Special Interests Against the Keystone XL Pipeline: A Selection

|

Just making supporters happy

It's official—the Obama Administration is refusing to allow the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline from Canada to the U.S. Gulf Coast to proceed. As the State Department press release states: 

Today, the Department of State recommended to President Obama that the presidential permit for the proposed Keystone XL Pipeline be denied and, that at this time, the TransCanada Keystone XL Pipeline be determined not to serve the national interest. 

And a bevy of special interests are flooding my inbox with congratulatory emails. Below is a selection of comments from them: 

Friends of the Earth: We Won on Keystone XL! 

I wish I could jump out of your computer screen and give you a giant hug right now. 

I can't do that — but I do hope you will join me in giving President Obama the giant collective hug of thanks that he deserves for saying no to the Keystone XL and to more dirty, climate-wrecking tar sands oil. 

The press release is signed "in Soldarity" by Kim Hyunh, who is chief FOE anti-Keystone XL campaigner. 

Credo Mobile: Keystone Project Dead, But Not Buried

"It's a victory that the pressure of activists forced the president to stand up and reject naked political threats from the oil industry," said Michael Kieschnick, CEO of CREDO Mobile. 

Energy Action Coalition Executive Director, Maura Cowley: 

"President Obama's decision to stand up to Big Oil and reject the Keystone XL pipeline, despite the bullying of Big Oil, shows a strong commitment to stand with young people fighting for a clean and just energy future."

President of American Rivers, Wm. Robert Irvin: 

"I applaud the President's decision to reject the permit for the Keystone XL Pipeline.  Big Oil and their allies in Congress were pushing to force approval of the pipeline without adequate scientific review and for political gain.  We should never put politics ahead of clean water for Americans."

Tyson Slocum, Director, Public Citizen's Energy Program: 

"Fortunately, the president has taken a stand against the oil industry and its paid campaign of lies about jobs and energy security. This is the president's opportunity to start to end the tyranny of oil and start moving toward a new energy economy that protects the climate, creates jobs and respects the health of our families." 

Finally, there was this forlorn email from International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers President Edwin D. Hill: 

"We believe that the decision-making process has been caught up in political gamesmanship.  To those Democrats who oppose the pipeline on well-meaning but misguided environmental grounds and those Republicans who routinely vote against every jobs bill except Keystone, we pose this question: What are your plans to replace the 20,000 jobs that are now on hold?" 

At moments like these one does well to keep firmly in mind satirist Ambrose Bierce's definition of politics:

A strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles. The conduct of public affairs for private advantage.

NEXT: The Golden Age of Libertarianism That Never Was

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Well, I suppose that’s one reason to elect Romney.

    1. Obama hates jobs.

  2. Do these idiot not understand the oil is going to be used anyway? Another pipeline will be made, perhaps not through Texas (more likely cutting across Canada for the Chinese). The did nothing except maybe give the Canadians a few thousand jobs.

    1. Thank you Scruffy, for making the same point I made way down below in far fewer words.

      You can’t drive a tractor-trailer via more wind farms.

  3. Okay so now what? More Solyndras, high speed rail boondoggles, and Chevy Volts?

    1. I almost got hit by one of those yesterday.

      1. What a pity…that it missed. Was it not quiet enough?

        1. Those hybrids are fucking scary stealthy. My dad has a Prius, and that thing sneaks right up on people.

          I think they should remake Death Race: 2000 again but with electric cars.

          1. Leela: [tries to kill Project Satan with a silver potato to the exhaust pipe] Oh, no! Theres’s no exhaust pipe!

            Project Satan: That’s right! Thanks to Ed Begley Jr.’s electic motor, the most evil propulsion system ever conceived!

            1. Good for the environment, bad for humanity.

              1. Calculon: The year was 2019, and I was just a lowly robot arm working on Project Satan, a savage, intelligent military car built from the most evil parts of the most evil cars in all the world. The steering wheel from Hitler’s staff car. The left turn signal from Charles Manson’s VW. The windshield wipers from that car that played Knight Rider.

                Fry: Knight Rider wasn’t evil.

                Calculon: His windshield wipers were. It didn’t come up much in the show, though. Anyway, only after bringing Project Satan to live did they discover they had made a horrible mistake. For you see, it was pure evil!

                1. I’ll never understand why you have so many quotes memorized from a show that was only a little funny.

                  1. So it seems your level of taste in TV shows is equal to your taste in shit, Jimbo. You probably think B.J. and the Bear is the funniest TV show of all time.

                    1. Jim harbors sexual fantasies about Joey Lauren Adams dressed as Burt Reynolds.

                    2. Is your handle meant to be ironic, or do you really believe it?

                    3. Is your handle meant to be ironic, or do you really believe it?

                      Assuming you mean me, my handle is 100% genuine. I really do have a huge akston.

                    4. I really do have a huge akston.

                      Is it big enough to sharpen swords on, too?

                    5. Is your handle meant to be ironic, or do you really believe it?

                      X3?

                      Get over it!

                    6. Jim harbors sexual fantasies about Mindy Cohn dressed as Joey Lauren Adams, too. Or wait, sorry, that’s FoE.

                    7. Wasn’t the theme song, the Eagle’s Take it Easy?

                    8. No, Glen Larson wrote the theme song specifically for the show.

                  2. I rarely praise television, but Futurama is a gem. Brilliant, even, sometimes.

                2. The year was 2019, and I was just a lowly robot arm working on Project Satan, a savage, intelligent military car built from the most evil parts of the most evil cars in all the world. The steering wheel from Hitler’s staff car. The left turn signal from Charles Manson’s VW. The windshield wipers from that car that played Knight Rider.

