So what's the deal with the Keystone XL pipeline project?

Right?! Because Obama needs all that "eco groups" money more than he needs to bring down the unemployment rate. Think how lucrative all the eco money would be. Your "logic" is just so half-baked.

 

Half-baked? He already has fools like you trumpeting (and excusing) the unemployment numbers as a positive. So, yeah, the eco money is low hanging fruit as long as there are people like you defending his abysmal record.

 

Specifically what makes his record "abysmal"? Just curious because if you hate his record that much, he must be doing something right.

Let's see:
Ended the Iraq war
Killed Bin Laden
Save the U.S car industry
Brought down the unemployment numbers down monthly
Grew the econmy
The stock market is soaring
Has killed almost every top Al Qaeda player
Took down Muammar Gaddafi with no boots on the ground
Obama has overhauled the food safety system
Advanced women's rights in the work place
Ended Don't Ask, Don't Tell (DADT) in our military
Stopped defending DOMA in court.
Passed the Hate Crimes bill.
Appointed two pro-choice women to the Supreme Court.
Expanded access to medical care and provided subsidies for people who can't afford it.
Expanded the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP)
Fixed the preexisting conditions travesty [and rescissions] in health insurance.
Invested in clean energy.
Overhauled the credit card industry, making it much more consumer-friendly.
While Dodd-Frank bill was weak in many respects, it was still an extremely worthwhile start at re-regulating the financial sector.
He created a Elizabeth Warren's dream agency: The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
He's done a lot for veterans
He got help for people whose health was injured during the clean-up after the 9/11 attacks.

That is some list of failures.

 

Unemployment is higher than when he took over, he has put us in so much debt that it'll be virtually impossible to recover and confidence is at an alltime low.

 

Oh now it's the debt and some kind of "confidence" eh?

Is this why you define his presidency as a failure? Please give me a yea or nay on that. I'd like to point out a few facts for you.

 

That is certainly a part of his record of failure.
I don't where you found that list of "accomplishments" you copied & pasted but not everyone would agree they are all good things or that BO is able to take all the credit.

 

Then you have to define Reagan as a failure because his unemployment rate was nearly a full percentage point higher at the same point and he didn't have nearly the recession Obama was handed. Just admit that Reagan was a failure or admit your own hypocrisy.

Of course not everyone would agree that they are all good things but those people are what we like to call...WRONG. Just because RW'ers disagree with his successes doesn't mean that they are not still successes. In fact, I'd call them successes in spite of asshat obstructionism which makes them even greater successes.

 

How much faith can one put in any of BO's employment numbers? Remember when he "created" a district & job numbers....in a district that didn't exist?????
Are you really so naive to accept the propaganda thats comes from this guy's admin? That's cute.

 

Oh yeah, the conspiracy theory angle. I forgot about the birther crowd you guys hail from.
Just for the record, unemployment figures are calculated the same way year-to-year under any president and they do not come from the Obama Administration's own calculations in spite of your conspiracy theory tendencies. I know Limbaugh is pushing the same line of nonsense as you are but what is indisputable here is that the numbers come from the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S. Department of Labor NOT the Obama Administration.

 

So, was Reagan a failure too?

 

So, has BO been a failure (based on the criteria you advanced, of course)?

 

I wasn't referring to anything Limbaugh may or may not be saying or how the numbers are calculated (even though the CBO says BO is understating true unemployment figures). I am simply recalling one of the lies that came from the BO admin. Don't pretend you don't remember what I'm talking about. For those who may not know or remember, a couple of years ago the BO admin was hailing some supposed job creation resulting from BO's stimulus spending. They cited a number of jobs created within a certain district. The trouble was that district didn't exist nor did the jobs!! Once a liar........

 

You are so full of it. The CBO has nothing to do with this. The Bureau of Labor Statistics calculates the unemployment figures and that is what is at issue not jobs saved/created by the stimulus. Your silly conspiracy theories are just more proof of Right-wing desperation. You couldn’t coherently argue your way through a two-person debate if the other guy didn't show up. Again, plenty to say about an issue you seem to know nothing about. This is getting old fast. Why don’t you tag-team one of the other ladies and see if they can do any better. You suck at this big time.

 

I saw a report on NBC this morning about gas prices (which are already up 87% under BO) expected to reach an all-time high very soon. I can't help but wonder how much of BO nixing this pipeline project is contributing to this? Doesn't this guy realize the high price of gas was the straw that broke our economic back in '07-'08?? BO hasn't been shy to proclaim his desire for higher gas prices as a way to ween us off fossil fuels but it also makes you wonder why BO hasn't done more (as he promised) to come up with alternative fuel sources.

 

Indeed. Gas prices have skyrocketed since Obama took office. It's no wonder that more and more people are finding ways to work from home during this terrible economy. Obama should have approved Keystone, but he blew it on this one. He really, really blew it.

View attachment 378

 

Not to credit BO with much of anything, but the latest rise is due mostly to Iran and its brouhaha. Just how much of that problem goes to Obama is debatable.

 

Agreed. But, lets not forget how upset liberals were at Bush when gas prices went up regardless of the reason. The same outraged liberals during Bush's term must also be just as outraged during Obama's term. To be otherwise would be hypocritical. Let's read the words of some democrats when Bush was in office:

THEN-SEN. HILLARY CLINTON: Elect Democrats in November, if you don't like these outrageous gas prices, if you feel that the oil companies have been given a free ride by the president and the vice president, vote for Democrats who will vote for changes in our energy policy.

NANCY PELOSI: The price of oil is at the doorstep; $4-plus per gallon for oil is attributed to two oilmen in the White House and their protectors in the United States Senate.

SEN. CHARLES SCHUMER: If George Bush hadn't got his way about this when he first took office, the price would not be $3 a gallon but $2 a gallon, or a $1.80, or $1.50.

THEN-SEN. BARACK OBAMA demanded that the Federal Trade Commission investigate Big Oil for "price manipulation." In 2008, Obama urged the Justice Department "to open an investigation into whether energy traders have been engaged in illegal activities that have helped drive up the price of oil and food."

HILLARY CLINTON and CYNTHIA MCKINNEY were so appalled by the high gasoline prices of $3 a gallon, they called for a windfall profits tax.

MAXINE WATERS said she wanted the government to take over oil companies and nationalize.

HARRY REID said gas prices were the nation's top priority.

 

I'm thinking there would have been an offset, to some degree, if BO hadn't shot down Keystone.

 

I really doubt it would be much. That oil is going to be produced. It will then be processed and sent to market. The only question is where this will happen. If Keystone is not built, it happens in China. The net result on the market is negligible whether it is processed in China or here.

 

Here's a message sent out by Valero:

Date: January 24, 2012
To: Valero Employees
From: Bill Klesse, CEO Valero
Subject: Keystone XL Pipeline Statement

As you know, the Obama administration decided last week to deny
TransCanada’s application to ship crude oil via the Keystone XL pipeline
from Canada to the Gulf Coast. Valero has planned to be a shipper and
purchaser of that oil since 2008, and obviously we were disappointed in the
decision. We issued a statement in response to questions from the media, and
I wanted to share it with you in case you get questions from friends or
business partners, and so that you would know why Valero supports the
Keystone XL pipeline. This is the statement:

Despite the uncertainty and political fighting over the Keystone XL
pipeline, Valero has continued to invest in its U.S. refining operation. In
2011 we spent nearly $3 billion on projects, and for 2012 our capital
expenditure budget is over $3 billion. These expenditures
are keeping our employees on the job and putting additional people to work.
To reference two of our refineries, at Port Arthur, Texas, we have 1,600
contractors working on an expansion project, and at St. Charles Parish,
Louisiana, we have another 1,000 contractors working on a separate project.
We need this kind of economic activity to accelerate to help all Americans.

This illustrates why the federal government’s rejection of the Keystone XL
pipeline is so absurd. There are pipelines in every neighborhood all across
America. The administration’s decision was not about pipelines, it was about
the misguided beliefs that Canadian oil sands development should be stopped
and that fossil fuel prices should increase to make alternative energy more
attractive. Instead, we should be impressed with how well the oil sands
engineering and recovery technology has advanced, and the economic benefits
this development brings. Having more oil available in the marketplace has
the potential to lower prices for consumers. As an independent refiner,
Valero buys all of the oil we process. Due to the administration’s misguided
policies, refiners like Valero will have to buy more oil from other sources
outside the U.S. and Canada. Consumers will bear the additional shipping
cost, not to mention the additional greenhouse gas emissions and political
risks.

With all the issues facing our country, it is absolutely unbelievable our
federal government says no to a company like TransCanada that is willing to
spend over $7 billion and put Americans to work on a pipeline. The
administration’s decision throws dirt into the face of our closest ally and
largest trading partner.

The point above is that it is not about pipelines as many pipelines cross
the Ogallala Aquifer, in the Great Plains region, and, in fact, there is
already significant oil and gas production in the area covered by the
aquifer. This is politics at its worst.

Thanks for your support.
Bill Klesse, CEO Valero