Jump to content

Game On


Proud Tiger

Recommended Posts

Obama finally has to fish or cut bait. He is now out of any reasonable excuse to not approve the pipeline.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/01/29/keystone-bill-clears-senate-hurdle/

And the people want it:

http://video.foxnews.com/v/3991298603001/americans-increasingly-want-obama-to-sign-keystone-bill/?#sp=show-clips

Link to comment
Share on other sites





  • Replies 61
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Assuming he follows through with the veto threat, the Senate doesn't have the votes to override it if the chips fall the same way as today. It will be very interesting to see how everything shakes down the next couple of weeks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Welp, for those who claimed they wanted America to see the REAL face of liberalism... Here it comes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand the wishes of the environmental movement to deep six this project. We have had a bad record of late with oil spills. That being said, I'd much rather crude be piped down to the refineries than shipped by train or truck. This type of crude has unique properties and is safer in a pipe than on the road or rail. Just my .02

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obama will veto it because his major donor doesn't want the pipeline Politics as usual, the people be damned.

He doesn't need donors anymore. If he vetoes it it will be because he thinks its an unnecessary environmental risk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand the wishes of the environmental movement to deep six this project. We have had a bad record of late with oil spills. That being said, I'd much rather crude be piped down to the refineries than shipped by train or truck. This type of crude has unique properties and is safer in a pipe than on the road or rail. Just my .02

Seems like a logical argument. I'm pretty undecided on this issue. There are environmental risks, and the price we'll pay at the pump isn't going to significantly change with the pipeline in place (and it may in fact increase prices for the Midwest). Obviously a lot of jobs will be created too, but at what point is it not worth the added jobs because of the risk of environmental damage? It's not as clear cut as either side has represented it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the environmental concerns is a loophole that keeps this oil from being subject to a federal excise tax that goes into an oil spill clean up fund. Democrats unsuccessfully tried to close this loophole on two occasions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the environmental concerns is a loophole that keeps this oil from being subject to a federal excise tax that goes into an oil spill clean up fund. Democrats unsuccessfully tried to close this loophole on two occasions.

That excise tax was squandered away after Clinton signed the original law into effect back in 94/96. Can't remember the exact year but I know we only had 1/3 of the fire boom we needed on hand to try and circle DWH. The government never replenished the stockpile as required by law.

There has to be protections in place before we make this move. The oil will reach the refineries regardless.....and I'd rather it go by pipe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AUTmike....he doesn't need donors but he has political debts to pay

He fundraises more than ANY Prez. Odd, for one not running again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the environmental concerns is a loophole that keeps this oil from being subject to a federal excise tax that goes into an oil spill clean up fund. Democrats unsuccessfully tried to close this loophole on two occasions.

That excise tax was squandered away after Clinton signed the original law into effect back in 94/96. Can't remember the exact year but I know we only had 1/3 of the fire boom we needed on hand to try and circle DWH. The government never replenished the stockpile as required by law.

There has to be protections in place before we make this move. The oil will reach the refineries regardless.....and I'd rather it go by pipe.

I believe you are mistaken about the tax. Every other type of oil is still subject to it. Why would we exclude this particular type?

I agree with you about the method of moving it. Still, I would like to see the company that profits the most be subject to the same rules as any other oil company.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AUTmike....he doesn't need donors but he has political debts to pay

He fundraises more than ANY Prez. Odd, for one not running again.

Yeah. I need a source on that one. That sounds like the old, "he goes on more vacations", "he uses more executive orders", both of which are false.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AUTmike....he doesn't need donors but he has political debts to pay

He fundraises more than ANY Prez. Odd, for one not running again.

Yeah. I need a source on that one. That sounds like the old, "he goes on more vacations", "he uses more executive orders", both of which are false.

Not false on the vacations part. Thats been verified.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AUTmike....he doesn't need donors but he has political debts to pay

He fundraises more than ANY Prez. Odd, for one not running again.

Yeah. I need a source on that one. That sounds like the old, "he goes on more vacations", "he uses more executive orders", both of which are false.

This^^

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And btw -

Obama has made 30 separate fundraising trips since April – more than twice the rate of his two-term predecessors – in bid to help Democrats win in 2014 midterm elections

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/12/obama-wealthy-donors-fundraising-drive-democrats

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And btw -

Obama has made 30 separate fundraising trips since April – more than twice the rate of his two-term predecessors – in bid to help Democrats win in 2014 midterm elections

http://www.theguardi...drive-democrats

Yeah...he helps Dems fundraise...not really surprising.

Seems like AURaptor was under the impression his fundraising efforts were for himself with the, "Odd, for one [a president] not running again" statement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AUTmike....he doesn't need donors but he has political debts to pay

He fundraises more than ANY Prez. Odd, for one not running again.

Yeah. I need a source on that one. That sounds like the old, "he goes on more vacations", "he uses more executive orders", both of which are false.

Not false on the vacations part. Thats been verified.

I think you are wrong. Please provide a link.

Here you are, courtesy of the Washington Post:

"Who holds the record for the most presidential vacation time?"

"President George W. Bush. During his two terms, Bush took 879 vacation days, which included 77 total trips to his Crawford, Tex., ranch. Nine of those trips were taken in his first year as president."

Raptor, do you ever get tired of being wrong?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I always found the vacation slam to be a funny one. It's not like a US President can exactly go on vacation anywhere off-the-grid. There is nothing in a crisis that the President can do from the White House that cannot be done from Air Force One.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Vetoed.

I am returning herewith without my approval S. 1, the "Keystone XL Pipeline Approval Act." Through this bill, the United States Congress attempts to circumvent longstanding and proven processes for determining whether or not building and operating a cross-border pipeline serves the national interest.

The Presidential power to veto legislation is one I take seriously. But I also take seriously my responsibility to the American people. And because this act of Congress conflicts with established executive branch procedures and cuts short thorough consideration of issues that could bear on our national interest—including our security, safety, and environment—it has earned my veto.

It's important to note, the veto today is NOT a rejection of the pipeline. It is only a rejection of the congressional effort to override well-established executive authority for deciding on the pipeline. A decision on whether to approve or reject the actual project will come later.

Also, as an FYI ...

Presidential vetoes:

Obama: 3

GWB: 12

Clinton: 37

GHWB: 44

Reagan: 78

Carter: 31

Ford: 66

Nixon: 43

Johnson: 30

Kennedy: 21

Eisenhower: 181

https://twitter.com/...322651601711105

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the veto stats. Those are fascinating.

It would be fun to see the list of bills each vetoed with a summary of what they would have done and why he vetoed it. That would make an interesting book actually.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the veto stats. Those are fascinating.

It would be fun to see the list of bills each vetoed with a summary of what they would have done and why he vetoed it. That would make an interesting book actually.

And darned if I didn't decide yesterday to write a book about yellow fever. Oh, well, i'll add it to the queue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hang in there America! Restoration of our Country in 2016!!!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...