Umm, do USMB Republicans understand that the Keystone pipeline will only create 35 permanent jobs?

[Carla_Danger]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, there you have it. Maybe we are "misunderestimating" Republicans. Maybe they mean 35 permanent jobs and tens of thousands of jobs cleaning up the fucking mess.

Another huge GOP disaster looms on the horizon. Will this country never learn?

Republicans don't care about details, they just blindly want what they want and say whatever they think will justify it no matter how inane it may be.[/QUOTE]


I almost forgot about "misunderestimating." LOL!

 

[chikenwing]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, there you have it. Maybe we are "misunderestimating" Republicans. Maybe they mean 35 permanent jobs and tens of thousands of jobs cleaning up the fucking mess.

Another huge GOP disaster looms on the horizon. Will this country never learn?[/QUOTE.

You have no idea what so ever about what your attempting to comment on. not one bit.

 

[chikenwing]

35 more permanent jobs than the stimulus package gave us at no expense to the taxpayers.

For Dems this is a bad idea, they want more stimulus money for ZERO permanent jobs.

Not sure what you are trying to say, however, no permanent jobs created with the stimulus money.

We have an opportunity to NOT use stimulus money, created many jobs for a few years by moving the pipeline through, then it will also create 35 very good paying jobs. It will also produce a lot of tax revenue for years to come.

I'm saying it's not worth the risk for sending (nasty sludge) foreign oil down to the Gulf, to be sold on the Global Market. It's not worth the temporary jobs, and it's certainly not worth 35 permanent ones.

The line will be used for more than one product,our pipeline systems are old and need replacement and up grades.
There is no rational excuse for not building this project.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

35 more permanent jobs than the stimulus package gave us at no expense to the taxpayers.

For Dems this is a bad idea, they want more stimulus money for ZERO permanent jobs.

Not sure what you are trying to say, however, no permanent jobs created with the stimulus money.

We have an opportunity to NOT use stimulus money, created many jobs for a few years by moving the pipeline through, then it will also create 35 very good paying jobs. It will also produce a lot of tax revenue for years to come.

I'm saying it's not worth the risk for sending (nasty sludge) foreign oil down to the Gulf, to be sold on the Global Market. It's not worth the temporary jobs, and it's certainly not worth 35 permanent ones.

I'm saying it's not worth the risk for sending (nasty sludge) foreign oil down to the Gulf,

You mean the stuff that liberal billionaire, Warren Buffett, is currently shipping on his riskier train cars?
Some of his trains pass a few miles from my house.
Why do you allow him to commit this travesty?

 

[Pogo]

35 more permanent jobs than the stimulus package gave us at no expense to the taxpayers.

For Dems this is a bad idea, they want more stimulus money for ZERO permanent jobs.

Not sure what you are trying to say, however, no permanent jobs created with the stimulus money.

We have an opportunity to NOT use stimulus money, created many jobs for a few years by moving the pipeline through, then it will also create 35 very good paying jobs. It will also produce a lot of tax revenue for years to come.

I'm saying it's not worth the risk for sending (nasty sludge) foreign oil down to the Gulf, to be sold on the Global Market. It's not worth the temporary jobs, and it's certainly not worth 35 permanent ones.

I'm saying it's not worth the risk for sending (nasty sludge) foreign oil down to the Gulf,

You mean the stuff that liberal billionaire, Warren Buffett, is currently shipping on his riskier train cars?
Some of his trains pass a few miles from my house.
Why do you allow him to commit this travesty?

So this issue for you hangs on whether the transporting entity is "liberal" or not?

Thanks for coming out.

 

[RKMBrown]

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

Contrary To GOP Promises Keystone XL Pipeline Will Only Create 35 Permanent Jobs

Republicans and conservative Democrats have continuously pushed for this pipeline’s approval is due to the huge windfall it will create for oil companies, specifically the Koch Bros. A report completed last year shows that the Kochs stand to make $100 billion from the passage of the Keystone extension. That’s billion, not million.

