

The Keystone pipeline will extend 1,300 miles from the Canadian border through the U.S. Midwest.

When fully operational, the Keystone pipeline is anticipated to increase U.S. oil imports from Canada by an amount equivalent to as much as 4.5 percent of total U.S. daily imports.

Canada is the United States' largest supplier of oil, natural gas, and electricity. The Department has determined that issuance of the permit to TransCanada Keystone Pipeline LP is in the national interest, in part, because it increases U.S. market access to crude oil supplies from a stable and reliable trading partner, Canada, that is in close proximity to the United States.


Canadian oil represents a safe, secure supply for the North American market. In 2004, Canada became the largest supplier of crude oil to the United States. In 2006, Canada supplied the United States with 2.3 million barrels of oil per day (mbd), equivalent to 17% of total U.S. imports.

The permit was signed in the State Department’s Treaty Room by the Undersecretary of State for Economics, Energy and Agriculture Affairs, Reuben Jeffery III, who also serves as the Department’s International Energy Coordinator. Canadian Ambassador Michael Wilson witnessed the signature.

The United States and Canada have a wide array of bilateral and multilateral mechanisms to discuss energy and the environment, and will continue to address the importance of mitigating greenhouse gases from all sources of energy production.

Prior to making its determination to issue the permit to TransCanada Keystone Pipeline LP, the Department completed an environmental review of the entire project.

All public documents related to the Department’s decision regarding TransCanada Keystone LP’s application can be downloaded at www.keystonepipeline.state.gov.

2008/192

Keystone Pipeline Presidential Permit

um the crude is going on the world market. Not directly to the american public.....So your post is irrelevant.

Meanwhile 2,000 Americans have good paying construction jobs for 2 years.

We can create 2,000 jobs improving our infrastructure. We can create 2,000 jobs developing renewable, clean energies.

 

[Carla_Danger]

Your Post Needs To Contain Relevant On Topic Content besides Your Flame. -- Politics forum rules

Might want to remind your fellow far left drones of that!

So you now report trolling?

I've been on topic, I was just responding to your trolling.

No dear, you haven't made a fucking on topic statemetn in this entire thread that I have seen. Meanwhile I've been discussing the actual you know pipeline, which IS the topic.

See, here is one of my posts

Keystone XL Fails to Pass Senate 59 - 41 Page 15 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Please post a link to the message where you first posted this link and said it was from a cornell study. If I'm wrong and you DID say so, big deal. I'll apologize and move on. No big deal.

Completely on topic

Here is one of your posts

Keystone XL Fails to Pass Senate 59 - 41 Page 14 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

And you're a broken record.

And here is another

Keystone XL Fails to Pass Senate 59 - 41 Page 13 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Useless blabber.


Absolutely, completely NO comment on the topic at all, NONE.

Do you see the difference now dear? Here let me help you out

"Zone 2": Political Forum / Israel and Palestine Forum / Race Relations/Racism Forum / Religion & Ethics Forum: Baiting and polarizing OP's (Opening Posts), and thread titles risk the thread either being moved or trashed. Keep it relevant, choose wisely. Each post must contain content relevant to the thread subject, in addition to any flame. No trolling. No hit and run flames. No hijacking or derailing threads.

OMG, you're a whiny little girl. LOL!

Here ya go. 35 permanent jobs!

CNN s Van Jones says Keystone pipeline only creates 35 permanent jobs PunditFact

Van Jones is a self proclaimed communist.

That's beside the point. He's correct on the number of permanent jobs it will create.

 

[KissMy]

We can create 2,000 jobs improving our infrastructure. We can create 2,000 jobs developing renewable, clean energies.

We already are creating far more renewable clean energy jobs.

Over 5,000 construction jobs & over 500 permanent jobs

 

[jasonnfree]

Still trying to figure out who benefits from this potentially harmful pipeline being built. It goes to refineries in the south that already have the nickname cancer alley , and has a possibility of rupturing similar to what happened in Plymouth Arkansas except on a much larger scale. Eminent domain, which used to be used only for the public good, has been enforced on unwilling landowners. From what I've read, the end product goes on the world market anyway, so it's not likely to benefit America, a country more and more becoming an extractive economy similar to a third world country. Export resources, import manufactured goods formerly made by Americans. An export, extractive economy provides few well paid jobs but does benefit a few wealthy ones at the top. This is where America is headed.

 

[Carla_Danger]

Who cares if they sell it here. The pipeline itself would provide jobs NOW and it would be REFINED here.

Do you dumbfucks think that they are going to ship unrefined oi down to the Gulf Coast and then what ship it to China to be refined? Yeah , that would be MUCH more cost efficient than simply having the refineries that the pipeline itself goes to refine it.

Jesus

35-50 jobs.....Woooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

In Oklahoma alone union welders made $134,000 working on just one portion of the pipeline.

Construction jobs are temporary. Just by their nature but they pay big money for both skilled and unskilled labor. Your State department forecast over 40,000 jobs during the construction of the pipeline.

Think of it this way Plas. It takes 100000s of men and women to build highways, schools, bridges and there are zilch permanent jobs after those projects are completed.

So does a project like a highway not get built because there are jack shit jobs after the construction?



I don't think so.

Little Miss Union Supporter ... you're on permanent record Mama Teamster.

Oh so now the far left does not support unions, well we knew that when went up against the keystone pipeline..

If conservatives want to pretend they support good paying union jobs, why won't they support any infrastructure spending?

That represents tens of thousands of good paying union jobs in constructions jobs, and the difference between that and Keystone is,

afterwards with infrastructure, you have something worthwhile to show for it.

You people are not fooling anyone.

Democrats are suppose to be the party for the people

1000s of jobs they just voted down.

