Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
keystone xl was not for transporting oil for American use, but to get their Canadian oil sands to the FOREIGN marketplace.exactly HOW would keystone xl give us energy independence?Obama and the filthy ass Democrats are owned lock, stock and barrel by environmental wacko billionaire Tom Steyer.
What Tom wants from his Boy he gets. Even if is destroys American jobs and energy independence.
We can get the oil from our friends in Canada via an efficient pipeline of we can get the oil from the Middle East Mullahs and Shieks.
Of course Tom Styer's dumbass Boy doesn't want us to get oil from anybody. He wants us to use government subsidies to make more of those wonderful Solyndra solar cells so the executives that contributed to Obama's campaign can get richer.
Link?Eminent Domain, taking USA Citizen's land away, for a foreign corporation to make a better profit is abuse of govt power.
keystone xl, is NOT to transport oil across our Nation, so WE, AMERICANS can buy it or use it....it's sole purpose is for this Canadian company to be able to sell and ship these refined oil sands to FOREIGNERS.
The OP is about whether or not infrastructure creates jobs.
Obama says it does. But also, that it doesn't.
NONE, zip, zero oil from Canada's keystone xl was to be for USA use....I'm beginning to think Toro is here as a secret weapon from Canada to turn us into a third world country..
a USA infrastructure project would create immediate temp jobs for construction and THEN CREATE LONG TERM JOBS .... build new schools/colleges across the nation, you employ teachers for a lifetime and students for the next 50 years that go on to prosper... fix the bridges and roadways and you have millions of people that can safely get to work for the next 75 years and easy transit for businesses to transport goods across the nation, which also creates and maintains a hefty work force....
Bridges and roadways don't create long term jobs.
Schools are funded mostly by local property taxes. Most of the federal government's infrastructure bill would not go to schools.
No roads, no bridges, NO JOBS FOR ANYONE in the future.
No expanded Electric grid, no electricity for businesses or jobs of the future.
No expanded and fixed up schools, no educated work force, for jobs in the future.
Yeah, more jobs and more secure, cheaper oil.
Just like Cuba. Moron.
do you understand that?
NONE.
I found the transcript finally. Sorry, you are simply incorrect:Link?Eminent Domain, taking USA Citizen's land away, for a foreign corporation to make a better profit is abuse of govt power.
keystone xl, is NOT to transport oil across our Nation, so WE, AMERICANS can buy it or use it....it's sole purpose is for this Canadian company to be able to sell and ship these refined oil sands to FOREIGNERS.
The OP is about whether or not infrastructure creates jobs.
Obama says it does. But also, that it doesn't.
I watched the presser on CNBC. Go to the site and click on Videos. I'm on a phone and can't link it.
i'm sorry you don't KNOW THIS!!!!keystone xl was not for transporting oil for American use, but to get their Canadian oil sands to the FOREIGN marketplace.exactly HOW would keystone xl give us energy independence?Obama and the filthy ass Democrats are owned lock, stock and barrel by environmental wacko billionaire Tom Steyer.
What Tom wants from his Boy he gets. Even if is destroys American jobs and energy independence.
We can get the oil from our friends in Canada via an efficient pipeline of we can get the oil from the Middle East Mullahs and Shieks.
Of course Tom Styer's dumbass Boy doesn't want us to get oil from anybody. He wants us to use government subsidies to make more of those wonderful Solyndra solar cells so the executives that contributed to Obama's campaign can get richer.
keystone xl was not for transporting oil for American use, but to get their Canadian oil sands to the FOREIGN marketplace.
Which foreigners want to pay to ship Canadian oil all the pay to the Gulf Coast and then outbid US refineries, right there, in order to ship it via tanker?
You have a list of these foreign buyers?
Link?No one maintains roads and bridges?"Jones said the Keystone pipeline will only result in 35 permanent jobs after construction.42,000 jobs is good for the economy.
But Obama says otherwise.
The numbers, as reported by the State Department, back him up, though that’s the nature of any big construction project, be it a highway or monument.
Jones’ claim is True."
CNN's Van Jones says Keystone pipeline only creates 35 permanent jobs
I know.
Like I said, roads and bridges create zero permanent jobs.
But permanent jobs are not the economic argument for infrastructure spending.
Fewer than maintain pipelines.
i'm sorry you don't KNOW THIS!!!!keystone xl was not for transporting oil for American use, but to get their Canadian oil sands to the FOREIGN marketplace.exactly HOW would keystone xl give us energy independence?Obama and the filthy ass Democrats are owned lock, stock and barrel by environmental wacko billionaire Tom Steyer.
What Tom wants from his Boy he gets. Even if is destroys American jobs and energy independence.
We can get the oil from our friends in Canada via an efficient pipeline of we can get the oil from the Middle East Mullahs and Shieks.
