Obama vetoes Keystone pipeline bill

[29apples]

President Barack Obama vetoed legislation that approved construction of the Keystone XL pipeline.

Hopefully he holds out on passing it for something this country actually needs, like infrastructure.

 

[Tallguy88]

Good.

 

[BoltNut]

President Barack Obama vetoed legislation that approved construction of the Keystone XL pipeline.

Hopefully he holds out on passing it for something this country actually needs, like infrastructure.

The Keystone Pipeline isn't infrastructure???

 

[revanneosl]

President Barack Obama vetoed legislation that approved construction of the Keystone XL pipeline.

Hopefully he holds out on passing it for something this country actually needs, like infrastructure.

The Keystone Pipeline isn't infrastructure???

He's got you there, apples. Should have said, "Hopefully he hold out on passing it for something this country actually needs, like infrastructure that benefits the citizens, rather than taxpayer-funded corporate infrastructure that benefits the Trans Canada Corporation.

 

[BoltNut]

He's got you there, apples. Should have said, "Hopefully he hold out on passing it for something this country actually needs, like infrastructure that benefits the citizens, rather than taxpayer-funded corporate infrastructure that benefits the Trans Canada Corporation.

Yes, that would have expressed the opinion a bit more effectively. But, when we talk about a project like Keystone XL, and then refer to it as "a taxpayer funded" project, is that really accurate? I know these oil companies will probably receive tax credits for their investments in refining enhancements, but the term "taxpayer funded" indicates that the whole project is paid for by the US government. Would you agree?

 

[kermit]

Where the proponents of the Keystone XL pipeline have failed is to come up with a compelling reason we should do it. Yes, there are some temporary construction jobs related to it, but we have no shortage of other construction/infrastructure that is overdue to be worked on. It will create a few permanent jobs, I've heard anywhere from 35 to 50. Hardly a jobs boom. The downside is that we will need to seize land to build it.

On top of a lack of positive reasons to do it, with at least 1 reason not to, the beneficiary of pipeline isn't the American people.

To me, the Keystone XL pipeline is the perfect example of how "in the pocket" of corporations the Republican party is.

 

[Tallguy88]

Why does a Canadian corporation get to kick Americans off their land under imminent domain? And why does the pipeline get to go through Native American treaty land when the Natives do not want it? Aren't they soverign over their territoties?

No, the pipeline is a raw deal for us. It's Canadian oil that will ve sold to China and India. It doesn't benefit us at all.

 

[kermit]

Yes, that would have expressed the opinion a bit more effectively. But, when we talk about a project like Keystone XL, and then refer to it as "a taxpayer funded" project, is that really accurate? I know these oil companies will probably receive tax credits for their investments in refining enhancements, but the term "taxpayer funded" indicates that the whole project is paid for by the US government. Would you agree?

Should any part of something like this be taxpayer funded. If the role of congress and POTUS was simply to give a private corporation permission, that would be fine. But as it is the government is going to force people to sell their land and will foot the bill for numerous other hidden costs associated with it, including security.

 

[revanneosl]

Yes, that would have expressed the opinion a bit more effectively. But, when we talk about a project like Keystone XL, and then refer to it as "a taxpayer funded" project, is that really accurate? I know these oil companies will probably receive tax credits for their investments in refining enhancements, but the term "taxpayer funded" indicates that the whole project is paid for by the US government. Would you agree?

Yes, and the taxpayers will also foot the inevitable bill for the cleanup when the pipline breaks & pours toxic sludge all across the fruited planes.

Nevertheless, I spoke imprecisely.

Ahem, "Hopefully he holds out on passing it for something this country actually needs, like infrastructure that benefits the citizens, rather than taxpayer-subsidized corporate infrastructure that benefits the Trans Canada Corporation."

 

[revanneosl]

Why does a Canadian corporation get to kick Americans off their land under imminent domain? And why does the pipeline get to go through Native American treaty land when the Natives do not want it? Aren't they soverign over their territoties?

No, the pipeline is a raw deal for us. It's Canadian oil that will ve sold to China and India. It doesn't benefit us at all.

Ah but guess which Americans hold an awful lot of the leases for Canadian oil sands.

 

[kermit]

Ah but guess which Americans hold an awful lot of the leases for Canadian oil sands.