                  True story: I saw Stalin’s staff car at an automobile museum in Riga. The Latvians there were visibly in dread of it. And Obama refused to veto a bill that gives him Stalin-like powers to make people disappear when he deems them enemies of the state.

                  1. Another thread shot to hell.

                3. KITT

              2. I haven’t seen much evidence for the “good for the environment” part.

        2. No, like all hybrid/electrics, it was piloted by an obsequious invertebrate.

          I was crossing in the middle of a street where I had no expectation of right-of-way, and instead of plowing me over like he should have, he just fucking stopped and waited for me to cross.

          He may have honked at me, but again this was a Volt, so I would have no way of hearing it.

          1. One day, electric cars will be piloted by evil robots, and they will run you over. That day can’t come soon enough.

          2. “He may have honked at me, but again this was a Volt, so I would have no way of hearing it.”

            Nope. The batteries were down, and if he honked, he wouldn’t have gotten home.

      2. What, a high-speed rail?

        1. I got a ‘high speed rail’ing for ya.

  4. The “tyranny of oil”???? Do they not like civilization?

    1. They love civilization! Their favorite is medieval civilization where all the right people were in charge and the serfs kept their nasty mouths shut.

      1. Hey, it was sustainable! Provided you have a major plague every century or so.

        1. I thought that we were all agreed that civilization is for city-STATIST chumps. Did I mishear that?

        2. Those were late-term abortions.

    2. Don’t get me started…

  5. Why does the president have a say in this in the first place?

    1. I’m curious why it’s the Dept. of State and not the Interior making this call. Sure, it’s Canadian oil but the brouhaha is all about protecting the friggin’ trees and bunnies, right?

      1. I’m curious how this is any bidness of the gummint at all. But there I go, reading the Constitution again…

      2. State makes this call because it’s crossing a foreign border.

        All the other agencies responsible for environmental and engineering issues (in both countries) have already OKed it. They are required to evaluate a project strictly on its technical merits.

        In the absence of a war with the country in question State should just rubber stamp something like this this. This is a political decision and Obama has made it in a way that he thinks will serve his political interests not the well being of the country.

      1. What’s the treaty for, keeping flow open? Shouldn’t this just be between the people building the pipeline and the land owners?

        1. The pipeline’s route probably runs though a shitload of Federal land.

          1. Holy crap. 30% of the whole country?

            1. Ha!! Suck on that!

            2. Hey, and this is a libertarins paradise!

  6. After Joe Biden, this is the biggest gift Barry has ever given the GOP. Now I want to see Newt nominated just so I can watch him beat Barry over the head with this for six straight months.

    1. Joe Biden is a meaningless moron who has had no effect on anybody. I don’t want to see Newt do anything and once he’s finished beating Barry over the head he’ll return to beating the rest of us and it won’t be restricted to the head.

      1. I don’t want to see Newt do anything

        I agree with that.

        I don’t really care one way or the other about Gov. Just Barely Good Enough, but I will vote for Romney anyway to see Obama off. But if Newt wins the nomination, I think I will stay home.

  7. Can we stop using the term “special interests”? It’s a pet peeve of mine, since it’s basically a meaningless term that stands for “those on the other side of an issue from me who lobby government for their opinion and preferential treatment.”

    1. But my interests aren’t special. They’re the ones everyone would have if they weren’t evil.

    2. As opposed to “those on my side of an issue who lobby government for their opinion and preferential treatment”?

      1. Right, those aren’t “special interests”. They’re advocates for a noble cause.

        1. Isn’t that…..

          Ah, fuck it.

    3. Proprietrist: As I am sure you realize, I use the term with some malice aforethought.

      1. And here I thought you were just being an asshole.

  8. I can’t help but feel that this would have stood a better chance of passing if it was named the Anchor Steam Pipeline, instead of Keystone.

    1. Sam Adams Pipeline. What would the Founders think?

    2. Keystone XL: Always Smooth. Always.

      1. How about Chardonnay Magnum? That should make a couple of groups happy.

        1. Parducci Biodynamic Pipeline.

    3. They should have named it the Sustainable Energy Independence for the Children’s Better Tomorrow Pipeline.

      1. Sustainable Energy Independence for Us pipeline…the initials come with built-in contributor support.

    4. Yeah, with Keith Stone installing and maintaining the pipeline, it’s bound to end up making a mess of half the states it runs through.

  9. I just don’t get this from a political standpoint. Put aside that oil is fungible and the cost of oil will roughly be the same whether it goes to Texas or China. The number of campaign contributions and vote he’s going to get from this are going to be dwarfed by the number of votes he’s going to lose by making sure the jobs are going to be in other countries when they didn’t have to be.

    1. Here we are at Ground-Zero of Libertarian purity – Not understanding the actions of a pure anti-capitalism socialist.

      1. I just thought they wanted power more.

      2. Some men just want to watch the world burn.
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=efHCdKb5UWc

        1. Not with gasoline apparently.

    2. It’s quite simple; if people figure out they don’t need to government to provide jobs, then Government loses power over those people. Fear will keep the locals in line; fear of this Government.

      1. Did Obama dissolve the Senate?

    3. “The number of campaign contributions and vote he’s going to get from this are going to be dwarfed by the number of votes he’s going to lose by making sure the jobs are going to be in other countries when they didn’t have to be.”

