Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 51

Thread: Obama................. what is with him?

  1. #1
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Look behind you.
    Posts
    4,736

    Obama................. what is with him?

    Many Americans here and would like some insight.
    Reading the news this morning and it was about the Iranian deal ( lifting sanctions ). Obama just stated that if congress did not agree with the deal he would use his veto powers and pass the bill.
    Last year when congress approved the Keystone pipeline he vetoed against it. Just my opinion but you have a seriously fucked up president.
    Thoughts? Do you care?
    I do not think outside the box, I do not think inside the box, I do not even know where the box is.

  2. #2
    Obama has used his executive powers the least of any President in the history of the U.S. Less than George W.

    Unfortunately for Obama, congress is controlled by the Republicans who refuse to pass anything wether it's good for the country or not.

    Also don't forget, there is an entire faction of US media that is against Obama and want to bring him down.

  3. #3
    if use of the veto is the barometer of a president's competence, then Reagan is by far the worst since 1960 with 78 vetoes. The number of Reagan vetoes that were overridden by congress is more than double the total number of vetoes used by Obama

  4. #4
    I don't find anything wrong with the president using his veto powers. Just because he vetoes a bill does not mean it can't be passed into law, it simply needs to be reintroduced into the House and Senate and pass with a 2/3 majority. It is a perfectly valid political move and actually has been used much less by Obama than most other U.S. presidents. Adding my own two cents in I think his veto of the pipeline was the right decision. With the Iran situation he has no choice but to threaten a veto - if sanctions are imposed it would completely undermine the negotiations, which he believes will keep the peace between our country and Iran. So I don't think either of these decisions was irrational.

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Visiting Planet Earth
    Posts
    4,160
    Gentlemen,

    Quote Originally Posted by Sol Tee Nutz View Post
    Just my opinion but you have a seriously fucked up president.
    Why is he fucked up? Because you disagree. You know we already have some obsessed Obama haters who are going to very happily chime in on your side so they can exercise their rabid hatred. Framing the thread this way is a wet dream for to encourage unthinking visceral responses.

    There are reasons that make the pipeline very desirable and very undesirable. To say anyone who rejects the pipeline is "fucked up" means throwing away any rational attempt to look at the subject honestly.

    I think you owe us an explanation why you side with the building of the pipeline rather than just the most superficial hollow statement that barely amounts to an opinion. Also, I am looking up the pros and cons to try to give an informed opinion, which saying Obama is fucked up certainly is not.

    Quote Originally Posted by zmontreal View Post
    I don't find anything wrong with the president using his veto powers. Just because he vetoes a bill does not mean it can't be passed into law, it simply needs to be reintroduced into the House and Senate and pass with a 2/3 majority. It is a perfectly valid political move and actually has been used much less by Obama than most other U.S. presidents. Adding my own two cents in I think his veto of the pipeline was the right decision. With the Iran situation he has no choice but to threaten a veto - if sanctions are imposed it would completely undermine the negotiations, which he believes will keep the peace between our country and Iran. So I don't think either of these decisions was irrational.
    Agreed, though I'm very unhappy that Obama did not insist on certain conditions about restricting the export and financing of terrorism, and the information that all those frozen billions will be released instantly instead of in measured phased release. Still, the idea that Iran can't be trusted with anything and therefore we should not make any deal with them is ridiculous.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/19/us...tail.html?_r=0

    Q. What is the Keystone XL pipeline?

    A. The Keystone oil pipeline system is designed to carry up to 830,000 barrels of petroleum per day from the oil sands of boreal forests in western Canada to oil refineries and ports on the Gulf Coast. About half of the system is already built, including a pipeline that runs east from Alberta and south through North Dakota, South Dakota and Nebraska. The State Department is now reviewing a proposed 1,179-mile addition to the pipeline, the Keystone XL, a shortcut that would start in Hardisty, Alberta, and diagonally bisect Montana, South Dakota and Nebraska. From Steele City, Neb., the addition would connect to existing pipelines to the Gulf Coast.

    Q. Who wants to build it?

    A. The Canadian company TransCanada initially proposed the pipeline in 2005 and applied to the State Department for a construction permit in 2008.

