Keystone XL

Attn, Obama: Three Reasons to Build Keystone XL Pipeline

|

So a bill to push the Keystone XL Pipeline failed to get enough support in the Senate yesterday. It's likely that when the new, GOP-controlled Congress takes over in 2015, something similar will sail through and President Barack Obama will veto or otherwise quash plans to build the thing.

A year and change ago, Reason TV released "3 Reasons to Build the Keystone XL Pipeline." Take a look above and go here for a full writeup.

Vote or no vote, veto or no veto, this much is pretty clear: There's something seriously wrong when the government is able to stymie the building of a private project. Yes, there are eminent-domain abuse issues surrounding some aspects of the pipeline and those should be dealt with. But there's simply no good argument for the government holding up things. This isn't about jobs (the numbers, real and imagined, in those sorts of scenarios are always guess work and it's not the government's job to create jobs anyway) and it's not about the environment (the Canadian petroleum products are going somewhere, so the idea that not building the pipeline will reduce global warming or whatever is simply cant). But given their willingness to support any sort of taxpayer-funded boondoggle (and the temp jobs those useless projects generate), the liberal Democratic opposition to building the pipeline is really just bald hypocrisy.

NEXT: Atheists and Secular Humanists are protected by the First Amendment regardless of whether their belief systems are "religions" or not

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. I think one additional thing to consider is that we’re basically telling a longstanding vital ally and our largest trading partner that they should go fuck themselves.

    “Hey, you know that vital product you’ve got, that makes up a good chunk of your exports? Yeah…we’re going to try to interfere with your ability to export it. For domestic political reasons. And because you can go fuck yourself.”

    I’ve even seen Democrats openly arguing that the pipeline is a bad idea because it would let Canada sell this oil on the world market, and we should be trying to trap the oil in the North American market only.

    So these guys are openly advocating that we deliberately hold an ally’s major export product hostage, for our own benefit. WTF? That’s not the kind of shit you want to say out loud, guys.

    1. I think one additional thing to consider is that we’re basically telling a longstanding vital ally and our largest trading partner that they should go fuck themselves.

      Heh, “we”. I hope (and suspect) that all the republican presidential candidates and the Clintons are privately making it clear to Canada that this execrable lowlife Block Yomomma doesn’t represent America; he simply duped a gullible and low-information electorate.

      One way or another, this pipeline IS going to be completed, even if we have to wait another two fucking years.

    2. Canada is our oldest ally and biggest trading partner. It boggles the mind that we would refuse to build a pipeline to allow their oil to get to market.

      Warren Buffet has a monopoly on rail transport of oil from Canada. I really think this is nothing but a case of Obama doing his bidding knowing that Buffett will take care of him well after he leaves office. I really think the issue is just that simple.

    3. And Canada thinks it’s a good idea. Canada! It’s like not trusting your earnest, church-going little brother.

  2. There’s something seriously wrong when the government is able to stymie the building of a private project.

    But kkkorporations will profit! Without the government setting the rules for private investment there will be chaos!

  3. Good reasons don’t have a thing to do with the opposition to the pipeline. You could prove that the pipeline would make us all so rich that our welfare cases could afford Mercedes Benzes, and it still wouldn’t make much of a dent in the opposition. This is about symbolism. Period.

    1. The greenies/lefties have freely acknowledged that opposition is completely symbolic at this point.

  4. I’ve even seen Democrats openly arguing that the pipeline is a bad idea because it would let Canada sell this oil on the world market

    Dog-in-the-Manger-ism. Somebody else might benefit, and that’s bad.

  5. This my friend is why we roll with the punches.

    http://www.Safe-Anon.tk

  6. Ram that son of a bitch right down Obama’s fucking throat in the first week of January, and make the gutter-rat actually have to veto it. And if he does, make him do it over and over and over again.

    The campaign commercials write themselves. “We’re trying to create jobs and economic growth, but the Obamites care more about Tom Steyer and nonexistent global warming, even though Buffalo got a six foot blizzard, than they care about you and the country.”

  7. Nice, reasonable argument for the pipeline. Very informative. Mr. Obama, what do you think?

    Obama: *smirks and makes whacking-off motion*

    Until rich tree-huggers stop giving the DNC a money money tree to hug, Ds will never support Keystone XL. It’s the litmus test-di-tutti litmus tests.

  8. One tiny little side benefit of the pipeline would be to prove that opponents of eminent domain abuse aren’t just malcontents who oppose all instances of eminent domain.

    1. Except…some of us do.

      1. Well, that’s idiotic.

        Eminent domain in certain cases was specifically permitted in the constitution with good reason. If it were never permitted, we’d still be a tribal, agrarian society.

        1. Or personal helicopters would be wildly popular

  9. One irony I noticed is that the other ‘related’ videos that pop up as choices after the Reason.tv clip are mostly anti-pipeline, anti-XL, anti-everything-not-green and about as tainted as one could imagine.

    When any discussion gets the ‘moral/ethical/emotional card’ thrown on the table, you can know for sure that whoever threw the card has run out of rational, logical, factual reasons or arguments for their side.

    Textbook example, there.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.