It’s really not all that uncommon for construction projects to be viewed as “jobs bills” when the government does it. Why is this different?
He saw the word “Limbo” in the headline (which is as much as he ever reads.)
That’s something the darkies do.
You would lose.
Keystone would have been a very good thing for the USA overall. Jobs, oil independence from the Middle East…what’s not to like? 65% of Americans think it’s a good thing.
Obama, however, appears to have vetoed it for no practical or intelligent reason, but simply because it came out of a Republican Congress.
And as usual, I shouldn’t have had to explain this. It’s self-evident. But you people think the sun shines out of Obama’s ass and totally reject anything posted that is negative about him. Therefore, we have snide, ad hominem remarks about me (which, by the way, openly admits that I am correct) and nothing of real content. Soooo predictable.
Apparently, far more of one than the vast majority of people posting on this board.
I have no doubt you believe all that. So I invite you to ponder this:
There is nothing you can do about it! 
Cry all you want, but Obama’s got the veto pen and there’s not nearly enough yokels like you in Congress to override it. How does it make you feel that a symbol of Republican conservative prosperity lies tantalizingly close, right over the border at your fingertips, but you cannot touch it, it will never be built, and that will remain the reality no matter how much you thrash or kick or scream? Obama, your White Whale, blocked it, and let’s just assume that he’s an idiot and knows nothing about it and did it because he’s a partisan Muslim socialist. He. Still. Blocked. It.
And there’s absolutely nothing you can do about it.
Go cry more about fetuses or gays, you hateful, bitter, petty racist. I’m going to celebrate this liberal win tonight by giving some money to the homeless!
This thread is bipartisanship at its finest.
All 35 permanent jobs. And how does it give us independence from ME oil? None of that is being used or sold in the US. It’s going in the pipeline to the refinery and then onto ships bound for foreign ports. It WILL seriously enrich various GOP sponsors, like the Kochs and environmental cleanup contractors.
Yeah, majorities thought anti-miscegenation laws and segregation were a good thing, too. Hell, just to poke your personal bedbug, apparently a majority of Republicans think Christianity should be the official US religion. Are they therefore beyond questioning and denial?
And yet you can’t be bothered to present an actual argument without having people pry it out of you. Protip: the many, many things that seem to make you so very, very angry are not self-evident to anyone who lives outside your head. Why are you so against actually talking to people instead of snarling at them?
Canadian tar sands oil will no doubt be coming to the States, probably to be refined and shipped right back out again, whether the KXL is ever built or not, and we’ll no doubt find excuses to put up with the vast expense, vast amount of pollution and vast destruction of land involved in inefficiently extracting that particular resource.
As for reduced dependence on oil from the Middle East, we are already well down the road, tar sands or no, or don’t you read the papers any more?
I started a thread in GD which asked why I should be upset about the proposed pipeline. My inclination was, as it is today, is that probably overall its a good thing, and that some of the arguments against it are not convincing at all.
For example, the “it only creates 35 jobs!!” line. Yes, it certainly adds very few new permanent jobs. But so do many construction projects: we could build a fantastic flood protection system for New Orleans, but odds are that it won’t create a whole lot of permanent jobs. Both will, however, have a substantial number of temporary jobs, which should not be dismissed.
Anyway, even though there are quite a few poor arguments against the pipeline, there are several very salient ones. The route of the pipeline and the potential fallout of a leak in the pipeline are matters that should be taken very seriously.
If someone has a different opinion on whether these matters add up to opposition to the pipeline, it doesn’t mean that they are stupid. A stupid idea (which are more prevalent in the stupid Republican thread, BTW) is something like that humans and dinosaurs coexisted, or that Obama is a seekrit Muslim.
As it stands, this thread continues to fail in that it’s barely more than Clothy - who is not a particularly well-informed, articulate, or insightful poster to begin with - just using it as a hobby horse to post things that he just strongly disagrees with, but aren’t necessary stupid.
And that’s kind of dumb.
“Bipartisan”?
I guess we all experimented a little in college, but that don’t make it a life-choice or nuttin’ . . .
Bipartisanship died on January 20, 2009.
Not November 2008?
What’s not to like? Probably that it does nothing for “oil independence”, creates very few permanent jobs, and would be quite risky for the environment.
That’s a pretty practical and intelligent reason (joking), but that’s not why he did it – he vetoed it due to the risk to the environment.
This fantasy-explanation is probably predictable in the fantasy-world you live in politically, but in the real world most liberal Dopers have been quite critical of Obama on various issues, recognize many flaws in his decision making (while still supporting him over the alternatives). On the other hand, you actually seem to believe that Obama is some sort of brainless tyrant rather than just an intelligent politician who disagrees with you about what’s best for America.
Did you ever notice the route going all the way to the Gulf refineries and ports? No, the oil doesn’t go to America, it goes to China. The jobs producing it are in Canada. The money goes to the Kochs. The US gets only the pollution - and, okay, the jobs in cleaning up the spills when all the sand wears through the pipelines.
Did you also notice the distance to Canadian ports being a lot shorter? Why is the pipeline not going there, then - could it be that Canada turned down the Kochs’ money as not being worth the environmental damage? That our pols are much easier to buy, as well?
That’s what’s not to like. And it’s no wonder you have not a single clue about it.
Change the channel sometime.
No, the snide comments about your intelligence always come after the part where we show how badly wrong you are. The fact that you’re immune to anything but Fox talking points is the reason.
Of course not. We still had a white president.
But…I thought Canada was our friend??
Huh. Your number may be off by as much as 8 percentage points, and while the yes-or-no is better than 2:1, the uncertains are a really, really big 15% overall, which ought not be ignored. Stop saying “vast majority” until that term becomes meaningful and useful, right now it is just vague hype.
This thread could easily be as lively and interesting as the stupid Republican idea of the day thread.
It could be. It isn’t.
Come on, there’s gotta be an Ed Schultz or a Chris Matthews on MSNBC somewhere saying something that came directly out of their ass.
I know this board leans left, but it shouldn’t be that hard to find liberals being dumbasses, especially if the media is mostly full of liberals. And it doesn’t take but a post here or there from a vigilant viewer to lord it over the largely liberal Dope audience.
You don’t even have to debate the point, you can just drop the link to the dumb-dumb in question and go about your merry day.