Keystone XL

Keystone Pipeline Fails to Build Enough Senate Support


This circus is far from over.
maisa_nyc / photo on flickr

As predicted earlier in the day, embattled Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana was unable to get enough votes to push Keystone XL pipeline construction support through the Senate. It came up one vote short. From USA Today:

Landrieu, the lead Democratic sponsor of the bill, is locked in a Dec. 6 runoff against GOP Rep. Bill Cassidy. The pipeline vote has become a political issue in the race, where the state's oil and gas industry is supportive of the pipeline's construction. The proposed crude-oil pipeline would run nearly 1,200 miles from Canada to the Gulf Coast.

Both lawmakers are using the pipeline vote to flex their legislative muscle and clout on Capitol Hill ahead of the runoff. "The race is not over in Louisiana. She has not given up, we have not given up on her behalf," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.

Landrieu was confident she could secure the 60 votes necessary to pass the bill, but public vote counts had the bill stalled at 59 votes Tuesday afternoon. "I don't expect it to fail," Reid said, cautioning: "I don't know what's going to happen."

The House passed mirror legislation last week, sponsored by Cassidy, who is favored to win the Senate race because of the conservative lean of the state.

It will, of course, come up again in the next Senate next term and will almost certainly pass. Whether Landrieu will be there to try to push it through again is another question.

A reminder: A majority of Americans support building the pipeline.

NEXT: Taking "Institute for Justice" seriously

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 or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. A reminder: A majority of Americans support building the pipeline.

    Serious question: Why exactly does building the pipeline require Senate approval? “Commerce Clause”?

    1. I just asked this yesterday! I was told it is because it crosses our Canadian border.

      1. How about if somebody offloads the oil onto trucks on the Canadian side, drives over, and loads it into the US part of the pipeline?

        1. That’s pretty much how they settled the “problem” of the subway to LAX. They built it to one mile short of the airport. That way the cab drivers won’t suffer, because you know this is not about travelers.

          1. Or making the public transportation useful.

          2. Additionally, the railline 1 mile short of the airport doesn’t go downtown where the vast majority of business commuters would travel to. It heads east into south-east LA through some of the poorest communities in LA. To get to downtown, you have to get off the railline and take a 10-30 min bus ride the rest of the way. All the liberal Democrats who run things in LA and are so worried about commuter traffic and the environment are just blowing smoke up everyone’s ass.

        2. That this immediately strikes me as the most reasonable solution is another indication of how FUBAR the West has become.

    2. It doesn’t require congressional approval, it requires State Dept approval b/c it crosses an international border (the commerce clause covers international commerce too). Asswipe-in-Chief blocked it.

      This bill was attempting to force him to approve it.

  2. A majority of Senators support building the pipeline, too. Why does it need 60 votes to pass? For cloture to end debate? So any bill can be blocked by those who oppose it, if they have 41 votes? Without a real filibuster?

    1. I thought Reid had ended that.

      1. Only on judicial appointments (not including SCOTUS)

    2. Just now noticing huh?

      1. Just like you guys only noticed in 2009?

        1. So we were six years quicker?

          1. And of course you’re appalled and think that the bill should be sitting on Barry’s desk as we speak, right?

      2. Dysfunctional, do nothing congress. When will the democrat obstructionists get out of the people’s way?

        Apparently, soon. Democracy, fuck yeah!

    3. Obama seems hellbent on redeeming his legacy by doubling down on anti-Clintonism, so he’ll be vetoing anything that even sniffs of anti-progressivism from here on out.

      Hard to see anything happening in the next two years, which is probably good for us, outside of the inevitability of an asset collapse and the inevitably stupid two-year electoral disaster it will result in.

    4. I just have to marvel at what a screwed up system we have: Just getting a bill to the floor of the Senate for an up/down vote of 51% to pass requires a SUPERMAJORITY of 60 votes. Have there been cases where a bill got the 60 votes needed to proceed and then failed to get 51 to pass? What kind of political kabuki must THAT be??? When I started seeing news reports about the Supermajority needed, I thought the bill was actually up for passage, and backers wanted a “veto-proof” supermajority of 67. Then I started seeing the 60 number tossed around and said, “wha??” This system is messed up, my fellow citizens, whether you want the pipeline or not.

  3. Related:
    San Francisco is going to require warning labels on gas pumps reminding you that you’re adding to global warming when you fill ‘er up!
    Wanna bet if you were to do a real calc on the carbon footprint of printing, delivering and fitting those you’d find a net loss, since the effect on cutting gas sales is gonna be ZERO.

    1. Um…

      Fuck San Francisco. Godforsaken hive of stupid.

      1. And the capital of capitalistic innovation.

        1. Silicon Daley is not San Fransisco you half wit.

        2. Tony|11.18.14 @ 8:18PM|#
          “And the capital of capitalistic innovation.”

          Uh, no. Not one bit.
          Innovation in SF is Willie Brown ‘fixing’ another crony project.

          1. San Francisco is tremendously innovative when it comes to BART inventing new and never before seen ways to shut down a public transit system.

            1. And BART remains proof that rail systems are far superior to rubber-tired transport that can move over alternative routes!
              The thick-headedness of the proggies is amazing!

              1. People are often surprised to learn that the average speed of Bay Area RAPID Transit is only 33MPH. That is to say, if your destination is 33 miles away, it’s going to take you about an hour to get there on BART, owing to the acceleration, deceleration, and delays inherent in stopping at most, if not all, stations that lie between your points A and B. With traffic jams and time spent securing a parking space, of course, your transit time in a car could even be longer, but does 33MPH sound like “rapid” transit?

                By the BART standard, Personal Rapid Transit, despite employing vehicles that travel no faster than 45MPH, actually IS rapid. This is because PRT vehicles, holding up to 4 passengers each, travel directly from starting point to ending point, with no intermediate stops or need for transfers. And, because the vehicles travel on their own dedicated guideway (usually elevated), they neither affect nor are affected by street traffic. The vehicles can travel at top speed for most of each trip. Also, as PRT guideway is laid out in 2D networks of interlocking loops, with system entry/exit points spaced 1/2 mile apart in any direction, you are never more than 1/4 mile from an access point, and neither is your destination. Corridor-based systems, such as BART, require huge stations that generally collect you and drop you off far from your points of origin or destination. In sum, when all of its advantages are considered, PRT can provide transit that is truly rapid.