      Dunno about this. The Eco-Religionists have pretty organized groups which can deliver blocks of votes.
      Those who didn’t get a job don’t have an organization to deliver those votes.
      Can’t credit the comment, but a cult becomes a religion when it can deliver a million votes; I’d say the Eco-Religionists qualify.

        1. “Uh . . .
          Labor unions.”
          Not a bad alternative, but since Obama is owned by them, it seems they couldn’t counter the Eco-Religionist vote.
          By definition, if Obama found more votes from them, he’d have weather-vaned right in line.

        2. labor unions would cut off their own dicks rather than vote for the candidate NOT named Obama. Besides, he gave them two stooges on the NLRB.

  10. So their objection really is just that oil is icky? I kept waiting for the other shoe to drop- who’s pockets will rejecting this line, something that at least makes sense. But nope, I think these people really are that stupid and simplistic. I’m surprised no puns on “crude” were included in their little celebratory nonsense.

    1. So their objection really is just that oil is icky?

      To be fair to them, it is impossible to get out of carpet.

    2. I think the subtext here is that Canadian oil is icky. Obama will visit Saudi Arabia later this year for the traditional Sheikle-jerk ceremony to no lefty objection.

      But seriously, who wants crude oil cut with maple syrup?

      1. Sheikle-jerk ceremony

        Exceedingly well played, sir. Made me laugh even through the rage induced by enviro-nuts and the governments who capitulate to them.

      2. Obama will visit Saudi Arabia later this year for the traditional Sheikle-jerk ceremony to no lefty objection.

        Why would they? This is part of the New Diplomacy with the Middle East:

        Yes, we’ll buy even more of your oil… because now we have to!

        Hope’nChange!

      3. You’re very funny and sarcastic, “Hugh.”
        Will you be here all week?

        1. Don’t encourage him. Trust me on this.

          1. Only six more internet complements before I level up.

            1. Maybe you will even get some compliments one of these days too. ;-P

              1. Clearly the Spelling skill is not available to Pok?men of my level.

            2. I think WI comments should count as complements as well.

  11. “We should never put politics ahead of clean water for Americans.”

    And … this is why I do not vote.

    1. This is why I do vote, for all the good it does.

      1. Why do you not want clean water for Americans?

        1. So that they have to buy the water from my evil corp. at insane rates bwah ha ha ha ha.

          1. You’ll just get taxed out of existence.

            We all lose when people vote.

          2. Don’t count on it. I saw on TV that LutherCorp had bought up all the water rights.

  12. It’s a perfect move if you’re aiming for a war with Iran, timed perfectly for election season.

    1. “Nuke Their Ass & Take The Gas!”

  13. Today, the Department of State recommended to President Obama that the presidential permit for the proposed Keystone XL Pipeline be denied and, that at this time, the TransCanada Keystone XL Pipeline be determined not to serve the national interest.

    His grace, Barack I Obama, the First of His Name, King of the Yankees, the Southrons, and the West Men, Defender of the Faith, and Protector of the Realm, issues the following proclamation:

    Fuck America, fuck Canada, and those reading this proclamation, FUCK YOU!

    1. Clearly we too are past due for a King in the North. I wonder if The Jacket is up for the challenge. Winter is here, bitches.

    2. I think he just meant to say Fuck You to the Republicans. He was “communicating” with them, in the way in which heads of state “communicate”. By fucking over a few hundred thousand peons and making the country miserable in order to”send a message”.

  14. Do you think there will be a PM links blackout?

  15. While normally I would be darkly amused at the prospect of 20,000 union laborers losing their job, I tend not to like it when an economic decision that makes a union suffer is also one that causes the price of my gasoline to rise.

    I’m guessing if it goes up by about 30 cents more, we’ll be seeing it become a campaign issue.

  16. A point that the anti-oil activists either intentionally avoid, flat out obfuscate, or are patently ignorant about, is that oil is a tiny percentage of our “energy” use, particularly when it comes to the majority of energy consumed.

    to wit = http://205.254.135.7/pub/oil_g…..sector.htm

    Oil contributes less than 2% to actual electricity production.

    The vast vast majority of oil is used in the transportation sector. 60%-70%. Another 20% is used in industrial production purposes, making plastics, fertilizers, lubricants, your sneaker soles, part of chemicals, road-building materials, and so on. Another 5-8% is heating. The ‘miscellaneous’ category is larger than what oil contributes to domestic electricity consumption.

    If these people are so concerned about “clean energy” (and what ‘clean’ really means is itself debatable)… well then, this kind of thing really doesn’t do fuck-all at all about it, because the truth is that all the current ‘clean energy’ products bandied about aren’t in ANY WAY replacements for oil at all, in any way. Their crusade against oil is a complete exercise in tilting at windmills. (pun intended)

    As in, a Wind Farm will not make planes fly, trucks & ships transport goods, or heat people’s homes in the Northeast. No clean energy technology in the world yet provides any viable alternative to coal & oil for the vast majority of major applications of energy use for what they do.

    All wind, solar, hydro, biomass, etc possibly could ever do is possibly *complement* part of residential/some commercial electricity consumption.

    Unless there is a car, plane, train, transport ship, etc, waiting in the wings that will run on some hippy fairy dust… clean energy in truth, has nothing to do with oil. ‘Reducing our demand for oil’ is a complete joke. If the dragon they wanted to slay was Coal… well, then they may have the beginning of a point. But a short one, and one easily beaten to a pulp with one hand.