    A. The United States and Canada are crisscrossed by thousands of miles of oil and gas pipelines, but none have drawn the attention and political controversy of Keystone XL. Environmentalists oppose the project because it would create a conduit to market for petroleum extracted from the Alberta oil sands, an unconventional energy source requiring far more fuel, water and carbon emissions to extract than conventional oil and gas.

    In their natural state, the thick, tarlike oil sands, also known as bitumen, are combined with sand, clay and water in a dense, gooey mix. There are two ways producers get the sands out of the ground, both damaging to the immediate environment. In one method, large amounts of water and natural gas are used to pump steam into the sands to extract the oil, which creates toxic environmental runoff.

    Alternatively, energy companies strip-mine the sands and then heat them to release the oil, a practice that has already destroyed many acres of Alberta forest. An environmental review by the State Department concluded that production of oil-sands petroleum creates about 17 percent more carbon pollution than production of conventional oil.

    Environmentalists also fear that a leak from a pipeline carrying the heavy oil-sands petroleum could cause more environmental damage than a leak from a standard oil pipeline.

    Q. What are the arguments in favor of the Keystone XL pipeline?

    A. The pipeline would be a job creator, although most of those jobs would be temporary. The State Department environmental review estimated that Keystone would support 42,000 temporary jobs over its two-year construction period — about 3,900 of them in construction, the rest in indirect support jobs, such as food service. It estimated that it would create about 35 permanent jobs.

    The report estimated that building the pipeline would contribute about $3.4 billion to the American economy.

    The State Department review concluded that even if the pipeline were not built, global oil demand is such that companies would continue to develop the Alberta oil sands and bring the petroleum to market in other ways. The oil could come by rail or by building other pipelines. But moving oil by rail has its own hazards. As transport has increased in recent years, so have explosions of rail cars carrying oil.

    Building the pipeline would also help provide a conduit for oil from a friendly ally, Canada, and cement trade relations for the United States and Canada.

    Q. Would blocking Keystone XL help stop climate change?

    A. Most experts say no. The additional emissions produced by extracting the oil are not, in and of themselves, a major contributor to climate change.

    In 2011, the most recent year for which comprehensive international data is available, the global economy emitted 32.6 billion metric tons of carbon pollution. The United States was responsible for 5.5 billion tons of that (coming in second to China, which emitted 8.7 billion tons). Within the United States, electric power plants produced 2.8 billion tons of those greenhouse gases, while vehicle tailpipe emissions from burning gasoline produced 1.9 billion tons.

    By comparison, the oil that would move through the Keystone pipeline would add 18.7 million more metric tons of carbon to the atmosphere annually than would be produced by conventional oil, according to estimates by the Environmental Protection Agency. In other words, those added carbon emissions would amount to less than 1 percent of United States greenhouse gas emissions and an infinitesimal slice of the global total.

    Q. Where do things stand in the Keystone approval process?

    A. The State Department has the permitting authority for the project because it crosses an international border, and the secretary of state must determine whether the project is “in the national interest” — a determination that includes economic, environmental, national security and foreign policy implications.

    In January, the State Department released an 11-volume environmental impact statement concluding that the pipeline was unlikely to significantly increase the rate of carbon pollution in the atmosphere. That analysis kicked off a 90-day review process in which Secretary of State John Kerry sought comment from eight other agencies, including the E.P.A. and the Commerce, Defense and Homeland Security departments. Mr. Obama will make the final decision. But the State Department halted the review in April after a Nebraska district court blocked the governor’s decision to allow the pipeline to pass through the state.

    If the Nebraska court concludes that the governor does not have the authority to allow the pipeline to pass through the state, TransCanada may have to resubmit an application, a process that could take months or even years.

    Mr. Obama has said that he will delay his own decision until the Nebraska court weighs in.

    However, Congress could send a bill to the president’s desk demanding that he approve the pipeline. Although Mr. Obama would be likely to veto the bill on the grounds that the process is incomplete, the new Republican Congress that convenes in January may be able to muster a nearly veto-proof majority for such a vote, opening the door for a Keystone deal between Mr. Obama and Republicans.