        3. And the capital of capitalistic innovation.

          No. The people involved in that innovation LIVE in San Francisco, and then commute to a nearby area. Silicon Valley is in the San Francisco Bay area, but not in San Francisco itself.

          Secondly, San Francisco has the highest income inequality of any city in America. Shouldn’t you be bitching about that, or does massive income inequality not matter when it’s occurring in a city and a state run overwhelmingly by Democrats?

          1. New York isn’t great on income equality either. Yeah it’s a problem, one caused by capitalism.

            1. Need more North Korea’s to show us the way.

              1. Yep, more socialism will show those evil Koch Brothers under Tony’s bed!

              2. Maybe, if we follow the teachings of tony, we can become north korea, someday.

            2. Tony, tell us how businesses don’t create jobs. We’re bored.

            3. Tony|11.18.14 @ 8:58PM|#
              “New York isn’t great on income equality either.”

              Yep, not nearly enough people starving to death, right?

              1. The Stone Age had income equality.

            4. Income inequality is only a problem for rent seekers like you.

          2. Actually, a lot of “Silicon Valley” start-ups are now in San Francisco. Not sure why the shift has happened, but it is real.

            Doesn’t mean SF isn’t also a hot mess due to rent control, excess regulation etc.

            1. SF seems to be mostly tech related media, investment, and a bit of mobile apps. So it’s journalists, artists, and lawyers, not scientists and engineers in SF.

    2. “San Francisco is going to require warning labels on gas pumps reminding you that you’re adding to global warming when you fill ‘er up!”

      If you see the warning, it means you own a car. And need gas.


      Although i think it would be awesome if someone just abandoned their vehicle on the spot and started walking down the highway. When the CHiPs arrest the guy, he can plead “the label told me”

      1. Isn’t carbon produced by cars some small percentage of the total?

        1. Its’ somewhere between the factory and the cow

          1. This says transportation is about 28%, but:

            Household vehicle use currently is responsible for a much smaller portion of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, 16-18 percent, than is commonly believed.

            1. Man-made carbon dioxide emissions – in total, covering all fossil fuel use and agricultural effects – are about 3% of the total carbon emissions released in the natural cycle.

              If you assume transportation is a constant across the planet as a percentage of emissions… then its a whopping ‘0.7-1%’ of the carbon released into the atomosphere

              IOW, human car-driving is less than a fart in the wind in the scheme of things

      2. This isn’t for car owners. It’s for their children who look out the window while mom pumps gas.

        1. Those kids on their phones in the back seat? They’ll never notice them in the blizzard of warning signs on gas pumps.

    3. Berkeley is considering the same thing. Apparently, putting stickers on gas pumps will only cost 20k. Compared to your typical government program, I guess that’s cheap. But I’m pretty sure I could do this myself for about like $50.

      1. “Apparently, putting stickers on gas pumps will only cost 20k.”

        Wow, I want to be a member of the union representing those workers.

    4. And yet they stereotype Catholicism as operating on guilt.

    5. I filled up at $2.60 today. I’d love to see what a 50% drop would do for the “walking around” economy.

      1. Not that much, actually. The cost of gas has steadily become a smaller and smaller percentage of the average American’s budget. It still stings poor people and those who work in/own transportation businesses, but lower gas prices don’t boost GDP as reliably as they used to.

        I hope I am wrong, though. Prices are headed lower, fast.

        1. This is the pendulum swing back from the progs saying that your energy costs were gonna skyrocket in response to AGW.

          Same investors making money from the movement back and forth.

    6. That’s okay. Tennessee is adding stickers reminding truckers that they’re staving off the next period of glaciation and permitting productive agriculture in icebound regions.

      But only if the warmists are right; otherwise, filling up the tank is merely environment-neutral.

  4. Chris Matthews is doing his victory dance right now.

  5. They’re not far from having enough to override, once the new seats are taken. This is likely to pass whether Obama likes it or not, unless the Dems want to continue losing seats in both houses. Not to mention the presidency.

    1. At some point I would think 13 Dems in the Senate and however many Dems are needed in the House to override the Chocolate Nixon’s vetoes would reach out and create a bi partisan agenda with the r leadership. It would have the effect of showing the country the Dems once lose Obama can govern and make them the most powerful people inWashington. Even if I didn’t agree with the agenda it would al least bring power back to Comgress and anything is better than this moron playing dictator answerable to no one but his fawning court media.

  6. “Many of us Canadians are confused by the U.S. midterm elections….

    “So, Americans vote for the party that got you into the mess that Obama just dug you out of? This defies reason.

    “When you are done with Obama, could you send him our way?”…../18606217/

    1. Many of my fellow countryman are fucking idiots.

      That is all.

      1. Ditto.

        1. Then there’s my country, California. My illustrious Senator Boxer noted that the pipeline will carry “the most polluted type of oil.”

          1. But it will carry it to refineries where it will be de-polluted. Did someone tell her that?

            1. They refine the carbon out of hydrocarbons now?

              1. Carbon is pollution. You are composed mostly of carbon.

                Makes sense.

              2. We are all impressed you have a zero carbon footprint.

              3. Tony|11.18.14 @ 8:32PM|#

                They refine the carbon out of hydrocarbons now?’

                Only if you first ship the oil by rail to the Pacific coast and then you transfer it to ships and then if it hasn’t blown everybody up yet you ship it to China where it gets burnt up in a carbon free communist kind of way that is carbon neutral.

          2. Then there’s my country, California. My illustrious Senator Boxer noted that the pipeline will carry “the most polluted type of oil.”


            “Pro-science party.”

      2. Amen to that.

    2. Don’t worry. In ten years we’ll be kicking out the bloody republicans again.

    3. I still like this claim that the Republicans caused the 2008 financial meltdown given that no one has ever provided me with a single Bush-era policy that could have caused this.

      Apparently Bush made it happen with his Rethuglican magic.

      1. You clearly don’t understand the level of bias and outright falsehoods and completely incorrect information promulgated by Canadian media to its domestic audience (all with a heavy dose of extreme insecurity regarding the US). It’s kind of insane.