    The opposition to oil…? its ultimately just an anti-capitalist/environmentalist bugbear. If anyone actually thinks the solution might be… Electric Cars! Wow… thats brilliant…. Hmm. Hey, I wonder where all those millions and billions of new Megawatts of electricity needed to drive these Golf-Carts of tomorrow are going to come from? Ever done the math on that one, Friends of the Earth? Sure. We’ll just cover every inch of space in the country with wind turbines and solar panels and dam every river in the country! Problem solved! That sounds *totally* environmentally friendly to me!

    The point is = there is no viable “alternative”, and pretending there is pure fantasy bullshit. Ironically, the one true ‘clean’ tech that provides some real cost-benefit is probably Nuclear… but don’t get the Envirotards even started on that one.

    Basically, they’re fighting a ‘problem’ that doesn’t exist, with ‘solutions’ that don’t even apply to the stated fictitious problem. I am not sure how many of them even bother to spend an hour actually thinking through their own bullshit.

    1. If the dragon they wanted to slay was Coal… well, then they may have the beginning of a point. But a short one, and one easily beaten to a pulp with one hand.

      You forgot to mention how many power companies are switching to natural gas because of the massive amounts of reserves found recently too. There, I beat the point for you.

    2. If massive improvements were made in solar technology there would be some of the exact same people shrieking their heads off about the rapacious windfall profits of Big Solar and about how we need to atone for our sin of industrial development.

      1. I spoke to a liberal friend of mine a few years back about Solar and Wind. He seemed to be under the impression that such forms of energy were free, and required only an initial investment to give us free energy forever and ever and ever.

        Anyways, the point is, most proponents of these energy sources seem to be under a similar belief; not understanding upkeep and operating costs.

        The reason we use the forms of energy we use aren’t because we’re lazy, it’s because they’re very cheap.

        1. I hope I’m alive long enough to see how these people react to the cost of dismantling and replacing these facilities.

          I will especially relish their grief when they see how difficult it is to dispose all of the toxic materials these things are built from.

        2. It is not cheaper to build complex machinery to drill fossil fuels from the earth, ship it worldwide, and cause all sorts of environmental harm.

          It only seems cheap because the costs are either transferred to society at large or are directly subsidized.

          1. Bullshit. But keep believing in the hope and change.

          2. Tony|1.18.12 @ 9:20PM|#
            “It is not cheaper to build complex machinery to drill fossil fuels from the earth, ship it worldwide, and cause all sorts of environmental harm.”
            Prove your claim, shithead.

          3. they’re cheap because any equipment for them is redundant. We’ve tried wind and solar and whatever else for as long as I’ve been alive, and nothing. We have oil and natural gas at our disposal. It becomes difficult to take a country seriously when it refuses to use its own resources.

    3. Unless there is a car, plane, train, transport ship, etc, waiting in the wings that will run on some hippy fairy dust… clean energy in truth, has nothing to do with oil.

      Now there’s a thought. Grind all the hippies and fairies into dust and blow it into a combustion chamber with some pure oxygen. Plenty of energy. Don’t know how clean it would be, but it would certainly clean up the “environment.”

    4. As in, a Wind Farm will not make planes fly, trucks & ships transport goods, or heat people’s homes in the Northeast. No clean energy technology in the world yet provides any viable alternative to coal & oil for the vast majority of major applications of energy use for what they do.

      Unicorn farts will power those you anti-intellectual, redneck Kochsucker.

      1. the anti-intellectual moniker is pretty awesome.

        because only, ‘intellectuals’ can believe in shit that has no basis in fact.

  17. I am not sure how many of them even bother to spend an hour actually thinking through their own bullshit.

    Some things are just too important to think about.

    1. There’s a time for thinking and a time for action. And this is definitely not a time for thinking!

  18. To those Democrats who oppose the pipeline on well-meaning but misguided environmental grounds and those Republicans who routinely vote against every jobs bill except Keystone, we pose this question: What are your plans to replace the 20,000 jobs that are now on hold?”

    Perhaps the Republicans voted for Keystone because these were 20,000 (or so) real jobs, not 20,000 make-work government jobs. But I also understand that Unions don’t make that distinction. A job is a job is a job, even if they have to extract the salary directly out of my wallet.

    /endgopdefense

  19. You guys just knee-jerk to pro dirty energy no matter what. And all that crying over eminent domain abuse…

    Sure the environment is an interest just like Big Oil. Doesn’t mean people with brains can’t figure out whose interest coincides with the nation’s more.

    1. Right, because now that we don’t have this icky Canadian pipeline running cross ‘murrica, windmills are now powering my car! The transformation is magickal!

    2. Energy is like sex; I like it any way I can get it, dirty or clean.

    3. But Tony, you do make one point worth responding to in earnest: Eminent Domain. Let’s see how the environmental industry pimped their cause:

      Take for instance, Randy Thompson, a Nebraska landowner featured in The New York Times. NYT reports that if Thompson did not sell his land, Keystone would use the force of eminent domain

      Etc. etc. *does doubletake*

      Say what? Keystone would use the power of Eminent Domain? When did Keystone get this power? Oh wait, Keystone doesn’t have this power… who does have this power?!! It starts with a “G” and ends in “overnment”.

      http://www.triplepundit.com/20…..nt-domain/

      And then there’s this treatment by the NYT:

      A Canadian company has been threatening to confiscate private land from South Dakota to the Gulf of Mexico…

      *does another doubletake*

      Wait, what now? Keystone and what army? Oh yeah, that army that’s raised and quartered by an institution that begins with “G” and ends in “overnment”.

      And which party demanded the ever-widened use of Eminent Domain? Which newspapers editorialized about the greedy Kelos and “property rights extremists”?