    Q. What is President Obama’s position on the pipeline?

    A. People close to Mr. Obama say that although he is committed to building a climate legacy, he does not see the pipeline as a central part of that effort. Instead, the president is moving forward with a set of E.P.A. regulations on coal-fired power plants, the nation’s largest source of greenhouse gas emissions.

    But some of Mr. Obama’s advisers strongly oppose the pipeline and are urging him to reject it.

    SOME PROS AND CONS HIGHLIGHTED.

    http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/e...-in-one-chart/

    Here is a chart showing the use of "Executive Powers". Currently President Obama is the lowest since President Benjamin Harrison 1889 to 1893 (one term, not two like Obama). That's 122 years ago. You may also note the huge and deep swath of red indicating Republican presidents who relied on it heavily.

    Cheers,

    Merlot

  6. #6
    Right on Z ! Most of the critisim againts Obama is not rational. He's a democrate, he introduced universal medicare, gay marage and pot were legalized, and oh ya, he's black ! Drives the republicains crazy !

    Quote Originally Posted by zmontreal View Post
    So I don't think either of these decisions was irrational.
    ----------------------------------
    What ? Rimshot? What the hell is that? Sounds dirty”
    Well, not really here's what it is...: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6nqrzoXccNk

  7. #7
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Look behind you.
    Posts
    4,736
    Quote Originally Posted by Merlot View Post
    Why is he fucked up? Because you disagree.
    Wow, you write a lot of stuff, as I said........... In my opinion.
    As for the pipeline it should have been passed, US has thousands of miles of pipelines and this one should have made no difference, the pipeline is needed to keep the economy going and the have not provinces check in the mail. Most activists in Canada are funded by foreign countries and if not for our no balls government they should be restricted a lot more, do you see any group protesting Venezuela, Saudi Arabia or even the US with their coal fired generators which cause way more pollution that the oil sands will ever cause. Alberta is getting fucked by foreigners and held ransom by have not provinces. The carbon tax grab brought on by your glorious leader will do nothing for the environment but the money will pay for other promises he has to pay for. Maybe if Quebec harvested their resources and decided to become a have province instead of relying on other provinces to pay their way they may change their tune.... Did you know that for every dollar royalty from resources the government collects it comes off their equalization payments ( hence the no go for oil & gas here, too easy to sit back and get free money, sorry still pissed about our accidental premier caving into your premiers call for better environmental standards in Alberta to allow the pipeline to pass ). That stunned Krusty Clark in BC says no the the gateway pipeline to the west coast because of environmental concerns but since then a huge gas play has been found in Northern BC and now she is oK with pipelines to the west coast for their gas... WTF, then she recently allowed oil companies to do exploration in their provincial parks... again WTF. Fuck, Canada spent 13 billion last year importing oil due to no pipelines that will transport our own oil...... Enough about the pipelines that CANADA needs. On to Iran, trust them? Bahahahahahaha.... enough said.
    As always Merlot I listen to your input but the Keystone deal being kyboshed and Iran sanctions being abolished are not right. IMO
    PS: This was not put up to get support from Obama haters but to vent my frustrations about the lack of support for the needed pipelines, I do not follow the Iranian issues too much but the trust is not there.
    And again, this is just my opinion.
    I do not think outside the box, I do not think inside the box, I do not even know where the box is.

  8. #8
    THANK YOU BURKIE !!!
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Quebec City
    Posts
    689
    I rarely post in any political threads because I was always taught that every political issue always comes down to $$$ and every government governs accordingly.

    Today I'll make an exception. The real but rarely discussed reason Keystone XL is being delayed (it will eventually be approved regardless of which party is in power) is because it is not yet in America's interest to approve it.

    Going back to last fall before global oil prices fell by half, the USA had caught up to Saudi Arabia to become the largest oil producers in the world thanks to hydraulic fracturing.

    Now with WTI (West Texas Intermediate) selling at a little over $50 US the frackers for the most part are losing money and many have suspended production. As a result, the US is once again increasing imports from Canada for the simple reason that WCS (Western Canada Select) has always been sold at a substantial discount (currently $16 US/barrel) over WTI because it is produced in a land locked area which limits/complicates exports.

    If Keystone was active now, Canadian sellers could tell US customers to pay WTI prices or fuck off since they could easily export production to China or elsewhere out of several Gulf of Mexico ports.