Of course Tom Styer's dumbass Boy doesn't want us to get oil from anybody. He wants us to use government subsidies to make more of those wonderful Solyndra solar cells so the executives that contributed to Obama's campaign can get richer.
keystone xl was not for transporting oil for American use, but to get their Canadian oil sands to the FOREIGN marketplace.
Which foreigners want to pay to ship Canadian oil all the pay to the Gulf Coast and then outbid US refineries, right there, in order to ship it via tanker?
You have a list of these foreign buyers?
Yes, the goal is to ship tar sands from Canada through keystone xl, to refineries in the Gulf's TAX FREE ZONE, for them to refine it, tax free, and ship it overseas to foreigners.
I found the transcript finally. Sorry, you are simply incorrect:Link?Eminent Domain, taking USA Citizen's land away, for a foreign corporation to make a better profit is abuse of govt power.
keystone xl, is NOT to transport oil across our Nation, so WE, AMERICANS can buy it or use it....it's sole purpose is for this Canadian company to be able to sell and ship these refined oil sands to FOREIGNERS.
The OP is about whether or not infrastructure creates jobs.
Obama says it does. But also, that it doesn't.
I watched the presser on CNBC. Go to the site and click on Videos. I'm on a phone and can't link it.
First: The pipeline would not make a meaningful long-term contribution to our economy. So if Congress is serious about wanting to create jobs, this was not the way to do it. If they want to do it, what we should be doing is passing a bipartisan infrastructure plan that, in the short term, could create more than 30 times as many jobs per year as the pipeline would, and in the long run would benefit our economy and our workers for decades to come.
Transcript: President Obama rejects Keystone XL pipeline
That isn't what your OP said, sigh.I found the transcript finally. Sorry, you are simply incorrect:Link?Eminent Domain, taking USA Citizen's land away, for a foreign corporation to make a better profit is abuse of govt power.
keystone xl, is NOT to transport oil across our Nation, so WE, AMERICANS can buy it or use it....it's sole purpose is for this Canadian company to be able to sell and ship these refined oil sands to FOREIGNERS.
The OP is about whether or not infrastructure creates jobs.
Obama says it does. But also, that it doesn't.
I watched the presser on CNBC. Go to the site and click on Videos. I'm on a phone and can't link it.
First: The pipeline would not make a meaningful long-term contribution to our economy. So if Congress is serious about wanting to create jobs, this was not the way to do it. If they want to do it, what we should be doing is passing a bipartisan infrastructure plan that, in the short term, could create more than 30 times as many jobs per year as the pipeline would, and in the long run would benefit our economy and our workers for decades to come.
Transcript: President Obama rejects Keystone XL pipeline
Thanks. He said exactly what I thought he said.
He said that Keystone was not the way to create jobs. Then he said an infrastructure bill was.
NOPE!i'm sorry you don't KNOW THIS!!!!keystone xl was not for transporting oil for American use, but to get their Canadian oil sands to the FOREIGN marketplace.exactly HOW would keystone xl give us energy independence?
We can get the oil from our friends in Canada via an efficient pipeline of we can get the oil from the Middle East Mullahs and Shieks.
Of course Tom Styer's dumbass Boy doesn't want us to get oil from anybody. He wants us to use government subsidies to make more of those wonderful Solyndra solar cells so the executives that contributed to Obama's campaign can get richer.
keystone xl was not for transporting oil for American use, but to get their Canadian oil sands to the FOREIGN marketplace.
Which foreigners want to pay to ship Canadian oil all the pay to the Gulf Coast and then outbid US refineries, right there, in order to ship it via tanker?
You have a list of these foreign buyers?
Yes, the goal is to ship tar sands from Canada through keystone xl, to refineries in the Gulf's TAX FREE ZONE, for them to refine it, tax free, and ship it overseas to foreigners.
for them to refine it,
So Americanrefineries with American workers would benefit.
The products would be available for use in the US.
The workers wages and the corporate profits would be taxed by the US government.
Corporate dividends would also be paid to US investors who would be taxed on them.
As long as we ignore all these benefits, you're right.
No use/benefit for the US in the pipeline.
Wow, I knew liberals were bad at economics, but I didn't realize you had absolutely no clue.
The argument isn't that infrastructure spending isn't good for the economy.
The argument is that Obama said that it does, but also, that it doesn't, at least when it's politically expedient.
My bad, it wasn't your op, it was your subsequent posts, like this one:
The argument isn't that infrastructure spending isn't good for the economy.
The argument is that Obama said that it does, but also, that it doesn't, at least when it's politically expedient.
Exactly what I said in my first post in the thread.My bad, it wasn't your op, it was your subsequent posts, like this one:
The argument isn't that infrastructure spending isn't good for the economy.
The argument is that Obama said that it does, but also, that it doesn't, at least when it's politically expedient.
From the transcript you posted.
"this is not the way to do it."