      Yeah, your disdain for eminenent domain is a very thin veil indeed.

      1. Yeah, yeah… but CORPORAZHUNS!11!!

    4. Re: Tony,

      You guys just knee-jerk to pro dirty energy no matter what.

      There’s no such thing as “dirty energy.” Go back to High School and take a Physics class, you ignorant twit.

      1. I think its actually spelled “Twat”

    5. “There’s this belief that TransCanada treats eminent domain as a tool,” Jones told Reuters. “That’s not true. We wait until the last moment.”

      “We empathize with those who are frustrated. TransCanada does not treat eminent domain frivolously. It is absolutely the last choice we take,” he added.

      Tony actually brings up an interesting point. Taking Tony at face value, it appears that Tony has become simpatico with us “property rights extremists”.

    6. Tony|1.18.12 @ 6:50PM|#
      “…Doesn’t mean people with brains can’t figure out whose interest coincides with the nation’s more.”

      Could be, shithead, but there’d be no way for you to know.

    7. Tony can be the first one into the combustion chamber. Please see my comment above.

    8. ….of Mid-East Oil Sheiks’ interests. Load those tankers with pristine.

      And anti-technology to boot….

      1. I believe I’ve been fairly consistent in my belief that we should end fossil fuel based energy as quickly as possible.

        1. Yes belief is about where you are at.

        2. Tony|1.18.12 @ 9:11PM|#
          “I believe I’ve been fairly consistent in my belief that we should end fossil fuel based energy as quickly as possible.”
          Yes, shithead, your consistency as an ignoramus is not open to question.
          Nor is your stupidity; care to tell us how all that ‘icky’ oil is replaced shithead?

        3. “as quickly as possible” will be defined by the discovery an abundant, affordable, mass-market ready alternative. We ain’t there yet. Did you not notice that or are you purposely overlooking that fact?

          1. We could be there if we threw lots and lots more government money at it.

            It’s a problem that needs to be solved. We don’t need the market to tell us it’s a problem. We know it is. It’s a failure of the market, frankly.

            1. We could be there if we threw lots and lots more government money at it.

              Now that is the Tony we all know and loathe.

        4. Re: Tony,

          I believe I’ve been fairly consistent in my belief that we should end fossil fuel based energy as quickly as possible.

          You can always go naked…

          Polyester… get it?

  20. Now they can devote their efforts to wiping out coal mines.

  21. Any self-respecting libertarian should be against this project–it is a subsidized corporatist venture–the subsidy is the power of eminent domain, which is needed for this private project to be successful. Can you say Kelo? Those tree huggers may not be the kind of folk that libertarian types are normally on the side of, but I wonder if your principled stand in this has more to do with the involvement of Koch Industries in this project than your concern about “special interests.”

    1. Re: Becky Chandler,

      Any self-respecting libertarian should be against this project–it is a subsidized corporatist venture–the subsidy is the power of eminent domain, which is needed for this private project to be successful.

      You’re right, but the government rejected the project not for concerns over private property rights but for political points with people hostile to private property rights. Either way, the government is already violating private property rights as well as the protection of contracts, by imposing itself into a relationship between voluntary parties, that is: the land owners and the pipeline builders.

    2. I can be against the use of eminent domain and against Obama saying “no” at the same time. There’s nothing saying the XL project *has* to use eminent domain to achieve its goals.

      1. Come on, there are degrees of eminent domain. Running a pipeline is not like saying “We want to demolish your neighborhood to build a hotel for our campaign contributor developer friend.”

        1. I did some research about the ed issues with the pipeline, and most of them amounted to easement access for a 36″ diameter pipe.

          None of this is to defend a taking of someone’s property, but yes, in practice there are degrees of takings.

          I would have loved to have seen this project fall on its face over ed issues, but instead, as per usual it’s not the taking of someone’s land that’s at issue, it’s chimeric environmental issues. Still, I’m glad obama rammed it to his union supporters.

          I’m now preloaded for all future discussions with tony, or anyone else for that matter with daily kos postings about how happy they were when that greedy bitch susan kelo lost her fight against new london.

          1. THIS.

            Oil Pipeline + Texas Constitution = ALL YOUR LAND ARE BELONG TO US.

    3. Any self-respecting libertarian should be against this project

      In a related point, I hear no true Scotsman wears underwear under their kilts.

      it is a subsidized corporatist venture–the subsidy is the power of eminent domain

      Citation needed. Eminent domain is constitutional (though horribly mutated through the abuses of state governments and black robed tyrants). Subsidizing businesses and persons is not a power explicitly granted to the federal government.

      Those tree huggers may not be the kind of folk that libertarian types are normally on the side of

      Eminent domain is not the argument the treehuggers are making, therefore your point about environmentalists and libertarians making common cause is moot.

      I wonder if your principled stand in this has more to do with the involvement of Koch Industries in this project than your concern about “special interests.”

      And she spikes the ad hominem! Judges?

      Perfect 10!

      1. Hang on, I need a ruling – exactly how many DRINKS is that?

    4. “Those tree huggers may not be the kind of folk that libertarian types are normally on the side of,…”

      Are the tree huggers objecting to Keystone on the basis of eminent domain? I don’t think so, it sounds like their typical hate for readily available and useful energy sources. I don’t they give a rodent’s hindquarters for the eminent domain aspects of this project.

    5. Fuck off. If you have to the Koch smear, you have nothing to say.

      1. GO to the Koch smear, you have nothing to say.

    6. Paultard…

  22. OT: Wikipedia blackout causes SOPA to collapse.

    I’d hate to have millions of wikipedos calling me and bitching because they can’t edit too.