    So it is in the US' interest to keep the discount going as long as possible.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]The hockey game most enjoyed by Canadians from coast to coast since 1972.

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Visiting Planet Earth
    Posts
    4,160
    Hello all,

    Quote Originally Posted by Sol Tee Nutz View Post
    Wow, you write a lot of stuff, as I said...
    What I wrote was actually short. What I copied and posted was a lot more. In responding to your question I tried to become more informed. That was about having some idea of what is going on and having some respect for the subject.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sol Tee Nutz View Post
    As for the pipeline it should have been passed, US has thousands of miles of pipelines and this one should have made no difference,...
    Still, when you want to use another country's territory you have to deal with how the people and their representatives feel about the issue, which is far from united. It not what Canada wants or what the U.S. wants, it's about finding ways to respect each other and cooperate. Just because either side wants it doesn't mean they get it. If it goes through Canada will profit a lot from U.S. needs and money. Saying Obama is "fucked up" is a kind of statement that's well short of respect and cooperation with all those who share the same concerns. Canada can no more ramrod through a pipeline than the U.S. can do any such thing to Canada and disliking the decision won't change that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sol Tee Nutz View Post
    ...do you see any group protesting Venezuela, Saudi Arabia or even the US with their coal fired generators
    There are plenty of protests in the U.S. over this physical and written. But tell me how those two dictatorships relate to this issue at all?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sol Tee Nutz View Post
    Alberta is getting fucked by foreigners and held ransom by have not provinces.

    Maybe if Quebec harvested their resources and decided to become a have province instead of relying on other provinces to pay their way they may change their tune....
    I can't say if this is really true or not, but I get the strong feeling it's the same kind of reaction as the resentment by those who say the U.S. is getting fucked by foreign immigrants.

    The rest is certainly a Canadian issue you need to take up with your representatives. I don't see why the U.S. would make any of that a significant factor in it's concerns even though we in the U.S. of course want a healthy Canada. Besides every country has issues with who is benefiting, who has to pay more disproportionately to how they benefit..and all the graft that comes with such deals and projects. The Canadian situation is hardly unique in a general sense, only the specifics may be different.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sol Tee Nutz View Post
    On to Iran, trust them? Bahahahahahaha.... enough said.
    I never suggested trusting Iran, but they have to be dealt with. Leaving them in a state of geopolitical isolation indefinitely is not rational or positive for long range geopolitical interests.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sol Tee Nutz View Post
    Fuck, Canada spent 13 billion last year importing oil due to no pipelines that will transport our own oil...... Enough about the pipelines that CANADA needs. On to Iran, trust them? Bahahahahahaha.... enough said.
    So Canada spent $13 Billion last year. Sorry. I won't even look that up. Let's just go on faith with your number and then compare this:

    http://www.greenlifestylechanges.com...mport-in-2013/

    The U.S. paid $388 billion for oil in 2013.

    http://www.iags.org/costofoil.html

    The U.S. has paid around $7 TRILLION over the last 30 years. That's an average of $233 billion unadjusted for inflation.

    So excuse me if your number seems a little small when we spend nearly 30 times as much.

    BTW - Honestly I'm not sure how I feel about the pipeline. I hate to say NO, but is it really the better move on balance? I DON"T KNOW.

    Cheers,

    Merlot

  10. #10
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Look behind you.
    Posts
    4,736
    Sorry about my rant, pipelines are a touchy subject for Albertans, people do not realize that oil is a necessity of life in todays society. No oil and may as well go back to living in huts. People sure like the money coming out of Alberta though, in eastern Canada ( Ontario and east ) there are over 150,000 jobs related to the Alberta oil industry and is expected to grow to 500,000 in 25 years.. The Saudis caused the oil crash because of the American fracking, knowing what is costs the US to get a barrel out of the ground they made it so it was not feasible to frack.
    As for your environmentalists in the states ( not that I follow much American news ) I do not think a major pipeline going through states has never been approved, never hear of Neil Young, Dicapiro. Jane Fonda protesting in front of your coal powered power stations. It is fine for Venezuela to ship oil to Canada but not OK for Canada to ship oil out? The east coast refineries pay more for oil from foreign countries than they would from Alberta but the pipeline is blocked? Sounds kind of fucked no. I am pretty sure if the equalization payments from Alberta came through pipelines it would be in the ground by now.
    As for our oil import numbers being low comparatively to the US the population difference would be the cause of that.
    Again, sorry about my rant but the pipelines not being approved by have nots and environmentalists plus people believing that a carbon tax will help the environment twist me up a little.
    I do not think outside the box, I do not think inside the box, I do not even know where the box is.