Rightwingers trying to pretend they're the protectors of good paying union jobs. Now, you've seen everything...

Well aaaahh... hate to break it to ya there bubble head, but in this instance, there's no pretending because that is exactly what's happening.

The Right has no interest in the jobs. If they did they'd support the infrastructure bills that aren't about the pipeline.

Didn't we learn from Iraq that RWers hate spending money on our infrastructure? Hell, they'd rather blow it up, then rebuild it in Iraq. LOL!

 

[Stephanie]

Spo

Incorrect since they are the ones that buy and pay for these politicians regardless of party..

Heavy Hitters Top All-Time Donors 1989-2014 OpenSecrets

The irony of you solidifying my point..........

The irony of proving my comments by proving yours incorrect!

If you are correct then show where the "Left" said we can't make a refinery closer to the oil source........that's the point.

I'm sure you can make 101 posts about the Left wanting alternative energy, because to not make them would be ignorance.

But let's see one that attacks the issue at hand. You stated the Left wouldn't allow oil refineries near Canada and that's why it has to go all the way through the nation to Texas.............basic ignorance......

It's topic time. Go ahead. Show your links.

There's already an oil refinery near Canada.

The reason why they want to send that tar sand to Texas is that Texas will give them a huge tax break with very little regulations or oversight.

So after the pipeline is built, if it is built, do the jobs go away?

not all of them, but that is what construction jobs are.... building that "infrastructure" you libs like to wail about . They come in build it and go onto the next job. If they build a building for say, Sears. do they stay on and run it?. Sheesh

 

[BullKurtz]

You are a duped Repubtard!

Obama is not running for any office therefore he needs no cover for any action he takes. US Oil production declined over the past 40 years because of Republicans. Obama is the first president to increase US oil production in over 40 years.

Keystone phase 1, 2 & 3 were built under Obama's administration. Obama is an all of the above pro US energy president. Obama did not issue a veto threat when the House passed its own pro-Keystone legislation. The White House currently has no plans to roll out a veto threat for the Senate's pro-pipeline legislation.

More jobs are created every month under Obama than all the Keystone pipeline & US oil production boom created.

Keystone was approved in 2008 by the Bush Administration....Barry the Fairy couldn't block it.....He's tried everything in the book to stop fracking but he can't because it's on private land. He's shut down every exploration project he can...including the ANWR 1001.....all this makes you a liar.

 

[Stephanie]

Wow, the excuses I've seen in this thread is pathetic. Working in the winter waa waa waa

they don't want "infrastructure" they just want to throw that word out because it sounds good, I guess.

 

[KissMy]

You are a duped Repubtard!

Obama is not running for any office therefore he needs no cover for any action he takes. US Oil production declined over the past 40 years because of Republicans. Obama is the first president to increase US oil production in over 40 years.

Keystone phase 1, 2 & 3 were built under Obama's administration. Obama is an all of the above pro US energy president. Obama did not issue a veto threat when the House passed its own pro-Keystone legislation. The White House currently has no plans to roll out a veto threat for the Senate's pro-pipeline legislation.

More jobs are created every month under Obama than all the Keystone pipeline & US oil production boom created.

Keystone was approved in 2008 by the Bush Administration....Barry the Fairy couldn't block it.....He's tried everything in the book to stop fracking but he can't because it's on private land. He's shut down every exploration project he can...including the ANWR 1001.....all this makes you a liar.

You are the lying idiot duped Repubtard! Low gas prices never happen under Republican gas bag presidents. Obama has made it happen.

Obama has lowered Gas Prices, unlike the Republicans who raised them over the past 40 years.

- Republicans presidents Nixion & Ford enacted price controls to killed US oil production in the 1970's.

- Republicans president Ford enacted export ban to killed US oil production in the 1970's.

- Republicans presidents Nixion created the EPA to killed US oil production in the 1970's. Us oil production has declined under every Republican president since.

- Bush signed EO12777 banning US oil & gas drilling.

- Horizontal multi-well pad fracking setback borders were removed under Obama, cutting cost & boosting US oil production for the first time in 40 years.

- Obama has fast tracked Keystone oil pipelines. Keystone pipeline Phases 1, 2, & 3 have been built under Obama, not Republicans.

- Obama lifted the export ban to boost US oil production & lower prices.

- The Obama administration and the Environmental Protection Agency phased out the rubber boots on gas pump handles that used to capture gasoline vapors while refueling cars. That move saved consumers and businesses $6 billion at the pump.

- The Obama administration & Saudi's are using oil price as a weapon against Iran, Syria, ISIS & Russia. Way to go Obama! $50 oil & $1 gas coming soon.

- 60% in Republican Texas town that is the birthplace of fracking & has been supported by fracking just voted to ban it by a landslide.

 

[Carla_Danger]

Spo

The irony of you solidifying my point..........

The irony of proving my comments by proving yours incorrect!

If you are correct then show where the "Left" said we can't make a refinery closer to the oil source........that's the point.

I'm sure you can make 101 posts about the Left wanting alternative energy, because to not make them would be ignorance.

But let's see one that attacks the issue at hand. You stated the Left wouldn't allow oil refineries near Canada and that's why it has to go all the way through the nation to Texas.............basic ignorance......

It's topic time. Go ahead. Show your links.

There's already an oil refinery near Canada.

The reason why they want to send that tar sand to Texas is that Texas will give them a huge tax break with very little regulations or oversight.

So after the pipeline is built, if it is built, do the jobs go away?

not all of them, but that is what construction jobs are.... building that "infrastructure" you libs like to wail about . They come in build it and go onto the next job. If they build a building for say, Sears. do they stay on and run it?. Sheesh

You twit, building a pipeline to carry nasty sludge does not improve our infrastructure. Repairing bridges improves our infrastructure.