    1. Wikipedia’s “blackout” was a total idiot test. I got around that by changing my NoScript whitelist. Some computer geniuses you are, Wikimedia.

      1. I assumed they left a workaround for the high school kids who have a paper due tomorrow.

  23. Libertarians for big government asserting eminent domain and building giant projects across state and national borders!

    Oh, it’s just whoring for Big Oil, the directive that supersedes all others.

    1. Hey, I’ll make you a deal:

      Get rid of eminent domain.

      Then the project dies, and you can be happy.

      Of course, then I don’t have to hear the environmental lobby’s demagogic lies about safety, and I can be happy, too.

      See? Everybody wins.

      1. No way in hell the Government will -ever- give up its “right” of eminent domain. Could you imagine telling the Tony’s of the world that the government can’t plop a government project wherever it deems fit?

        1. If they were proposing eminent domain for a solar project, I’m sure Tony would be yelling just as loud.

      2. The Oilmega directive!

    2. Re: Tony,

      Libertarians for big government asserting eminent domain and building giant projects across state and national borders!

      Really? Can you show me where such is being said?

      No? Then, fuck off.

      1. Yeah, in the disgusting oil whoring happening all over this thread.

        Why do you guys favor the big oil line every single fucking time? Is it just because you don’t like hippies? I thought you people had principles.

        1. We like hippies…..dipped in crude oil and set ablaze, of course.

        2. we tend to favor the use of oil because:
          1) we need it
          2) our system is geared to use it
          3) makes more sense to use what is here or close by than to pay Brazil to drill for it
          4) there is no energy source to replace it

          We also favor it because it fuels our cars so we can drive to work so we can earn paychecks that the govt will then confiscate large chunks of. The last one is sarcasm.

          1. Now, assume arguendo that the burning of oil contributes to massive global environmental harm. How does that impact your rationalization?

            1. It doesn’t, because there’s no economically-viable alternative, and because only complete morons believe that one could be developed in the near term through massive government subsidies and hoping really hard.

              Next question?

    3. Tony|1.18.12 @ 7:02PM|#
      “Libertarians for big government asserting eminent domain and building giant projects across state and national borders!”

      Shitheads for strawmen!

  24. MORE IMPORTANTLY:

    So did Newt beat his first wife, or what?

    What’s the interview?

    I GOTS TO KNOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    1. Second wife. 1981-2000. I expect she has dirt outside Newt’s “private life”.

      1. I think she’s finally allowed to talk about the divorce settlement?

  25. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE let the ABC bombshell interview be “Newt beat his wife”.

    Or that he’s gay.

    PLEASE BE GAY, NEWT! PLEASE!

    NTTAWTT

  26. If only it was Santorum. If only.

    Are you there, God? It’s me, Fluffy. Please send someone to ABC News to give a bombshell interview about Rick Santorum.

    I need some salty ham tears.

    Thanks, God.

    1. I’m still expecting Santorum to come out of the closet. He’s waaay too homophobic to not be gay.

      1. Man, Drudge can play me like a fiddle.

        He puts up that siren graphic and “…developing…” and I now HAVE TO KNOW WHAT THIS STORY IS ABOUT.

        I will dance naked in the streets firing an AK-47 into the air if Gingrich gets cut to shreds by his first wife.

        I know, I know. It ends the campaign and gives everything to Romney. And Paul would do better if Gingrich stays in longer. But I can’t help myself. I despise Newt so much that I want to see him burn.

        1. It’s OK, we’ll know after Saturday.

        2. Although I bet it gets leaked before Saturday’s primary.

          1. What I can’t understand is how anyone can argue that it’s “unethical” to run a story before an election.

            It’s like how the NY Times thought it would be “unethical” to blow the whistle on the Bush administration’s warrantless wiretapping before the 2004 election.

            How can it be “ethical” to deliberately deny people information they might use to make a voting decision?

            1. You don’t understand what they consider ethical, obviously.

              Newt is a progressive. ABC likes progressives. If Americans has the choice between Newt and Obama, ABC would win either way. Therefore, it would be ‘unethical’ to remove him from the campaign at this time.

              1. It may be a liberal conspiracy but it’s not to protect Newt–it would be to keep him alive to continue beating on Romney, or even gain strength in the contest. A Newt candidacy would be a liberal media’s dream and not because he’s a liberal.

            2. How ethical is it for Gingrich to stay in this race when he knows his ex-wife is going to unload on him? It’s a nice game. ABC now puts maximum pressure on Gingrich to drop out of the race so he can still have some “dignity” left.

          1. is it the ex-wife who is on her still-living deathbed?

  27. My only problem with the pipeline is the usurpation of property by eminent domain.

    1. All pipelines and power transmission lines use eminent domain. They’re like ROADZZZ!!1! for energy.

  28. Most landowners who have to grant right of way to pipelines by eminent domain get paid well. Only a purist would shut down the idea of a big money making pipeline over a a property rights principle. The pipeline is a win win win for everyone who is not a fanatical environmentalist.

    Could it be that Obama kind of wants to screw the swath of states in the middle of the country who voted against him ?

    1. johnd2|1.18.12 @ 7:22PM|#
      “Most landowners who have to grant right of way to pipelines by eminent domain get paid well.”
      Got a cite for this?

      “Only a purist would shut down the idea of a big money making pipeline over a a property rights principle.”
      See P Brooks, below.

      1. Landowners get paid by the foot. If you are a small landowner with develop-able property you’re screwed. Big rural landowners who are going to graze cows or plant crops on it do just fine.

        1. SIV|1.18.12 @ 8:12PM|#
          “Landowners get paid by the foot. If you are a small landowner with develop-able property you’re screwed. Big rural landowners who are going to graze cows or plant crops on it do just fine.”

          The more I’ve looked at the entire issue, the less I care about it.
          As mentioned many times, that oil is going onto the world market, regardless of Obama’s idiocy or shithead’s worthless and specious claims of moral superiority.
          Given that reality, if one landowner doesn’t get reamed by the government as a result, I’ll take it as a positive. In spite of the obvious idiocy.

  29. There’s nothing saying the XL project *has* to use eminent domain to achieve its goals.

    No kidding.

    Forcibly taking the land? I’m agin it.

    Offering a mutually acceptable lease or sale agreement? Go for it.

    Presidential fiat should not enter into it in any way.

  30. And- that massive “jobs created” estimate has been pretty effectively debunked, but that doesn’t there is no long term benefit to the project.

    1. the “jobs created” estimate is irrelevant; the basic premise of the administration is “No economic projects without our say so,” and that’s what I find suspect.

    2. But how many jobs are saved by it? Countless…countless…

  31. It ends the campaign and gives everything to Romney.

    Really? Will Doctor Paul be forced to commit suicide?

    1. Once Gingrich and Santorum go Romney starts to win every state 70-30.

      It’s more fun with everyone bunched up between 15 and 40.

      1. But Ron Paul is better off right now with Gingrich and Santorum splitting the “not Romney, but still a neocon” vote. If Gingrich drops out, Santorum might move into second place and pass Paul.

  32. OT: one step closer to creating army of serial killers.

    http://scitech.foxnews.mobi/qu…..ageNum;=-1

  33. I’ll be glad when the enviruses are stomped into the “gaia” they claim to worship so much!

  34. onetime I pressed my fingers on my eyeballs and I saw purple and then I stopped and I saw spots.

    1. The real rather doesn’t understand capitalization.

  35. We should never put politics ahead of clean water for Americans.

    Yeah. Now go plug in some mercury laden CFL bulbs.

  36. Newt likes to create his own Ging-en-rich-ed santorum.

  37. This is going to backfire horrificlly on the Obama administration.

    Frankly, it looks to me like he did it just to be an asshole.
    Because the Republicans gave him a two month deadline so he said “Well, fine then, I’ll just REJECT IT!”
    It’s a total dick move, really.

    The reality is that Keystone should have been approved in the first place and the only reason it was delayed was to throw a bone to the enviros.

    1. Obama figured he needs to keep the vote of at least SOME progressives, what with the NDAA vote and all.

      1. Obama figured he needs to keep the vote of at least SOME progressives, what with the NDAA vote and all.

        This. He’s looking to give progressives ANY excuse possible to vote for him this election, especially if Paul wins.

    2. Do you see value in assessing environmental effects at all?

      The deadline was arbitrary. The Republicans held cutting taxes hostage with this as the ransom, and the administration rejecting it based on their arbitrary schedule was the dick move?

      1. The decision was arbitrary and done for petty and spiteful reasons which had nothing to do with the environment. You do get that, don’t you?

        1. No I don’t accept the spin straight from John Boehner’s office as gospel truth like apparently everyone here does.

          1. That’s not where I got it from — I heard it from Obama.

          2. Tony|1.18.12 @ 9:10PM|#
            “No I don’t accept the spin straight from John Boehner’s office as gospel truth like apparently everyone here does.”
            But if Obama said it, you’d suck it right up, right, shithead?

            1. this pipeline project has been assessed for, what, three years now? If that is not enough time, let’s hire smarter bureaucrats. Or let’s just admit that bureaucracy doesn’t know what the hell it’s trying to assess; it’s simply putting hours on the clock.

              1. “Or let’s just admit that bureaucracy doesn’t know what the hell it’s trying to assess; it’s simply putting hours on the clock.”

                Or simply admit that shithead is willing to shill for team blue, regardless of any actual result.

          3. I didn’t hear it from Boehner’s office. I got it from my (much like many Americans) cursory observation of the politics over the last few months. You do remember that the Republicans wanted a year-long payroll tax extension right?

            Keystone XL had broad bipartisan support in both houses. Obama only held it up to toss a bone to environmentalists. And the only reason the environmentalists give a shit about the sandhills, is because it’s an excuse to hold up Keystone XL. There are no serious environmental concerns about the pipline. There may be concerns about the OIL SANDS themselves, but that’s not the subject at hand.

      2. Tony, you do realize that all of the environmental reviews are complete and approved, don’t you.

        State’s only responsibility is to make the political decision as to whether the pipeline can cross the border. State is a plainly political department; in this case they’ve agreed to comply BO’s political calculatons.

        There isn’t even anyone at State who is qualified to make a decision based on science or environmental or engineering impacts.

        So, really all you have to stand on is that you think that Canada is the enemy.

        1. I get it–the political arms of government ought to completely ignore environmental interests and do everything the oil interests want.

          1. Tony|1.18.12 @ 9:43PM|#
            “I get it-”
            No, shithead, not a chance in a million.

          2. No, Tony, the political arms of government, which have absolutely no ability to assess environmental, engineering or scientific issues*, ought to accept the recommendations of the technical arms of government which have already completed the reviews and approved the project.

            To repeat, ad nauseum, State’s only responsibility was to assess whether dealing with Canada would be OK. Apparently they decide we should be at war with them.