  11. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Visiting Planet Earth
    Posts
    4,160
    Hello all,

    http://america.aljazeera.com/content...0527012906.jpg

    Quote Originally Posted by Sol Tee Nutz View Post
    It is fine for Venezuela to ship oil to Canada but not OK for Canada to ship oil out?
    I have to say I failed to check out the route of the proposed pipeline and it's goals yesterday. Shame on me. I had made the mistake thinking that it was necessary to go from Alberta through a small part of the U.S. to a port on the west coast. OOOOO-MMMMM-GGGGG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I just checked and that pipeline would go southeasterly for 1922 miles (3093 km) right through 7 of the larger states ending at two ports Houston and Port Arthur, Texas. Now looking at the quote above does anyone think it's a fair portrayal of the situation? That this is limited to Canada's right to ship oil? The American commitment would be 3093 km compared to 626 km for Canada, that's 5 times the commitment which by the way cuts through the full length of the U.S. from north to south. All of the American commitment so Canada can export that same oil...WHERE...wherever they feel like it.

    Sorry, but you mentioned how unfair it was for Quebec to benefit from other provinces, and what would they be if the had to be self-sufficient, yet you want to the U.S. to take on 84% of the burden of this pipeline on our states for the benefit of Alberta/Canada. With that perspective all those things about environmentalists, Neil Young, Dicapiro, Jane Fonda, Venezuela, Saudi Arabia and how tough it is for Canadian oil workers and Alberta go right out the window.

    C'mon STN, Any president would question why the U.S. should use such an immense amount of American territory to make it easier for Canadians to profit from exports to be used by whom? CHINA! You want to use the U.S. to sell oil to China and other nations? %$&#@!!!

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-al...b_4870103.html

    Forty-one years ago, when I used to get up at 5 a.m. to get on gas station lines with my parents, I started hearing about "energy independence" -- a secure source of supply for our energy needs. Today, energy independence soon will be a reality.

    For China. Thanks to the Keystone XL pipeline.

    Q. Cui bono? ("Who benefits?") A. China.

    The Chinese economy consists of taking raw materials and energy, making that into stuff, and then selling that stuff -- a/k/a "manufacturing." Chinese leaders understand that in order for that model to work, China needs steady supplies of raw materials and energy. By how do you get a steady supply of energy, in a world where those supplies are dominated by a cartel, and are concentrated in a part of the world prone to war? In America, we've been trying to puzzle that out for four decades, without success.

    Well, the Chinese have figured it out. They're going to get their energy from Canada, a stable country, and pass it through the United States, another stable country. They will pay the Canadians the world price for oil. They will pay us nothing, or next to nothing. So Uncle Sam is Uncle Sucker.


    Hell, if any of this is true @#$%&!!! the pipeline. I back anyone against this scenario100%. Build it to Vancouver...easy solution.

    Cheers,

    Merlot

  12. #12
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Look behind you.
    Posts
    4,736
    From my understanding once the oil is shipped to the US it is their oil to refine and do as they please, where they send it to and for how much is up to the US.
    Your comment would be the same as me selling you a car and you sent it to North Korea and blaming me for selling items to North Korea. The major refineries that the US have are in that location, reason for the pipeline to be there.
    The Gateway pipeline we want to build to our west coast would be customers we would be selling to.
    There is a difference.
    The pipeline would bring billions into the US economy and have minimal environmental impact, even people on Obama side agree with it, Warren Buffet who is a strong Obama supported recommends the pipeline go through even though he invested millions in rail cars to transport oil.