        1. It’s not just Canada. American leftists claim Bush somehow caused the financial crisis, and when I ask them to explain to me the Bush-era policy that led to the problems, they can’t answer me.

          The closest progressives come to blaming a modern policy for the mortgage crisis is attacking the repeal of Glass-Steegles and that was repealed by Bill Clinton. So by their own argument Bill Clinton is more at fault than George Bush.

          1. How dare you ask them to explain their allegations! That’s like, microaggressing or something!

            Oh, logic. And reason. You used to be prized things, things that people strove for. And now…oh wait, they never were. A huge percentage of people are emotional morons and always have been.

          2. Clinton is arguably more directly responsible than Bush.

            But the policies that are responsible came from the right. Deregulating the financial sector is one of two major policy concerns of Republicans. (The other is letting oil companies pollute for free.)

            At least on economic and other domestic policy, presidents are only responsible inasmuch as their signing/vetoing pen is powerful. Better to focus on what policies are to blame. Which is why, like climate change, the issue of financial deregulation has its whole insane self-serving bullshit counternarrative that has no relationship with factual reality (it was the uppity poors that took down the global economy!).

            1. “Deregulating the financial sector is one of two major policy concerns of Republicans.”


              What regulations were removed by ‘republicans’ which directly lead to the MBS-driven credit crisis, please?

              1. Here. Both parties are to blame. The underlying theory that led to the policy causes is what Republicans still support (in the face of all evidence–as usual).

                1. Tony, you’re an idiot. From your own link:

                  Critics have also noted de facto deregulation through a shift in market share toward the least regulated portions of the mortgage market.[40]

                  This isn’t de-regulation, de facto or otherwise. Want to know what it is? An example of the Federal Government distorting incentives so that all the money flowed to a place it would not have otherwise flowed to. The fact that money fled to the ‘least regulated portions’ is actually evidence that this was the government’s fault, since they distorted the mortgage market so much that all the money ended up in dangerous and risky securities.

                  You’re also ignoring the purposefully low interest rates of the Federal Reserve, banks being made ‘too big to fail’ which is largely the result of barriers to entry of potential new banks, etc.

                  Your own source also mentions John Taylor’s article (the man who created the Taylor Rule) who argued that the crisis was largely caused by excess monetary expansion.

                  As you can see by the chart in this article, the interest rates were a full 3% below what the Taylor Rule would have suggested in 2004. As the bubble began to get too large, the fed tried to raise rates back to where they should have been all along – and the bubble burst.

                  1. I also question the argument that this was the fault of the private market when two of the largest players in the boom and bust were Fannie May and Freddie Mac, both of which are organizations created by the Feds in the first place.

                    1. You are trying to argue with Tony. Tony is one of these:

                      “You are stuck with them. You cannot get rid of them. They are programmed to think and react to certain stimuli in a certain pattern. You cannot change their mind even if you expose them to authentic information, even if you prove that white is white and black is black you still cannot change their basic perception and the logical behavior. For these people the process of demoralization is complete and irreversible. Most of these people would be marked for extermination because the psychological shock of what they will see in the future, what the beautiful society of equality and social justice means in practice they will be very unhappy. ”

                      -Yuri Bezmenov

                  2. Irish|11.18.14 @ 9:02PM|#
                    “Tony, you’re an idiot. From your own link:”

                    Naah! You’re telling me that Tony doesn’t read his own links?!
                    Well, I NEVER!

              2. None. It’s as absurd and as counterfactual as most leftie claims.

                Personally, I blame the government for the crisis, not a particular party. And deregulation and lack of intervention is exactly the opposite of what it did wrong.

              3. Repeal of Glass-Steigel (under Clinton and the Republican congress) allowed banks to have their asses much more exposed to securitized mortgages and credit default swaps.

                Not the only cause, of course, (the Feds insistence on encouraging an “ownership society” through Fanny and Freddy also helped).

                1. *Glass-Steagall (I am dumb)

            2. But the policies that are responsible came from the right. Deregulating the financial sector is one of two major policy concerns of Republicans. (The other is letting oil companies pollute for free.)


              Sure Clinton was the one who stumped for the elimination of Glass-Steagles, but we can still blame Bush because Republican ideas infected Clinton’s mind. Brilliant.

              Also, name a law passed in recent years by Republicans that de-regulated the financial sector to any degree. If it’s one of their major policy concerns, I’m sure you can find an example from the period when Bush was president and controlled both chambers of Congress.

              If you can’t find an example from the period when Republicans controlled every branch of government, then I have a difficult time figuring out your argument here.

              Incidentally, Glass-Steagles being repealed was not a primary cause of the economic collapse. It’s a leftist myth they persist in believing in order to ignore the impact of A) California housing regulations that caused the state to experience a bubble far larger than the rest of the country and B) low interest rates that helped inflate the bubble in the first place.

              1. Sarbanes-Oxley and the Patriot Act were all about deregulation, didn’t you know?

              2. You’re not reading my argument. Members of both parties were instrumental in the causal policies. So what’s important is what those policies are. We were a long way from the strong financial regulations that might have prevented the crisis decades before it happened. What do we learn from it is the question.

                And what you’ve learned is that your consistent choice never to learn anything continues to be the right choice.

                1. We were a long way from the strong financial regulations that might have prevented the crisis decades before it happened.

                  Like Sarb-Ox and the Patriot Act?

                2. Tony|11.18.14 @ 9:09PM|#
                  …”We were a long way from the strong financial regulations that might have prevented the crisis decades before it happened.”…

                  So you were once again caught bullshitting and your response is to make up some cockamamie story like that?
                  Yeah, that’ll convince……………

                3. “So what’s important is what those policies are. We were a long way from the strong financial regulations that might have prevented the crisis decades before it happened. What do we learn from it is the question.”

                  That boom and bust and creative destruction are the needed and proper instruments to allow for a more adaptive and perpetual economy that serves society the best?

                  That people who aren’t capable of prospering in that type of environment, where the cream rises to the top, are also insufficent to regulate those who are ?

                  Like yourself ?

                4. “So what’s important is what those policies are. We were a long way from the strong financial regulations that might have prevented the crisis decades before it happened. What do we learn from it is the question.”