            *being that they have absolutely no people with any environmental, engineering or scientific expertise on their staff.

            1. You’re right. My original question on the value of studying environmental harm was out of curiosity. The fact is that Obama was gonna string environmentalists along until after the election. But the Republicans used the project as a bargaining chip in a purely political way and their forcing Obama’s hand forced the answer they didn’t want. Now it will probably still get built and Obama looks like an environmentalist. They blame Republicans and why shouldn’t they? Why do they get to dictate the length of the review?

              1. Why are you completely ignoring the repeated attempts of posters to point out that all of the agencies actually responsible for assessing environmental impact have actually done so, and approved the pipeline?

                Using the STATE DEPARTMENT as an environmental study group is pure political bullshit. And you know it.

    3. Maybe he knows he’s fucked and is only concerned with his “legacy” now. Standing up to the eeeeeevil corporations now ==> lots and lots of speaking gigs in the future.

      1. That’s quite possible, especially for a guy who’s made a career out of saying the right things to left-leaning people.

    4. “Frankly, it looks to me like he did it just to be an asshole.”

      Hazel, I resent that remark, true as it may be.

  38. The more I learn about the polycyclic gunk that passes for oil in the Tar Sand belt, the odder Ron’s enthusiasm for the stuff becomes- I see no case for making American dependent on its import when we have mountainous quantities of equally lousy oil shale at our domestic disposal.

    He that pitcheth pitch will be defiled by it .

    1. Ummm, could have something to do with the fact that the Canadians have already made the capital investment and are actually producing crude from the stuff.

      Also might have something to due with the fact that there is actually an established process for extracting oild from sands while there’s still quite a bit of work to be done before a viable process for shale is on line.

      The Canucks are making profits on their stuff at current world prices. Shale needs a higher price to be profitable with existing processes.

    2. Funny, I run fine on it.

    3. Russell|1.18.12 @ 8:41PM|#
      “The more I learn about the polycyclic gunk…”

      Oh! Oh! It’s icky!
      Is that your point? Or did you really have one?

  39. Big Oil and their allies in Congress were pushing to force approval of the pipeline without adequate scientific review and for political gain.

    [my italics]

    You see, this is just utter bullshit. This project has been reviewed and approved by every agency that is responsible for engineering or environmental issues, in both countries.

    There are already thousands of miles of pipelines in both countries, including several which cross the border, which have operated virtually without incident for decades. Breakage and leakage incidents are vanishingly rare and when they have occurred they have be cleaned up in short order.

    The only thing that State had the authority to decide on was whether the pipeline could cross the border. Since our relations with Canada are generally cordial, though how long they will be after this is anyone’s guess, there should have been no question of approving this.

    There is not even anyone at State that is qualified to give this project any kind of scientific review let alone “adequate scientific review”, whatever that is.

    1. “without adequate scientific review”
      I agree with you, but you’re reading that as if the words meant what they are defined to mean.

    2. My first problem with your quote is the words “Big Oil”. It should be Big Government and Small Oil: Government is much larger than the oil companies.

  40. One bonanza out of this decision: A tanker load of Obama Campaign contributions from the House of Saud.

  41. What, no Evening Links tonight? And I wanted to share this speech Ron Paul made this morning in Congress about NDAA.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…..ture=inbox

  42. So you guys don’t have any principles after all. What a shock.

    1. I am principled against the Bush/Obama War Machine. Are you ready to enlist or just going along with the boss when he tries to distract attention from his warmongering?

      1. I’ll take an Obama war over a Bush war any day of the week.

        1. Spoof.
          There must be some limit to shithead’s stupidity and this should pass the threshold.

  43. Hello,my friends!Here’s the most popular dating site for now__SeekCasual*com, a place for people who wanna start a short-term relationship.And also for finding soul mate.Over 160000 happy members are waiting their lovers.Join free and have a try,nothing to lose!

    1. Tempting, but mother says I’m not allowed to talk to girls.

  44. I don’t know why people think this is going to hurt Obama – the guy campaigned on the promise of making energy prices higher. And he did.

    All he has to do is make a few fistbumps and read a few speeches off a teleprompter and he’ll win over most the moderates.

  45. What is this “Big Oil” that I here so much about? Is it an adult entertainment company that manufactures vibrators and dildos?

    1. Of course, there are legitimate ED issues with the Keystone project, but none of the enviro dipshits quoted above care about them. In fact, they are fine if gov’t forces private landowners to do things they don’t want to do. I am naturally suspicious anytime Republicans tell me that abusing gov’t power is “the only way to do this”.

      Don’t we already have an extensive network of pipelines running to the Gulf in a North/South direction? Are there legit concerns with using those (maybe tar sand oil is too dirty and ruins the pipe)? I wish this entire issue had been presented to the people with more facts and less rhetoric. And please – oil is a necessary part of every modern civilization on Earth. It’s essential to survival. Enviro dipshits are just selling fantasy to believe otherwise.

      1. North America Pipelines map

        Trans-Canada wants to build a pipeline running directly from Northern Alberta to the Gulf.

        I’m pretty sure that while there are pipelines in that area, they are either running at capacity and/or the flow is in the wrong direction.

        The tarsands oil fields are apparently producing at a rate sufficient to make it so Enbridge is planning to reverse the direction of the Sarnia-Montreal pipeline so that it’s sending Alberta oil to Quebec instead of Venezuelan oil into Ontario.

        So in addition to Canada taking all the Venezuelan petroleum engineers Canada’s going to reduce its imports as well. Suck on that Chavez.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.