Republicans can’t just go to the people and say that we need to make sure insanely rich billionaires need to be given an opportunity to become even more insanely wealthy, environmental impacts be damned. Of course not. Therefore, they need to go out and claim that the project will create tons of jobs, help the country’s economy and fulfill its energy needs. Or, in other words, lie. Lie through their teeth.

Fox News host Keystone pipeline would create tens of thousands of jobs PunditFact

Fox News host: Keystone pipeline would create 'tens of thousands of jobs'

As far as new jobs go, the State Department estimates the operation of the pipeline will only create 35 permanent, full-time jobs and 15 temporary contractors. The full-time workers would be "required for annual operations, including routine inspections, maintenance and repair." Some would work in a Nebraska field office.

The lack of many full-time positions makes sense, given that the project is to build a pipeline so that tar sands can travel without the need of rail cars or ships.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, there you have it. Maybe we are "misunderestimating" Republicans. Maybe they mean 35 permanent jobs and tens of thousands of jobs cleaning up the fucking mess.

Another huge GOP disaster looms on the horizon. Will this country never learn?

ROFL retards think the oil being pumped will be dumped into the ocean.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

35 more permanent jobs than the stimulus package gave us at no expense to the taxpayers.

For Dems this is a bad idea, they want more stimulus money for ZERO permanent jobs.

Not sure what you are trying to say, however, no permanent jobs created with the stimulus money.

We have an opportunity to NOT use stimulus money, created many jobs for a few years by moving the pipeline through, then it will also create 35 very good paying jobs. It will also produce a lot of tax revenue for years to come.

I'm saying it's not worth the risk for sending (nasty sludge) foreign oil down to the Gulf, to be sold on the Global Market. It's not worth the temporary jobs, and it's certainly not worth 35 permanent ones.

I'm saying it's not worth the risk for sending (nasty sludge) foreign oil down to the Gulf,

You mean the stuff that liberal billionaire, Warren Buffett, is currently shipping on his riskier train cars?
Some of his trains pass a few miles from my house.
Why do you allow him to commit this travesty?

So this issue for you hangs on whether the transporting entity is "liberal" or not?

Thanks for coming out.

So this issue for you hangs on whether the transporting entity is "liberal" or not?

No, the issue is that liberal idiots ignore that this oil is moving through the US, now, shipped in train cars by Warren Buffett.
Building the pipeline moves it more safely.

 

[Pogo]

Not sure what you are trying to say, however, no permanent jobs created with the stimulus money.

We have an opportunity to NOT use stimulus money, created many jobs for a few years by moving the pipeline through, then it will also create 35 very good paying jobs. It will also produce a lot of tax revenue for years to come.

I'm saying it's not worth the risk for sending (nasty sludge) foreign oil down to the Gulf, to be sold on the Global Market. It's not worth the temporary jobs, and it's certainly not worth 35 permanent ones.

I'm saying it's not worth the risk for sending (nasty sludge) foreign oil down to the Gulf,

You mean the stuff that liberal billionaire, Warren Buffett, is currently shipping on his riskier train cars?
Some of his trains pass a few miles from my house.
Why do you allow him to commit this travesty?

So this issue for you hangs on whether the transporting entity is "liberal" or not?

Thanks for coming out.

So this issue for you hangs on whether the transporting entity is "liberal" or not?

No, the issue is that liberal idiots ignore that this oil is moving through the US, now, shipped in train cars by Warren Buffett.
Building the pipeline moves it more safely.

If "safe" is your criterion --- why bring up Warren Buffett's politics?

Having it both ways: Priceless.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Not sure what you are trying to say, however, no permanent jobs created with the stimulus money.

We have an opportunity to NOT use stimulus money, created many jobs for a few years by moving the pipeline through, then it will also create 35 very good paying jobs. It will also produce a lot of tax revenue for years to come.

I'm saying it's not worth the risk for sending (nasty sludge) foreign oil down to the Gulf, to be sold on the Global Market. It's not worth the temporary jobs, and it's certainly not worth 35 permanent ones.