                  That boom and bust and creative destruction are the needed and proper instruments to allow for a more adaptive and perpetual economy that serves society the best?

                  That people who aren’t capable of prospering in that type of environment, where the cream rises to the top, are also insufficent to regulate those who are ?

                  Like yourself ?

            3. Deregulating the financial sector is one of two major policy concerns of Republicans.

              But they’ve failed, spectacularly. The financial sector is probably the most regulated business that participates in “the market.”

              Follow bankers around for a year, and you’ll see that 95% of the decisions they make are in accordance with a federal or state regulation. And approximately 100% of the decisions that screw over a customer.

              Any time regulations are “removed” it’s so new regulations can take their place.

            4. But the policies that are responsible came from the right. Deregulating the financial sector is one of two major policy concerns of Republicans. (The other is letting oil companies pollute for free.)

              Too bad that none of those policies actually have been implemented so far. But sooner or later, we’ll hopefully succeed.

        2. All of which emanates from that wretched hive of scum and villainy, Toronto. Out in the sticks and flyover country it’s okay to like America and even Americans, even you do all die wretched deaths of treatable illnesses while keeping an iron death-grip on your high-capacity ultra-murdering assault pistols.

          1. My revenge on Canada is that, since I quit the pipe band I played with in Ontario after 10 years, they have failed to qualify for the World Championship final. Ever again.

            Gee, we always made it when I was playing 🙂

            USA! USA! USA!

            /just kidding – except the part about the band never qualifying after I quit – that’s real

            1. Bagpipes are a crime against humanity.

              1. May the ghost of John Wilson haunt your dreams.

        3. Yeah, the whole massive insecurity towards America makes me loathe Canadian nationalism. Especially the extremely stupid statements about the War of 1812 and how ‘we’ burned down the president’s house. Um, no, British regulars did. Might as well claim Canada conquered India.

          1. They were at a huge population disadvantage, and their militias still kicked our militias’ asses in Ontario and western NYS.

            1. That’s not what gets discussed up here, it’s stuff like DC burning and projecting modern Canadian ideas of American militarism back on it (I went to a public school that failed to mention any of the actual reasons why America attacked, and they framed it as American imperialism).

              1. We attacked Canada because we wanted their land and didn’t expect much of a fight. Not exactly hard to explain.

                1. Yeah…that’s not really true. There’s some evidence that the United States did wish to annex Canada, and historians debate back and forth about that. But the main reasons had to do with British trade policy during the Napoleonic Wars (i.e. forcibly restricting neutral American trade with France), perceived insults such as the Chesapeake Affair, forced enlistment of Americans into the Royal Navy, and arming Indian groups along the frontier.

                  1. Those are reasons for the war in general — the invasion of Canada was specifically about taking over that land. As most invasions are.

                    1. Except there’s not a lot of evidence to suggest that Americans planned on permanently occupying that land. Especially when the primary focus of expansion was westward Indian territory. Canada was to be used as a bargaining chip to negotiate terms with the British government.

                      These points run counter to the narrative often presented in this country, that the evil Americans planned to permanently occupy and that conquest was their main objective. That’s the viewpoint I’m challenging, and it’s incorrect based on the historical evidence.

    4. Also, I love that Obama has simultaneously been consistently blocked by obstructionist Rethuglicans and has delivered us from perdition.

      If he’s been consistently blocked and hasn’t been able to implement his programs, then he can’t take credit for how ‘good’ things are. Of course, things aren’t good, and are actually tremendously terrible, I’m just pointing out the rank hypocrisy of this argument.

    5. Yes. You can have him. He can be Emperor of the Frozen Wastes.

    6. Yes. You can have him. He can be Emperor of the Frozen Wastes.

      1. Fuck you, keep him. Most of our dumb politicians at least support Keystone.

        1. Well, it’s clear why Canadians support global warming: it’s f*cking cold up there.

  7. As you can see, the XL pipeline will dramatically change the pipeline picture in North America.…..-pipelines

  8. Look, if they don’t build the pipeline, how is Archer supposed to protect it from a famous eco-terrorist and also get attacked by alligators? These Senators clearly aren’t thinking things through.

    1. Do you watch BoJack Horseman?

    2. “Woo hoooo! Air boat!”

    1. I’m sure he supports policies aimed at raising taxes, right?

      1. He’s never seen a tax that he doesn’t love, as long as other people are paying it and not him.

    2. Mr. Sharpton said his birthday party grossed about $1 million, enough that he expected to be able to clear up the organization’s tax debts

      Many Happy Returns, Al.

  9. This is as expected.

    It will pass next year, guaranteed.

    1. And then obstructionism will be redefined as passing legislation that Obama is going to veto anyway.


      1. It’s a lose/lose for Democrats. Either they get on board with this and get enough votes to override the veto or the voters are going to open up another can of whoop ass in 2016. So if they help pass it, their hardcore proggies hate them. If they don’t, can of whoop ass. Me thinks they got a little too big for their britches and it’s coming back to bite them in the ass.

        1. In what states where they currently hold Senate seats is this going to hurt them (honestly asking)? Aren’t most of them on the respective coasts (and also Blue states where environmentalists have some pull)?

          1. It’s not going to hurt them anywhere at this point because they got their shit ruined so thoroughly this election that they don’t have senators left in places where this could make them lose.

            Ironically, getting crushed this election has actually made the Democrats more radical.

            1. Well, the same thing happened to the GOP in 06 and 08, the few places they won were places that Obama really lost big, so they had every reason to not fall in line with Obama’s ‘mandate.’

          2. Mary Landrieu ring a bell?

            I’m trying to have some vision here and not just believe that because something is the way it is now, that it will be that way in 2 years. If the Democrats would have had such vision a few years ago when they proclaimed their thousand year super majority reign, they may not have gotten their asses into such a beat down.

            I don’t know if you pay utility bills, but I do. And the average American faced with the reality of having their utility bills ‘necessarily sky rocket’ might just do things you didn’t expect them to do, including voting for the other team.

            1. “Mary Landrieu ring a bell?”

              You’re kidding, she’s already toast.

              1. The Republicans won the governerships in Illinois and Maryland this year. If the Democrats continue to be the party of green idiocy and high energy prices, they will start losing in more places than the South and really everywhere except maybe California.

                1. Republicans win the governorship in Illinois and Maryland sometimes. It’s a big deal, but not like the Dems winning Utah or something.

                  1. So you’re saying that the Dems are a regional party only, while the GOP has appeal in almost every state?

                  2. You just made my point. Republicans can win pretty much everywhere if the democrats continue to be the party of idiots like Tony.

            2. Mary Landrieu ring a bell?

              You mean the woman currently running 16 points behind who would have lost even if this had passed since her opponent also supports it?

        2. The proem is they are so dependent on the various green tech billionaires for money they are screwed if they don’t kill it even though killing it is going to hurt them badly in 2016

  10. That project has liberally relied on eminent domain, so while I don’t think the feds should block it for the reasons they give I’ll cry few tears over this.

    1. As a libertarian, I don’t care too much at all for eminent domain. That said, there are cases where it’s justified, like building infrastructure and in this case, helping our energy situation.

      I’m totally against eminent domain in the case of tearing down a neighborhood so some crony can build some casinos and hotels.

      There’s a difference between eminent domain and eminent domain abuse.

      1. Once you cross the Rubicon of violating individual rights for utilitarian ‘for society’ reasons where do you stop?

        1. So you’re saying that we can’t use eminent domain to build new infrastructure that could lead to everyone getting a boost to their standard of living?

          I’m a libertarian, not an anarchist. Not sure what you are, Bo, you’re all over the fucking map.

          1. I believe in the NAP and that individual rights trump violation of them in the name of ‘society’

            1. So you’re saying that we can never build any new infrastructure if it crosses private property lines.

              Answer the question.

              1. I’m not dodging the question, I assumed my answer was sufficient. To be more clear, yes, if new infrastructure is to be built by forcibly taking the property of individuals without their consent then it should not be built.

                1. “In this world, you can either do things the easy way or the right way.
                  You take a boat from here to New York, you gonna go around the horn like a gentleman or cut through the Panama Canal like some kind of Democrat? Um, the canal? You go around the horn the way God intended!”

              2. That is not an implication of opposing eminent domain. The government (or whatever entity) would have to negotiate with property owner’s in good faith, instead of being able to rely on the threat of seizure from the beginning.

          2. Not sure what you are, Bo, you’re all over the fucking map.

            Contrarians tend to be that way.

            1. I understand principles may be strange to you. If I’ve ever said anything that contradicts my position on this, feel free to post it here.

        2. The only reason it relies on ED is because the public approval process takes away the builders ability to easily reroute around land owners who won’t sell and this leaves the with no leverage. If you don’t like ED being used blame the public approval process not the pipeline

          1. It’s a fair point that such processes deserve some blame, but I doubt all.

      2. Hey let’s lecture liberals constantly about how unprincipled they are and then flag an exception any time the oil industry wants something.

        This provides no meaningful benefit to the American economy even in a vacuum. In the context of real costs and benefits, it’s pure madness. (Because the global natural environment cannot withstand burning more than a small fraction of available reserves.)

        1. I laughed, I really did. Funny shit man.

      3. “There’s a difference between eminent domain and eminent domain abuse.”

        Agreed. This problem is largely solvable as there are plenty of rights of way already existing.

    2. So did the Interstate Highway System, you think Ike should have blocked that too?

  11. When the Republicans pick up those seats and jam Keystone through, do you think Obama will even try to veto it? They would have a veto proof majority, and I think it will be hilarious to watch Democrats switch parties to pass a pipeline bill over Obama’s veto.

    1. It would be extraordinarily stupid for Obama to do anything that would encourage Democrats to vote with Republicans against him. Which is why he’ll probably do it.

      1. Why? What has he got to lose except legacy points?

        1. And legacy points are sooooo imporant to a struggling middle class. Who cares if my standard of living decreases as long as some narcissistic sociopath asshole gains some legacy points.

          1. Your standard of living is not going to be altered a single cent whether this pipeline is built or not.

            1. It’s not even about this project. It’s about the bigger picture. We are not going to sit idly by and let Obama and his leftist idiots cause energy prices to ‘necessarily skyrocket’ for ordinary people so that him and his cronies can jet around the world and claim they are saving the world, while it’s all a scam to give more money to their wealthy cronies.

              1. At least you agree that it’s a matter of symbolism. Maybe better not to do a massive land grab over something like that?

                The problem the oil industry is having right now is oversupply and low prices. Not only does that make Keystone moot (as they themselves are saying), it indicates that maybe it’s time to let energy investors move toward a form of energy that’s not going to kill us all.

                Don’t whore for oil without a) them paying you and b) them asking for your help and then go hysterical over cronyism. You’re such a crony you don’t even ask for anything in return.

                1. The problem the oil industry is having right now is oversupply and low prices. Not only does that make Keystone moot (as they themselves are saying)

                  So, you’re saying they no longer want to build the pipeline?

                  it indicates that maybe it’s time to let energy investors move toward a form of energy that’s not going to kill us all.

                  Because they weren’t allowed to before? (even assuming your ridiculous assumption that petroleum will kill us all).

                2. We need to move to clean, renewable energy!

            2. Multipliers are everything! Stimulus is the key to our salvation!

              Unless we’re talking about an oil pipeline.

        2. Why? What has he got to lose except legacy points?

          Because in this case this bill is passing no matter what due to a veto-proof majority. As a result, if Obama starts fucking with the passage of bills which even members of his own party want, you’re going to see Democrats be much more willing to go against Obama’s preferences.

          That might not matter on many bills, but all the Republicans need to do is coax 5-6 Dems to vote on their side in order to override a veto. If Obama goes around pissing off those Democrats to the point where he erodes their party loyalty, the Republicans will be able to ram through large portions of their agenda regardless of his veto power.

          1. You see that voting getting to 290 in the next two years?

            1. You see that voting getting to 290 in the next two years?

              Yes. It would get to 290 on Keystone. Democrats are already rebelling against Pelosi in the House because she refuses to allow a pregnant amputee to vote in leadership elections because Pelosi knows Duckworth would vote against some of her chosen cronies.

              The Democratic Party is on the verge of serious upheaval because they are not happy with Pelosi, Obama, or Reid.

              1. Don’t be John.

          2. Democrats aren’t aren’t going to start voting with Republicans and against their constituents out of spite. This is John-esque wishful thinking.

            The president’s legacy will be tarnished by acquiescing to what’s pretty much a symbol more than anything (a symbol of increasing reliance on fossil fuels).

            1. The president’s legacy

              Tony’s worried about the president’s legacy, not about every day Americans. A fool is very useful idiot.

              1. I think he’s talking about his legacy re his supporters.

              2. Blocking this pipeline is what’s in the better interest of Americans, objectively and inarguably.

                1. Blocking this pipeline is what’s in the better interest of Americans


                  1. Current science estimates we can’t burn more than 5% of available global oil reserves without causing global catastrophe. Literally the last thing human beings need to be doing is digging up and burning more oil.

                    On the other side there’s no perceptible difference in employment and no perceptible difference in gas prices. So yeah I’d say the comparison favors not building it.

                    1. Current science estimates we can’t burn more than 5% of available global oil reserves without causing global catastrophe.

                      Over what time period was “current science” making that estimate?

                      Amazing that peak oil became too much oil in less than a decade.

                    2. Current science estimates we can’t burn more than 5% of available global oil reserves without causing global catastrophe. Literally the last thing human beings need to be doing is digging up and burning more oil.

                      He said without citing a study.

                      Furthermore, you seem to be ignoring the fact that this oil is not going to sit in the ground if there’s no pipeline, it’s just going to be shipped overland. Shipping overland will result in wasteful emissions since we’ll have to burn more fuel in transport.

                      As a result, not building the pipeline is actually wasteful and opens us up to the potential of oil spills from train derailments and tanker accidents.

                      Also Tony, what happened to your love of majoritarian Democracy? Most Americans want the pipeline. Based on your own arguments, it’s wrong not to give it to them.

                    3. If the majority votes for mass suicide, then that’s a point against majoritarian democracy, isn’t it?

                    4. Current science estimates we can’t burn more than 5% of available global oil reserves without causing global catastrophe

                      Bwahhahhaaahhaaa! Heeeheeeeeheee! Hahaahahhaaa!

                      OMG, you fucking moron, ‘Current Science’ according to true believers like you said we would run out of oil TO FUCKING BURN within 10 years, in 1975! It’s 2014, and your ‘Current Scientists’ are worried that we’re going to have too much oil to burn?

                      At what point do you stop listening to morons. I say now.

                    5. POPULATION BOMB!!!

                    6. NotAnotherSkippy|11.18.14 @ 10:24PM|#
                      “POPULATION BOMB!!!”

                      By george, I think you have it!

            2. Democrats aren’t aren’t going to start voting with Republicans and against their constituents out of spite. This is John-esque wishful thinking.

              Except that there are several ideas on which the few Democrats remaining in moderate areas agree with Republicans and are only kept from voting with them through party loyalty.

              That’s what happened with Obamacare, idiot. Democrats voted for that abortion despite the fact that their constituents were against it and they did so out of party loyalty. That’s why many of them no longer have jobs because they voted against their constituents and with Obama.

              An awful lot of Democratic constituencies in black areas, for example, do not want more immigration. What happens when those Democrats decide to vote with their constituents instead of the president who’s starting to lose support even among black people?

              This isn’t wishful thinking. It’s an actual understanding of the preferences of various voting groups. You’re a myopic idiot who doesn’t realize a lot of Democratic constituencies have different values than upper middle class white leftists, so you fail to see the obvious schisms developing within the party, or the possibility that Obama will inflame those schisms by vetoing legislation backed by some of his own party members.

              1. The reason why I think you’re wrong is just geography: most of the Dems strongholds that are left are pretty blue places where they will suffer as much for turning on Obama on this than if they do not. It’s the same dynamic that held the GOP steady in opposition to Obama after 08.

                1. The problem is that Obama isn’t popular in those states anymore either. Remember, Obama’s approval rating is at 40% and that is including his approval rating with blacks. Among non blacks he is lucky to be in the 1930s. Unless you represent a majority black district, there just isn’t any political price to be paid for going against Obama. He has lost all but the black community and the real dead enders like Tony.

                  Time will tell when and if the Democrats in Congress finally turn on Obama. But if they don’t, there isn’t going to be much of a party left after 2016.

                2. most of the Dems strongholds that are left are pretty blue places where they will suffer as much for turning on Obama on this than if they do not.

                  Illinois and Maryland, for instance?

            3. You can’t polish tarnish a turd.

        3. Cause he’s going to fuck the Democrat party just like Bush fucked the GOP in 2007-08. Hillary or Warren or Webb can distance themselves from Barry till the cows come home — it’s not going to matter if the letter D is soaked and shodden with Obama’s shit.

        4. Get them used to voting against Obama, then he could build a coalition willing to override some vetoes, especially of unpopular law repeals.

      2. You can pretty much count on Obama to do just about the stupidest thing imaginable, especially if his ego is involved. Then he’ll become extra crispy fried stupid.

        1. Yup. It is funny to watch Tony try so hard to defend him as he totally fucks Tony’s beloved Democratic Party. The democrats are screwed. They can’t stop him and he doesn’t care what damage he does to them

  12. The War On Christmas: Battlefield Petsmart

    “AFA is calling for a limited one-month boycott of PetSmart over the company’s censorship of the word “Christmas.”

    For years, PetSmart has refused to use the word Christmas on its website, in television commercials, newspaper ads and in-store promotions, despite tens of thousands of consumer requests to recognize Christmas and in spite of repeated requests from AFA to do the same.”…

    1. Fuck PC bullshit period. I’m not calling Christmas ‘Winter Holiday’ and I’m not calling Easter Eggs ‘Spring Spheres’. And I’m not religious. These people are ridiculous parodies of themselves who have no idea what is important to most people and who deserve nothing but to be laughed to scorn.

      1. Lots of customers don’t celebrate Christmas, and lots more are fine with the term not being tossed around all the time.

        1. What if the Muslims start demanding that PetSmart recognize their sacred holiday’s, Bo? What is your position then?

          1. I’d say they should stop being so insecure about what is supposed to give them strength.

            1. Yeah, but then you’ll give in and agree with them, right? Cause Islamaphobia. There’s no such thing as Christianaphobia. Like there’s not such thing as being racist against white people.

              If you want to be a hypocrite, it’s best to go all out.

              1. That’s ’cause Christians don’t pull people’s arms out of their sockets when they lose. Muslims are known to do that.

      2. PetSmart is doing what it wants and the Christians are bitching and bullying them about it, and PetSmart is the one trying to enforce political correctness?

        You must understand that you’re saying that what’s actually “politically correct” is to say “Merry Christmas.

        1. Fuck political correct, that’s what I’m saying. I’ll say whatever the fuck I want to say and there’s not a damn thing you can do about it. How’s that feel for a control freak feeling powerless?

          1. So why aren’t you bitching at the Christians?!

            1. I was bitching about them last night on the Independents thread and the ridiculous ‘The earth is only 6000 years old shit’ non-sense.

              That’s not the point. The point is that it is not at all important what people want to call any day of year.

              I don’t care what words any religions want to use for any given day. To give significant importance about anything so unimportant is childishness in the extreme.

              1. I’m glad you agree that the Christians in this case are being hysterical in their attempt to enforce political correctness.

    2. Does anyone really care about this? I mean, I’m an atheist manhattan cosmotarian and frankly, I don’t really give a damn if some Christians don’t want to shop somewhere.

    3. As an atheist libertarian who celebrates Christmas, I am torn on this one. PetSmart is presumably just trying to be inclusive to their Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, etc. customers, but I think they are over-estimating how offended the average non-Christian is by the phrase “Merry Christmas” (not at all, in most cases).

      The fact that you care so much is a bit concerning, though. Is your faith so weak that you are worried that Christ will stop helping NFL teams if every cashier is not singing his name?

      1. You include by including your customer’s observances in your business practices in ways that further your business interests.

        Excluding all customer observances out of a desire to not offend makes a business look as if it is exploitative. Particularly if the business is making money hand over fist selling the trappings of those observances.

        Which makes demonizing those businesses later all that much easier.

  13. Listen at Tony.

    ‘Legacy Points’

    ‘The Presidents Legacy’

    What a pathetic little psychophant.

    Hey Tony, isn’t it about time you puked on your mums basement floor and passed out in it?

    1. The Democrats have the smallest minority in Congress than they have had since before FDR and they control fewer states than at any time since reconstruction.

      Obama is all Tony has. Tony is watching his entire party, which for someone like Tony is his entire life, turn into an angry regional minority party of old white people.

      1. Tony’s entire life is trolling. He’s probably not even a real Democrat.

      2. John there is almost no chance Republicans have the presidency or senate in 2017. The demographic and geographical fundamentals were unchanged by 2014. The only reason for the outcome was because of historically low voter turnout (guess Republicans were right to try so hard to make that happen).

        I’m not saying this out of desperation, it’s just the facts, and I hope you can start coping soon. (Guess you can always bank on Republicans suppressing the vote some more.)

        1. Tony,

          The Democrats didn’t win near the percentage of Hispanics this time that they have. Moreover, there is no way that the Democrats will be able to get the black turnout in 16 that they did in 12 without Obama on the ballot. Without that the Democrats have no margin for error in 16.

          You keep telling yourself “Demographics” but the Republicans keep winning and taking over state after state government. The Democrats couldn’t beat Scott Walker in Wisconsin, haven’t won a state wide race in Ohio in years, lost the Senate in New York.

          The Democrats are becoming the party of economic stagnation and culture war bullshit.

          You swore up and down the Republicans were not taking the Senate this year. How did that work out for you? And it is not just the US. Europe, Canada, Australia, India the entire world is turning away from leftism. You believe in a dying ideology Tony.

          1. I don’t believe in any ideology.

            I’m telling you, Republicans won only the voters they normally win, and won because only those voters turned out. They lost Latinos by about the same margin as 2010. The election was basically 2010 all over again. So the issue is turnout, not shifting allegiances.

            Not to say neoliberal economics can’t win in this country or around the world. It’s been winning impressively despite being bad for people on a vast scale. That’s definitely possible.

            1. Voters they normally get? Like ones in places like Maryland and Illinois?

              Again, the Republicans even in 08 continued to do well at the state level. The Democrats are now a regional party. They have absolutely no hope of winning outside of a few places.

              And the demographics are not good enough to overcome the fact that they have lost the entire white working class forever. They are looking at losing the white working class 80 to 20 now. And you can’t make up for losing that much. The white working class is three times the size of the black vote.

              The entire Democratic message is based on racial hatred and classism towards the white working class. That makes hateful nasty people like you feel good, but you can’t be a national party when you lose a group that large as badly as Democrats are and will continue to lose them.

              Think of it this way, Demcorats have absolutely no hope of winning anywhere in the South outside of VA or Plains or interior Mountain west other than Colorado. From now on they will start every national election going forward with no shot at those places. Meanwhile, the Republicans continue to win and be competitive even in the bluest states like Illinois and Maryland.

              1. I wish I could believe that, John. Unfortunately the Dem factories in the northeast and the left coast are exporting their stupidity. VA, NC, and CO turning purple and PA blue are serious long-term problems for the GOP.

            2. Nobody has any actual goddamn idea how Latinos voted, because nobody ran real exit polls in either 2012 or 2014.

              No, seriously. You’ll find nominal “national” exit poll data from Edison Research, sure. So what was the partisan breakdown of Latino votes in New Mexico, in 2014, in any of the races there?

              Nobody knows, because nobody did serious exit polling in New Mexico. The only state in the country where Latinos out-and-out outnumber non-Hispanic whites by a substantial margin, and nobody was doing any exit polling when it elected its first Republican majority in the state House of Representatives since 1952.

              So, okay, what was the partisan breakdown of Latino votes in Texas, in 2012, in any of the races there? Oh, another great big “No damn idea, because nobody bothered.”

              Elections are decided on the state and district levels, and there’s huge local variations among Latino voters. Sure, supposedly Latinos went 63-37 Democrat nationwide in 2014, but in Texas this year, a majority of Latinos in Texas voted Republican for Senate (and since we didn’t have any real exit polls there in 2012, we have no idea if that’s a gain, loss, or even). So we need state-level data to predict elections based on Latino votes.

            3. I don’t believe in any ideology.

              That’s almost as laughable and preposterous a lie as your claims that you live in Oklahoma and are close personal friends with Bill Gates. Tell us another doozy, dickhead.

        2. Well, we’re going to believe you, Tony, since you told us 6 year ago that the Republicans would never, ever, not even in a thousand years win another election.

          1. That is right. in 09, the Democrats were never going to have any power again in this country. Now Tony assures us, they will some day lose the Senate. Notice even Tony has given up on the Democrats ever being the majority in the House. But demographics will doom the Republicans, he just knows it.

            1. In Tony’s world, you face plant on your mums basement floor every day at noon, passed out drunk.

              It’s pretty hard to keep track of what you said yesterday, let alone 6 years ago in that situation. We have to forgive Tony, he’s pitiful.

      3. You know what’s really funny?

        I work with a lot of foreign nationals who have just become citizens. I’m actually one of the few natural born Americans in my immediate department. I don’t think that’s too unusual in software development these days. We have quite a few Indians and Koreans.

        We had a discussion a couple days after the election, and I soon noticed that the attention was on me. A few people, who have yet to vote in an election started asking me about political parties and who they should vote for. I asked them what was important to them. Guess what? The economy. Surprise, surprise.

        So I told them, while I’m a libertarian, not a Republican, that if they don’t want higher taxes and want more economic growth, they are better off voting for Republicans. They took that advice very seriously. Then one of my co-workers who has been a citizen for a few years chimed in and said ‘When I first came here and was still in college, all my friends were democrats, so I was a democrat. Then I got my first job and my first paycheck and that same day I became a Republican’.

        The Democrats are fucking morons for thinking that they own minorities no matter who that might be. It’s always, in the end, going to come down to what improves peoples economic situation. This pie in the sky and loony toon shit about global warming and war on women is really going to fuck over the Democrats.

        1. Better hope they never take a look at how the economy does historically under Republicans vs. Democrats.

          Were you honest with them? Did you tell them the stuff about how Republicans cause better economic outcomes is complete ahistorical bullshit they just say in talking points?

          1. You mean Republican Congresses?

          2. Tony,

            The economy is terrible and the Democrats are going to take the blame for it. They got into power and did nothing but steal and screw everyone but their cronies and wall street. You own that legacy buddy. It is who people like you are, the party of the super rich and the super stupid.

        2. The problem is that even if people like Tony’s racial bullshit worked, they still couldn’t hold together their coalition because the various minority groups’ interests are different.

          If they want to give amnesty in hopes of getting the Hispanic vote, they will never get the black turnout they need to win. They try to buy off blacks with affirmative action but alienate Asians in the process.

          If these people were anything but stupid, imagine how much more damage they would be doing?

          1. Most people I know from Latin America are very socially conservative.

            My wife is so far right of me socially, that we’re almost on opposite sides of the planet.

            1. You know, I probably shouldn’t say that. Actually her and I agree about a lot of things socially. Her best friend is gay and so we’re both very accepting of people’s private sexual preferences.

              Neither of us are too supportive of unrestricted abortion. The one thing that puts me a little over into the conservative camp. Ugh, I hate that.

              I think the reason I think we are so far apart, is that she freaks out about legal pot and I can’t seem to convince her how important this is too libertarians. It’s always ‘Honey, do you want to smoke pot?’ Gawd, that makes he want to pull my fucking hair out! I’m worn down, sigh.

          2. It’s nonsense connections steeped in wishful thinking that make you you, John. Never change.

            People only care about their economic circumstances. Republicans are capable and welcome to try to convince minorities that their horseshit is what’s in their interest. It might be a good idea if they stopped explicitly demonizing nonwhites at every opportunity first.

            1. You’re going to get your chance to see exactly that when Rand gets the GOP nomination.

              Your entire world revolves around dividing people by race, doesn’t it, Tony? You’re the perfect Democrat then.

              I think you might find it hard to believe that most of us never have constant thoughts about dividing human beings up in that way.

            2. People only care about their economic circumstances.

              And that is why blacks want Amnesty even though it will hurt them economiclly more than any other group.

              Do you even listen to yourself Tony? My God you are stupid.

              1. In many cases, people who are concerned about their economic interests actually vote against their economic interests, because they fail to think things through. Giving Obama a second term was in almost nobody’s economic interests, but they voted for him nonetheless.

                1. Handlebar|11.18.14 @ 9:39PM|#
                  “In many cases, people who are concerned about their economic interests actually vote against their economic interests, because they fail to think things through”

                  Maybe, but more importantly, what you see as an ‘economic interest’ may not be what those voters see as the same.
                  Take Tony (please, and sorry). He claims to be well off and claims to vote for or favor every damn bit of proggy bullshit that comes down the pike.
                  The fact is that economics deals with values that can be monetized but don’t require it at the time of claims; stated vs revealed preferences. Tony’s material wants are satisfied; his pathetic desire to be seen as a ‘kind’ person are worth any votes he can muster, including stealing from you and me in the effort.
                  If those votes were monetized on him, he’d quickly change his tune; it is only the ability to make someone else pay for his fantasies that allows his stupidity.
                  He refuses to accept moral responsibility (the costs) for his preferences, but *his* (‘economic’) values are satisfied by his stupidity and lack of morals.

                  1. I don’t think it’s in my or anyone else’s interest, economic or otherwise, to vote for Republicans or their policies. That’s what motivates my choices.

  14. You may want to consider selecting your art more intelligently. The picture shows pinheads who oppose the pipeline. You should have a graphic that supports the message that the majority of the country is in favor of the pipeline.

  15. my roomate’s step-mother makes $70 hourly on the internet . She has been out of work for 10 months but last month her pay was $19227 just working on the internet for a few hours. original site…..


  16. Why vote on this now? In two months the R’s will have the majority and will gain enough votes to pass it.

    1. I think a lot of it has to do with the upcoming Senate runoff election in Louisiana between Mary Landrieu and Bill Cassidy. Landrieu’s the current Senator, and Cassidy is currently in the House. It’s a tight race, and a majority of Louisianians support the pipeline. Landrieu and Cassidy are essentially trying to out-pipeline each other. It’s no coincidence that they’re the ones who introduced the most recent Keystone bills in their respective chambers.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.