What do you think that means?
ok, i did a little googling for you.....i'm sorry you don't KNOW THIS!!!!keystone xl was not for transporting oil for American use, but to get their Canadian oil sands to the FOREIGN marketplace.exactly HOW would keystone xl give us energy independence?
We can get the oil from our friends in Canada via an efficient pipeline of we can get the oil from the Middle East Mullahs and Shieks.
Of course Tom Styer's dumbass Boy doesn't want us to get oil from anybody. He wants us to use government subsidies to make more of those wonderful Solyndra solar cells so the executives that contributed to Obama's campaign can get richer.
keystone xl was not for transporting oil for American use, but to get their Canadian oil sands to the FOREIGN marketplace.
Which foreigners want to pay to ship Canadian oil all the pay to the Gulf Coast and then outbid US refineries, right there, in order to ship it via tanker?
You have a list of these foreign buyers?
Yes, the goal is to ship tar sands from Canada through keystone xl, to refineries in the Gulf's TAX FREE ZONE, for them to refine it, tax free, and ship it overseas to foreigners.
for them to refine it,
So Americanrefineries with American workers would benefit.
The products would be available for use in the US.
The workers wages and the corporate profits would be taxed by the US government.
Corporate dividends would also be paid to US investors who would be taxed on them.
As long as we ignore all these benefits, you're right.
No use/benefit for the US in the pipeline.
Wow, I knew liberals were bad at economics, but I didn't realize you had absolutely no clue.
Keystone XL is a tar sands pipeline to export oil out of the United States | Anthony Swift's Blog | Switchboard, from NRDCOne of the most important facts that is missing in the national debate surrounding the proposed Keystone XL tar sands pipeline is this – Keystone XL will not bring any more oil into the United State for decades to come. Canada doesn’t have nearly enough oil to fill existing pipelines going to the United States. However, existing Canadian oil pipelines all go to the Midwest, where the only buyer for their crude is the United States. Keystone XL would divert Canadian oil from refineries in the Midwest to the Gulf Coast where it can be refined and exported. Many of these refineries are in Foriegn Trade Zones where oil may be exported to international buyers without paying U.S. taxes. And that is exactly what Valero, one of the largest potential buyers of Keystone XL's oil, has told its investors it will do. The idea that Keystone XL will improve U.S. oil supply is a documented scam being played on the American people by Big Oil and its friends in Washington DC.
ok, i did a little googling for you.....i'm sorry you don't KNOW THIS!!!!keystone xl was not for transporting oil for American use, but to get their Canadian oil sands to the FOREIGN marketplace.We can get the oil from our friends in Canada via an efficient pipeline of we can get the oil from the Middle East Mullahs and Shieks.
Of course Tom Styer's dumbass Boy doesn't want us to get oil from anybody. He wants us to use government subsidies to make more of those wonderful Solyndra solar cells so the executives that contributed to Obama's campaign can get richer.
keystone xl was not for transporting oil for American use, but to get their Canadian oil sands to the FOREIGN marketplace.
Which foreigners want to pay to ship Canadian oil all the pay to the Gulf Coast and then outbid US refineries, right there, in order to ship it via tanker?
You have a list of these foreign buyers?
Yes, the goal is to ship tar sands from Canada through keystone xl, to refineries in the Gulf's TAX FREE ZONE, for them to refine it, tax free, and ship it overseas to foreigners.
for them to refine it,
So Americanrefineries with American workers would benefit.
The products would be available for use in the US.
The workers wages and the corporate profits would be taxed by the US government.
Corporate dividends would also be paid to US investors who would be taxed on them.
As long as we ignore all these benefits, you're right.
No use/benefit for the US in the pipeline.
Wow, I knew liberals were bad at economics, but I didn't realize you had absolutely no clue.
Keystone XL is a tar sands pipeline to export oil out of the United States | Anthony Swift's Blog | Switchboard, from NRDCOne of the most important facts that is missing in the national debate surrounding the proposed Keystone XL tar sands pipeline is this – Keystone XL will not bring any more oil into the United State for decades to come. Canada doesn’t have nearly enough oil to fill existing pipelines going to the United States. However, existing Canadian oil pipelines all go to the Midwest, where the only buyer for their crude is the United States. Keystone XL would divert Canadian oil from refineries in the Midwest to the Gulf Coast where it can be refined and exported. Many of these refineries are in Foriegn Trade Zones where oil may be exported to international buyers without paying U.S. taxes. And that is exactly what Valero, one of the largest potential buyers of Keystone XL's oil, has told its investors it will do. The idea that Keystone XL will improve U.S. oil supply is a documented scam being played on the American people by Big Oil and its friends in Washington DC.
Exactly what I said in my first post in the thread.My bad, it wasn't your op, it was your subsequent posts, like this one:
The argument isn't that infrastructure spending isn't good for the economy.
The argument is that Obama said that it does, but also, that it doesn't, at least when it's politically expedient.
From the transcript you posted.
"this is not the way to do it."
What do you think that means?