    EDIT: Here is one for you Merlot. Instead of shipping away the oil we sell you to refine at your refineries why not keep it and slow down imports from middle east countries such as Saudi Arabia who are the guilty ones for ruining the economies of many countries because of their greed.
    I do not think outside the box, I do not think inside the box, I do not even know where the box is.

  13. #13
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    deplorable basket case
    Posts
    337
    Quote Originally Posted by Rimshot View Post
    Right on Z ! Most of the critisim againts Obama is not rational. He's a democrate, he introduced universal medicare, gay marage and pot were legalized, and oh ya, he's black ! Drives the republicains crazy !
    probably only the poor ones

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/01/bu...=business&_r=0

    INCOME inequality in the United States has been growing for decades, but the trend appears to have accelerated during the Obama administration. One measure of this is the relationship between median and average wages.

    The median wage is straightforward: it’s the midpoint of everyone’s wages. Interpreting the average, though, can be tricky. If the income of a handful of people soars while everyone else’s remains the same, the entire group’s average may still rise substantially. So when average wages grow faster than the median, as happened from 2009 through 2011, it means that lower earners are falling further behind those at the top.

    One way to see the acceleration in inequality is to look at the ratio of average to median annual wages. From 2001 through 2008, during the George W. Bush administration, that ratio grew at 0.28 percentage point per year. From 2009 through 2011, the latest year for which the data is available, the ratio increased 1.14 percentage points annually, or roughly four times faster.

  14. #14
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Look behind you.
    Posts
    4,736
    Quote Originally Posted by zmontreal View Post
    Adding my own two cents in I think his veto of the pipeline was the right decision.
    And your reason?
    I do not think outside the box, I do not think inside the box, I do not even know where the box is.

  15. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Visiting Planet Earth
    Posts
    4,160
    Hello STN,

    Quote Originally Posted by Sol Tee Nutz View Post
    Your comment would be the same as me selling you a car and you sent it to North Korea and blaming me for selling items to North Korea. The major refineries that the US have are in that location, reason for the pipeline to be there.
    Yes, under your analogy it would make no sense and we would be damn fools to allow the pipeline. However, I read long ago from multiple sources about how China has been buying up huge shares in Canadian oil and those articles had nothing to do with Keystone. That combined with many reports saying the proposed extension is mainly for export from the U.S. and that much of it is for China should at least give anyone concern, though geographically it would not seem to be odd that it's for China rather than countries on the Atlantic. Still, why build it from Alberta all the way to a Gulf Coast port if it isn't for export. True that there are more refineries with the necessary capacity there, but the map shows there are plenty of equally capable refineries with the same capacity in the Midwest. In fact according to Forbes the existing pipeline is already producing in Illinois and Oklahoma.

    http://www.commodityintelligence.com...rycapacity.jpg

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikepatt...xl-pipeline/2/

    TransCanada's own rebuttal to negative environmental impact arguments by an Alberta publication and to the point of whether oil to the Gulf area is for export leaves out any answer on the export point saying only that oil will be refined in the U.S.. It failed to say anything about intended use for that oil. WHY? Instead they try to playoff "investment" in Canada versus Venezuela and the Middle East, not an answer to the question of where the oil is going. They call export of the oil "factually inaccurate" by pointing to refining but not denying reports of intended destination.

    http://keystone-xl.com/responding-to...gle-editorial/

    Finally, the claim that oil transported by Keystone XL “would be sold outside of the U.S.” is factually inaccurate. Similar claims have earned a ‘Four Pinocchio’ rating with the Washington Post Fact Checker. The fact is Keystone XL will deliver oil produced in the U.S. and Canada to Gulf Coast refineries [not ports] in the U.S. to be processed in the United States.

    Keystone XL represents a choice between an investment in North American energy infrastructure, North American labor and North American manufacturing, or an investment in Venezuelan and Middle Eastern economies. And for those reasons, we believe, like a vast majority of Americans believe, that Keystone XL is in the national interest.

    No matter what, the immense size of the overall planned U.S. commitment for the XL pipeline with intentions that TransCanada failed to clear up in their own rebuttal creates legitimate questions and concerns. If they would commit to clearing up that point about who gets the benefit of using the oil that would help them. Leaving that question open has lead to concerns about intent, and it should.

    Cheers,

    Merlot

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •