Proud Tiger 4,261 Posted January 29, 2015 Share Posted January 29, 2015 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 More sharing options...
AUTUmike 79 Posted January 29, 2015 Share Posted January 29, 2015 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 More sharing options...
AURaptor 1,128 Posted January 29, 2015 Share Posted January 29, 2015 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 More sharing options...
autigeremt 6,780 Posted January 29, 2015 Share Posted January 29, 2015 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 More sharing options...
Proud Tiger 4,261 Posted January 30, 2015 Author Share Posted January 30, 2015 Obama will veto it because his major donor doesn't want the pipeline Politics as usual, the people be damned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUTUmike 79 Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 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 More sharing options...
AUTUmike 79 Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 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 More sharing options...
Proud Tiger 4,261 Posted January 30, 2015 Author Share Posted January 30, 2015 AUTmike....he doesn't need donors but he has political debts to pay Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
icanthearyou 4,464 Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 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 More sharing options...
autigeremt 6,780 Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 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 More sharing options...
AURaptor 1,128 Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 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 More sharing options...
icanthearyou 4,464 Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 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 More sharing options...
icanthearyou 4,464 Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 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 More sharing options...
AURaptor 1,128 Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 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 More sharing options...
AUTUmike 79 Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 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 More sharing options...
AURaptor 1,128 Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 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 More sharing options...
AUTUmike 79 Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 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 More sharing options...
icanthearyou 4,464 Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 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 More sharing options...
Strychnine 1,804 Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 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 More sharing options...
RunInRed 16,528 Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 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 More sharing options...
homersapien 11,522 Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 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 More sharing options...
Auctoritas 2,828 Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 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 More sharing options...
Proud Tiger 4,261 Posted February 25, 2015 Author Share Posted February 25, 2015 Obama will never approve the KPL, even by EO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarTim 3,457 Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 Hang in there America! Restoration of our Country in 2016!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aubfaninga 16 Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 Hang in there America! Restoration of our Country in 2016!!!!!! We can finally get back to the good ole days of 2007 and 2008. Oh JOY Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.