3 REASONS WHY THE KEYSTONE PIPELINE SHOULD BE BUILT...

You're setting up too many straw man arguments here, WTF. First, eminent domain is and has been Constitutionally recognized and permitted since the ratification of the Bill of Rights, that doesn't mean you have to like it -- especially in instances like the Kelo decison. . Originally Posted by I B Hankering

I understand it is the law of the land. No argument here. I have been trying to point out what I perceive to be hypocrisy. Kelo is probably one of the only things both the right and the left agreed on back in the old aspd days if memory serves me right.

Secondly, libertards have royally fucked up the vocabulary. When Solyndra was "subsidized" -- it was given real taxpayer money. When oil companies are "subsidized" -- they get to keep money the government really intended to take away. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

I don't see much difference in either.

I don't see much difference in either.

Originally Posted by WTF

You always like 'hypotheticals', WTF, so here's one for you: if you honestly cannot see the difference between letting companies use their own money as they strive to succeed and giving companies tax-payer money to fund their endeavors, send me $10,000.

If I win at the casino, I'll pay you back . . . with a little 'vig'. If I don't win, well . . . it really doesn't hurt me now does it: it isn't my money.

OTOH, you could just wish me well in my venture, if you're so inclined, and if I lose . . . well . . . that really doesn't hurt you now does it: it isn't your money.

If, to encourage development, the government allows a company to keep its money -- "subsidize" is the misnomer that libertards like to use -- at the very least, the government still garners tax revenue off the workers' income and taxes on generated purchases and sales.

I don't see much difference in either. Originally Posted by WTF

How can you NOT see the difference?

Solyndra was losing money or at best breaking even. So it did not have any money to contribute in tax revenues. So when the government gave Solyndra money, they government it was effectively transferring other taxpayer's money to a private business.

If an oil company is making a $10 profit and you cut their tax rate from 30% to 25%, the government takes in $2.5 billion instead of $3 billion. But it is still taking IN money. It does not have to transfer other taxpayer's money to the oil company.

A tax reduction is not a subsidy - at least not if everyone gets it. Targeted tax breaks are still not subsidies, but they are corrupting and unfair.

government a$$istance of any kind for companies posting $12 billion dollar quarterly profits is at best, totally absurd ...

You're setting up too many straw man arguments here, WTF. First, eminent domain is and has been Constitutionally recognized and permitted since the ratification of the Bill of Rights, that doesn't mean you have to like it -- especially in instances like the Kelo decison. Secondly, libertards have royally fucked up the vocabulary. When Solyndra was "subsidized" -- it was given real taxpayer money. When oil companies are "subsidized" -- they get to keep money the government really intended to take away. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Excellent IB. You post well when not in melt-down mode!

government a$$istance of any kind for companies posting $12 billion dollar quarterly profits is at best, totally absurd ... Originally Posted by CJ7

Absolutely correct. There is no reason we should be subsidizing profitable companies...of any type. Or non-profitable ones either. If the business model doesn't work, you change it or go bankrupt.

Absolutely correct. There is no reason we should be subsidizing profitable companies...of any type. Or non-profitable ones either. If the business model doesn't work, you change it or go bankrupt. Originally Posted by Chica Chaser

Unless you have a large unionized work force. Then the Dems will save you.

Or you make really big campaign contributions. In which case both parties will save you.

You always like 'hypotheticals', WTF, so here's one for you: if you honestly cannot see the difference between letting companies use their own money as they strive to succeed and giving companies tax-payer money to fund their endeavors, send me $10,000.

If I win at the casino, I'll pay you back . . . with a little 'vig'. If I don't win, well . . . it really doesn't hurt me now does it: it isn't my money.

OTOH, you could just wish me well in my venture, if you're so inclined, and if I lose . . . well . . . that really doesn't hurt you now does it: it isn't your money.

If, to encourage development, the government allows a company to keep its money -- "subsidize" is the misnomer that libertards like to use -- at the very least, the government still garners tax revenue off the workers' income and taxes on generated purchases and sales. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

You guys are really renaming some things. Let us use another 'hypothetical', and say the government is a bank. The only bank.

It loans Solyndra 500 million in hopes of a ROI. OK.

Now Big Oil deposits 100 Billion dollars , then spends it on an investment and wants the bank to pay accelerated interests on money no longer in the bank.

In one case the bank lost 500 million because Solyndra went bankrupt, in the other case the government lost out on 1-1.8 Billion because that is what it paid Big Oil in accelerated interest.

There is a case that can be made that inventing battery cells that are cheaper and have a long charge life are way more in the publics interest than a heavy crude refinery that processes foreign crude for many countries that do not have our best interests at heart. In fact their is not one country on the planet that has our best interest at heart. They have their best interest at heart...as well they should have.

Either way, one company has cost the American taxpayers 500M and the other has cost the taxpayer 1-1.8Billion.

How can you NOT see the difference?

Solyndra was losing money or at best breaking even. So it did not have any money to contribute in tax revenues. So when the government gave Solyndra money, they government it was effectively transferring other taxpayer's money to a private business.

If an oil company is making a $10 profit and you cut their tax rate from 30% to 25%, the government takes in $2.5 billion instead of $3 billion. But it is still taking IN money. It does not have to transfer other taxpayer's money to the oil company.

A tax reduction is not a subsidy - at least not if everyone gets it. Targeted tax breaks are still not subsidies, but they are corrupting and unfair. Originally Posted by ExNYer

Everyone did not get it, that is why it is a subsidy. The internet has gotten a tax subsidy because internet sales have not had to pay sales tax. That hurts brick and mortar stores. That is kinda like the government helping green energy at the expense of big oil....even though big oil gets plenty of tax breaks.

See my example above to show how the taxpayers got fuc'd by special interests groups. It happens all the time ....my point is that you defend some and ridicule others. In your defense we all do it. In my defense , I am trying to point out that we all do it and not just liberals.

I will point out one last thing. Much of this oil is located on federal lands. It is in fact 'our' oil, not big oils.

BTW...has anyone answered the common good question of building a pipeline to help foreign countries process their crude at the taxpayers expense?

Just as predicted:
============================== ==========================
http://www.businessinsider.com/obama...pproval-2013-2

Obama Is Desperately Trying To Find A Way To Approve The Keystone Pipeline

On Sunday, the leader of the Canadian Province that is home to “the Saudi Arabia of dirty oil,” Alberta’s tar sands, returned home to Alberta, after spending the weekend in Washington DC, meeting with more than twenty U.S. Senators, plus many state Governors, and with Administration officials.
She was lobbying for approval of the Keystone XL Pipeline to be built, to carry this oil onto the global market.
In deciding what to do about the proposed Pipeline, President Barack Obama is caught between two sides. On the one side are environmentalists, such as NASA’s James Hansen who warned about the Canadian tar-sands oil that this Pipeline would transport, “It Will Be Game Over for the Climate” if this Pipeline to a Texas port ever gets built.


....

Obama allegedly wants these verbal assurances not really in order to prevent destruction of the climate by the global release of this extremely carbon-laden tar-sands oil, but rather in order to quell concerns from America’s environmentalists, before he decides whether to grant the go-ahead. He is “expected to rule in the June-to-September time frame whether to green light the project.”

...
============================== ============================

Canada smartly reneged on their Kyoto Protocol agreement.

Just as predicted:

Originally Posted by gnadfly

You do understand that they rerouted the thing in Nebraska?

And for the record, I have never said it would not be passed. I just like to point out the subsidies they get , just like Soylndra got.

Yet you Tea Wipes sit on your hands with one and scream like little girls about the other!

Here are three reasons to build the pipeline:

http://reason.com/blog/2013/02/17/3-...stone-xl-pipel Originally Posted by Whirlaway

EPIC FAIL

10. The pipeline has received extremely little actual government oversight. You make that sound like a bad thing.“companies Yes, it is called the free market. The oil can be sold anywhere by the people who own it. You have a problem with that? We (WE? Then why isn't Canada telling anyone that they are going to sell it here? LMAO It is going to China but it is being refined in Texas where it will contribute to OUR pollution!) can buy it for less than some country who has to ship it. Take your socialism to another site.
And, a thorough, independent analysis from researchers at Cornell said it could even cost the U.S. jobs in the long term! That's right! Try to confuse the issue with half truths (HALF TRUTHS? LMAO!). Any and all construction projects create many more temporary jobs than permanent jobs. Common sense. Tell the people who would get permanent jobs that they don't deserve to have jobs.
5. We don’t create energy independence by focusing our efforts and money on further oil production. We get much more bang for the buck by putting all of that into clean energy vehicles and clean power options. Bottom line. Now we get to the fantasy. The country burns oil NOW and even the most optimistic experts think clean energy is still a couple of decades away. Why don't you stop breathing until we can perfect the artificial gill. TWENTY YEARS AWAY because of MORONS like you and the rest of the "Teapublican Rat Wing Rape the Planet Until There is Nothing Left but Alternative Energy" and then fret over why we have passed the tipping point to save the planet.
4. Obama is listening to and supporting citizens (i.e. doing his job). Over 10,000 people got off their couches and encircled the White House in November to oppose this project. Over 1,000 got arrested last summer in opposition to it. This tremendous show of concern and passion came about for a reason — the project was bad for the American people. 10,000? Is that all. How many were bought and paid for by a special interest like Big Environment. You laughed at the idea of over 1 million people opposing Obamacare and 26 states refusing to set up the mechanisms to run it. So much for the wishes of the majority. 90% of those efforts were funded by the Cock Brothers, the Health Insurance Industry and Big Pharma, you stupid asswipe. THE MAJORITY of America has ALWAYS been FOR the various provisions in Obamacare but its detractors have villainized the name well enough for its repeal to poll at about 50%. When polled on the separate provision of Obamacare, it has NEVER polled under 53% for any part with some provisions like pre-existing conditions and carrying non-minor dependents to age 26 have consistently polled in the high 60's and even high 70's. You are SERIAL misstater of the underlying truth, Barley for Brains.
3. Republicans in congress and the oil industry tried to bully Obama into approving the pipeline without even adequately reviewing its environmental impacts (even sending a public email to him stating that rejecting the pipeline would result in “huge political consequences.”). That’s plain stupid (unless you know that a good review will result in pipeline rejection and all your money is on the pipeline going through). Standing up for the millions or even billions of people who rely on clean water and a livable climate by not rushing a full review is the right thing to do. Billions? Billions? Going a little over the top aren't we? Where is your proof that clean water is endangered? Have you come out against fracking too? MORON! 3,500,000,000 residents of this planet do not have toilets or sewage treatment. That is half the planet, you idiot!
2. Tar sands development and the Keystone XL pipeline that would enable a ton of that was essentially “the fuse to the biggest carbon bomb on the planet.” Tar sands oil is 3 times worse for the global climate than conventional crude oil. Goodbye, livable climate, in other words. Oil is oil, you really have to explain the rational behind this shit. YOU ARE STUPID! Do you really not know why sweet light sells for more? You should be yanked immediately from your alleged teaching position! Good luck with that.
1. The U.S. would get practically nothing from the project. On the other hand, it would face numerous risks and problems. Additionally, the world would suffer tremendously from it. In other words, all of the above. Proof! If the pipeline goes to the West coast then China benefits. If no one benefits as you claim then why is it being done and why would China participate? You must have the same agent as a certain Hollywood actress who just tweeted the same thing a couple of days ago. MORON! The XL Pipeline is scheduled to send the tar sand oil to the TEXAS coastal refineries where the pollution will blow Northward carried by the prevailing Southerly winds off the Gulf. THEN the fucking oil will NOT be sold to the U.S. but rather to the global market (mainly to China) where the dirtier tar sand oil will be used without regard for its harm to the planet. Your weak-ass argument several paragraphs above tried to tout this as a free market issue. WHY THE FUCK should WE SUBSIDIZE or HELP Canada make more money on their dirty oil for the pittance we Americans will receive in pipeline lease agreements, maintenance and refining when the pollution and leaks will DIRECTLY foul U.S. land, air and water AND the lax pollution regs in China will spew more tar sand oil emissions into the world's atmosphere? MONEY is YOUR answer and it is a sick one at that! Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

EPIC FAIL, Barley for Brains!

I have a problem with the government taking land for private use that does not benifit but a few. That is called crony Cap. You don't have a problem with that?

Many folks in Neb , do.

If we are going to build a pipleline, then sell the gasoline to our citizens, not China's.

YES! Why do it if it doesn't help OUR citizens MORE than it hurts them?
Originally Posted by WTF

Well said, WTF!

The government takes land for the private use of railroad companies, too. Especially freight railroads. That's all private money there - no passengers, so no wide public benefit.

And those railroads bring products to ports and ship them to other countries. What do we do about this scandalous railroad situation? Shut them down? Force them to transport goods only for domestic consumption? HA HA HA HA HA! You're attempt to cleverly leave out or obscure the domestic rail destinations as a MAJOR REASON for how much the railroads help the American economy is ANOTHER OMISSION intended to prop up the IDIOTS, Barley for Brains and Whirly. You are arguing for a pipeline that will not even be a blip on the radar screen as far as helping the American economy and you are doing is by obfuscation rather than by using the whole picture. Originally Posted by ExNYer

EPIC FAIL!

Every drop of that oil will go to Asia. Canadian oil piped through the US for export to China.

Remind me again what jobs this will create in the US after construction is complete? The people who clean up the spills from the pipeline? Amen! What is it about the truth that so alienates the morons in the Rat Wing? Originally Posted by timpage

Well said AND TRUTHFUL, timpage!

HA HA HA HA HA! You're attempt to cleverly leave out or obscure the domestic rail destinations as a MAJOR REASON for how much the railroads help the American economy is ANOTHER OMISSION intended to prop up the IDIOTS, Barley for Brains and Whirly. You are arguing for a pipeline that will not even be a blip on the radar screen as far as helping the American economy and you are doing is by obfuscation rather than by using the whole picture. Originally Posted by Little Stevie

EPIC FAIL!

You, Little Blind Boy, are obscuring and leaving out the positive economic impact of jobs associated with pipeline construction, maintenance, pumping stations, refineries, transfer points and port facilities! IDIOT!

You guys are really renaming some things. Let us use another 'hypothetical', and say the government is a bank. The only bank.

It loans Solyndra 500 million in hopes of a ROI. OK.

Now Big Oil deposits 100 Billion dollars , then spends it on an investment and wants the bank to pay accelerated interests on money no longer in the bank.

In one case the bank lost 500 million because Solyndra went bankrupt, in the other case the government lost out on 1-1.8 Billion because that is what it paid Big Oil in accelerated interest.

There is a case that can be made that inventing battery cells that are cheaper and have a long charge life are way more in the publics interest than a heavy crude refinery that processes foreign crude for many countries that do not have our best interests at heart. In fact their is not one country on the planet that has our best interest at heart. They have their best interest at heart...as well they should have.

Either way, one company has cost the American taxpayers 500M and the other has cost the taxpayer 1-1.8Billion.
Originally Posted by WTF

That's an apples to oranges comparison. You are comparing one "green-weenie" operation to an entire industry. The government still garners tax revenue off the workers' income and taxes on generated purchases and sales associated with the petro-chemical business.

build the damn thing already ... the unions need the work and Canadian oil Companies need a new hub to export the oil, aka, Houston ... you rightwing idgets bitch about unions this and unions that, well heres your reason to bitch about keystone ... unless of course youre a damn hypocritical pos, which you are ..

http://www.pipeline-news.com/feature...-american-jobs

build the damn thing already ... the unions need the work and Canadian oil Companies need a new hub to export the oil, aka, Houston ... you rightwing idgets bitch about unions this and unions that, well heres your reason to bitch about keystone ... unless of course youre a damn hypocritical pos, which you are ..

http://www.pipeline-news.com/feature...-american-jobs Originally Posted by CJ7

Whereas normally you libertard idgets fanatically sanctify as "legitimately righteous" everything about unions this and unions that, you sanctimonious hypocrite!