I'm saying it's not worth the risk for sending (nasty sludge) foreign oil down to the Gulf,

You mean the stuff that liberal billionaire, Warren Buffett, is currently shipping on his riskier train cars?
Some of his trains pass a few miles from my house.
Why do you allow him to commit this travesty?

So this issue for you hangs on whether the transporting entity is "liberal" or not?

Thanks for coming out.

So this issue for you hangs on whether the transporting entity is "liberal" or not?

No, the issue is that liberal idiots ignore that this oil is moving through the US, now, shipped in train cars by Warren Buffett.
Building the pipeline moves it more safely.

If "safe" is your criterion --- why bring up Warren Buffett's politics?

Having it both ways: Priceless.

Liberal whiners, whining about safety.
Too stupid to understand rail cars are more dangerous than pipelines?
Don't know Buffett owns the rail cars?
Don't know Buffett is liberal?
Liberal ignorance, wide and deep.
Pointing it out: Hilarious.

 

[Carla_Danger]

I'm saying it's not worth the risk for sending (nasty sludge) foreign oil down to the Gulf, to be sold on the Global Market. It's not worth the temporary jobs, and it's certainly not worth 35 permanent ones.

I'm saying it's not worth the risk for sending (nasty sludge) foreign oil down to the Gulf,

You mean the stuff that liberal billionaire, Warren Buffett, is currently shipping on his riskier train cars?
Some of his trains pass a few miles from my house.
Why do you allow him to commit this travesty?

So this issue for you hangs on whether the transporting entity is "liberal" or not?

Thanks for coming out.

So this issue for you hangs on whether the transporting entity is "liberal" or not?

No, the issue is that liberal idiots ignore that this oil is moving through the US, now, shipped in train cars by Warren Buffett.
Building the pipeline moves it more safely.

If "safe" is your criterion --- why bring up Warren Buffett's politics?

Having it both ways: Priceless.

Liberal whiners, whining about safety.
Too stupid to understand rail cars are more dangerous than pipelines?
Don't know Buffett owns the rail cars?
Don't know Buffett is liberal?
Liberal ignorance, wide and deep.
Pointing it out: Hilarious.

Dear Honorable Members of the Senate,

As you prepare to take a vote on Keystone XL, I want to remind you what is at stake for those of us along the proposed pipeline route. When the political pundits move on to another debate, our families will still be here defending our property rights and clean water.

TransCanada has no legal route for their pipeline in Nebraska. Citizens took Gov. Heineman to court for violating our state constitution and we won.

The Governor is now trying to get the decision overturned by the Nebraska Supreme Court, but that does not magically give TransCanada their route back. Today, they have no route and over 115 landowners are refusing to sign with TransCanada in order to protect their water and property rights.

As a Nebraskan, I urge you to vote against the Keystone XL bill—and instead vote in favor of American landowners.

You can vote against the Keystone XL bill and still support the pipeline. I certainly don’t agree with President Obama on everything he does, but I stand with him today on his decision to delay Keystone XL until all legal issues are resolved—and I ask you to do the same.

American landowners are fighting tooth and nail to protect our constitutionally-protected property rights against a foreign corporation who wants to take our land. TransCanada disregards our American dream, and a vote for this pipeline bill would do the same.

Nebraska Rancher Randy Thompson 8217 s Open Letter to Senate on Keystone XL Vote Bold Nebraska

 

[Flopper]

35 more permanent jobs than the stimulus package gave us at no expense to the taxpayers.

For Dems this is a bad idea, they want more stimulus money for ZERO permanent jobs.

Not sure what you are trying to say, however, no permanent jobs created with the stimulus money.

We have an opportunity to NOT use stimulus money, created many jobs for a few years by moving the pipeline through, then it will also create 35 very good paying jobs. It will also produce a lot of tax revenue for years to come.

I'm saying it's not worth the risk for sending (nasty sludge) foreign oil down to the Gulf, to be sold on the Global Market. It's not worth the temporary jobs, and it's certainly not worth 35 permanent ones.

You're right it isn't worth the risk.