It's shocking how much of the GOP platform has a theme of directly or indirectly benefiting the Kochs.

 

[Red Fox]

Why does a Canadian corporation get to kick Americans off their land under imminent domain? And why does the pipeline get to go through Native American treaty land when the Natives do not want it? Aren't they sovereign over their territories?

No, the pipeline is a raw deal for us. It's Canadian oil that will be sold to China and India. It doesn't benefit us at all.

As sovereign NDN nations, each tribe that lives on that land, has a right to decide whether or not they want a pipeline going through their own land or not, just like any other foreign nation are allowed to decide. Furthermore, each sovereign NDN nation has a right, according to the treaties it has with the United States government, to protect their sovereignty, protect their land from being harm or destroyed, and finally, to prevent their land from ever being taken from them again. The NDN nations objecting to the pipeline do not want their land to be used for the pipeline, because the pipeline will damage their land and it will ultimately damage the Earth, which we want to protect and preserve for future generations. These NDN nations are exercising their sovereignty rights as a sovereign nation, which is suppose to be recognized by the United States government and have its treaties honored by the United States government.

In conclusion, from a personal viewpoint, I don't live on any REZ but I still don't want that pipeline to go through any NDN tribal lands, not just because of NDN sovereignty on that land but also because I don't want that pipeline to damage our lands or any land for that matter. I want to protect our NDN tribal lands from being damaged by that pipeline. I also want to protect the Earth from being damaged and preserve it for future generations to come.

 

[Albion]

Why does a Canadian corporation get to kick Americans off their land under imminent domain? And why does the pipeline get to go through Native American treaty land when the Natives do not want it? Aren't they soverign over their territoties?

That's what the Supreme Court ruled a few years ago. I thought it was horrible for all the reasons that you have pointed to with the Keystone (or any other pipeline) project...and yet neither the Democrats nor the Republicans did a thing (or even gave lip service to) about passing legislation correcting or amending that decision, which they certainly could have.

 

[TLK Valentine]

It's shocking how much of the GOP platform has a theme of directly or indirectly benefiting the Kochs.

Not shocking at all -- you get what you pay for.

 

[Albion]

I also want to protect the Earth from being damaged and preserve it for future generations to come.

Unfortunately, the Keystone Pipeline would have helped save the environment since the alternative is already in operation--thousands of rail cars and dozens of new terminals, along with constant accidents (in several parts of Canada, North Dakota, West Virginia, and elsewhere) that resulted in property destruction, personal injury, AND serious oil spills. And it's only going to get much worse now that Obama has decided it's better to have thousands of oil tanker cars rolling through American neighborhoods on substandard railway systems. Can't lose the campaign contributions, you know.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Unfortunately, the Keystone Pipeline would have helped save the environment since the alternative is already in operation--thousands of rail cars and dozens of new terminals, along with constant accidents (in several parts of Canada, North Dakota, West Virginia, and elsewhere) that resulted in property destruction, personal injury, AND serious oil spills. And it's only going to get much worse now that Obama has decided it's better to have thousands of oil tanker cars rolling through American neighborhoods on substandard railway systems.

So how about we fix the rail systems so that everything and everybody -- not just oil -- benefits?

Or is that too Socialist?

 

[Albion]

So how about we fix the rail systems so that everything and everybody -- not just oil -- benefits?

How about we do the right thing and not just what benefits Warren Buffet?

 

[TLK Valentine]

How about we do the right thing and not just what benefits Warren Buffet?

Does fixing the rail system benefit everybody, or just Warren Buffet?

 

[Albion]

Does fixing the rail system benefit everybody, or just Warren Buffet?

Vetoing the Keystone pipeline benefits Warren Buffett who is a leading financial contributor to the Democrat Party and also the main investor in oil tanker cars, and they have increased in number enormously in anticipation of Obama vetoing the bill. I should think you could put two and two together.

 

[kermit]

Vetoing the Keystone pipeline benefits Warren Buffett who is a leading financial contributor to the Democrat Party and also the main investor in oil tanker cars, and they have increased in number enormously in anticipation of Obama vetoing the bill. I should think you could put two and two together.

Given that Buffet has publicly endorsed the Keystone pipeline I fail to see how you have an argument.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/101460011#