Republicans prefer to ignore the risks and concentrate on lower fuel prices but since this oil will be sold on the world market, no one will notice the difference at the pump. It's effect on permanent jobs are minuscule. A single Walmart store will create more permanent jobs than the pipeline. However, there are benefits just not to the people of this nation. Canadian oil firms, TransCanada, and International oil shippers will make a lot of money.

The irony is that, after six years of debate and deliberation, the Keystone decision comes when the economics surrounding the pipeline have largely made the issue irrelevant. Oil prices have dropped sharply, an American boom in natural gas and oil production have lessened foreign demand, and companies have proposed alternative pipelines and rail transport to carry the oil from Canada.

 

[LogikAndReazon]

Fossil fuels are just sooooo yesterday.... Lol

 

[rdean]

I was wondering the same thing about the right and Obamacare which would create a LOT more jobs than that damn pipeline.

Obamacare has been destroying jobs, idjit.

Nonsense. Aside from the fact that Obamacare is a boon to the insurance industry, the ACA has created millions of new customers for the healthcare industry who will seek out medical care (and preventive medical care) instead of waiting for a healthcare emergency before going to an overburdened emergency room.

True, but Obama didn't mention that those of us with insurance were helping others pay for theirs.

How do you think insurance has always worked? Healthy people pay for the care of sick people.

Ah, but there was no requirement to buy HC before Obamacare.

And people died and Republicans laughed. Except the ones going bankrupt.

 

[Mustang]

Obamacare has been destroying jobs, idjit.

Nonsense. Aside from the fact that Obamacare is a boon to the insurance industry, the ACA has created millions of new customers for the healthcare industry who will seek out medical care (and preventive medical care) instead of waiting for a healthcare emergency before going to an overburdened emergency room.

True, but Obama didn't mention that those of us with insurance were helping others pay for theirs.

How do you think insurance has always worked? Healthy people pay for the care of sick people.

Ah, but there was no requirement to buy HC before Obamacare.

And people died and Republicans laughed. Except the ones going bankrupt.

...and THEN dying.

 

[tinydancer]

35 more permanent jobs than the stimulus package gave us at no expense to the taxpayers.

For Dems this is a bad idea, they want more stimulus money for ZERO permanent jobs.

Not sure what you are trying to say, however, no permanent jobs created with the stimulus money.

We have an opportunity to NOT use stimulus money, created many jobs for a few years by moving the pipeline through, then it will also create 35 very good paying jobs. It will also produce a lot of tax revenue for years to come.

I'm saying it's not worth the risk for sending (nasty sludge) foreign oil down to the Gulf, to be sold on the Global Market. It's not worth the temporary jobs, and it's certainly not worth 35 permanent ones.

You're right it isn't worth the risk.

Republicans prefer to ignore the risks and concentrate on lower fuel prices but since this oil will be sold on the world market, no one will notice the difference at the pump. It's effect on permanent jobs are minuscule. A single Walmart store will create more permanent jobs than the pipeline. However, there are benefits just not to the people of this nation. Canadian oil firms, TransCanada, and International oil shippers will make a lot of money.

The irony is that, after six years of debate and deliberation, the Keystone decision comes when the economics surrounding the pipeline have largely made the issue irrelevant. Oil prices have dropped sharply, an American boom in natural gas and oil production have lessened foreign demand, and companies have proposed alternative pipelines and rail transport to carry the oil from Canada.

The oil is coming to you whether you like it or not. This crude will be transported by rail and truck and /or pipeline.

You only produce 9 million barrels a day. America uses 18 million barrels a day.

Canada has been your number one supplier for many a year now. The trade in crude is not going to stop.

The southern leg of XL is almost completed. It's just the northern section that's up in the air.

And there's the rub. North Dakota has been dying to have access to the Keystone to move their Bakken products. Rail and transport has been killing them.

Bottom line pipeline or not, the crude is going to get to the Gulf. You bringing up exports.

To where? China? We have a west coast, That borders on that big blue thingy called the Pacific Ocean. We already export to Asia from British Columbia.

So even though your own EIA states that 80% of refined product at the Gulf is for domestic use you're going to stick to your bullshit are you?

 

[Pogo]

Van Jones????

LOLz

Dean, you fucking dope! That's hilarious!!!

Prove it wrong you dope.

I'm rehabilitating a 100 unit apartment complex in the Bronx and I have 70 people on site.

35 people for thousands of miles of pipeline?

Stop snorting the Commie KoolAid

You're not keeping those 70 people after the project is completed.

The State Department's final environmental impact report earlier this year found the project would support 42,100 jobs, but it defined those jobs as lasting just one year. In other words, there would be only 21,050 jobs that last the entirety of the two-year construction period — and the majority of those are not construction jobs (there would be no more than 1,950 of those in each of the two years) but rather are "induced" by construction workers spending their earnings on goods and services in the area.

As far as permanent jobs to operate the pipeline, there would be a total of 35 of those, according to the State Department report.

The State Department is the LAST place I'd go to for an estimate like that

What do they know about ANYTHING, especially related to ongoing pipeline operation and maintenance.

Ummmm... it's part of their job when such a structure crosses our international border.
State Department? Hello?

 

[tinydancer]

OMG!!!!!!!!!!!! A pipeline in America!!!!!!!!

Risky! I hear it's risky!!!!

 

[bendog]

Nonsense. Aside from the fact that Obamacare is a boon to the insurance industry, the ACA has created millions of new customers for the healthcare industry who will seek out medical care (and preventive medical care) instead of waiting for a healthcare emergency before going to an overburdened emergency room.

True, but Obama didn't mention that those of us with insurance were helping others pay for theirs.

How do you think insurance has always worked? Healthy people pay for the care of sick people.

Ah, but there was no requirement to buy HC before Obamacare.

And people died and Republicans laughed. Except the ones going bankrupt.

...and THEN dying.

So people needed to be told to buy HC? It was good for them, but they didn't understand?

 

[tinydancer]

Van Jones????

LOLz

Dean, you fucking dope! That's hilarious!!!

Prove it wrong you dope.

I'm rehabilitating a 100 unit apartment complex in the Bronx and I have 70 people on site.

35 people for thousands of miles of pipeline?

Stop snorting the Commie KoolAid

You're not keeping those 70 people after the project is completed.

The State Department's final environmental impact report earlier this year found the project would support 42,100 jobs, but it defined those jobs as lasting just one year. In other words, there would be only 21,050 jobs that last the entirety of the two-year construction period — and the majority of those are not construction jobs (there would be no more than 1,950 of those in each of the two years) but rather are "induced" by construction workers spending their earnings on goods and services in the area.

As far as permanent jobs to operate the pipeline, there would be a total of 35 of those, according to the State Department report.

The State Department is the LAST place I'd go to for an estimate like that

What do they know about ANYTHING, especially related to ongoing pipeline operation and maintenance.

Ummmm... it's part of their job when such a structure crosses our international border.
State Department? Hello?

All construction jobs are temporary. I've witnessed nothing short of left wing whacko lunacy on this board saying that a temporary job is not a real job therefore construction work is not a real job.

Insanity by the left at its freaking finest. So if 35 jobs are the only jobs that count because those are the permanent ones I guess there is no point in building bridges or highways anymore. What the heck!

Screw all construction projects. All they offer are temp jobs so why pay out good tax payers dollars to build a mother trucking piece of infrastructure.

 

[Pogo]

Why is the far left against jobs being created?

I like the idea of thousands or millions of jobs. 35 just aren't enough.

How many permanent jobs are created building a bridge or paving a road?

Answer: 0

Yet, Democrats are orgasmic over infrastructure spending!

However, when this type of infrastructure spending is available, Democrats think it's "bad."

Thanks, rdean, for another fabulous rdean thread!

Actually a bridge or road enables a quantity of regular people get to work that probably can't even be counted. OTOH I'm pretty sure you could count the oil companies who would be the beneficiaries of Keystone.