0
ryoder

Obama rejects Keystone XL bill

Recommended Posts

http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/24/politics/obama-keystone-veto/index.html

And for a good skewering of how dumb this veto is, let Jon Stewart explain it:
(Jump to the 0:50 point where he actually gets on topic)

http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/z14ywk/keystone-fight
"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's a fucking shit show, and we're all being showered in feces by the president, the lobbyist, and the other branches of government.

Safer form of transport
Dozens of these pipelines already exist.
We already get that type of evil oil in the us already
It's gonna get here anyhow

The president is acting like a fucking kid and despite being shown all the reasons it should happen, or that this level of stonewalling isn't necessary he still doubles down like a kid caught in a lie just to stick it to the republicans.

Has every pipeline from Canada had to have the presidents ok? Why is this one different?

Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Anvilbrother



The president is acting like a fucking kid and despite being shown all the reasons it should happen, or that this level of stonewalling isn't necessary he still doubles down like a kid caught in a lie just to stick it to the republicans.



Meh. What goes around comes around.
Congress have done the same thing to the pres for the last few years so I'm not terribly surprised.
Never try to eat more than you can lift

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is only Obama's 3rd veto, likely a result of Harry Reid stonewalling many other bills preventing them from getting to the president, just so they could talk about the Republicans being the "do nothing" party. Well now the Republicans are in charge of congress and THIS happens. Hopefully they can muster up the votes to override the veto. I think the Republicans are 4 votes short of the majority needed, but one Democrat from Alabama supports the bill so they need 3 more...

Override the damn veto and stick it to the POTUS.
"Mediocre people don't like high achievers, and high achievers don't like mediocre people." - SIX TIME National Champion coach Nick Saban

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Whitehouse reasoning for the veto:

"Because this act of Congress conflicts with established executive branch procedures and cuts short thorough consideration of issues that could bear on our national interest -- including our security, safety, and environment -- it has earned my veto," Obama wrote in a message to the Senate.

White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said earlier Tuesday that Obama planned to veto the bill because the State Department is still conducting a review of whether the massive pipeline — which would transport roughly 800,000 barrels of heavy crude from Hardisty, Alberta, to refineries in Port Arthur, Tex. — would serve the national interest.


Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/02/24/keystone-xl-bill-a-k-a-veto-bait-heads-to-presidents-desk/

WTF? The State Dept has been reviewing it for SIX years!
The environmental review was released over a year ago: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/01/31/four-takeaways-from-the-state-departments-review-of-the-keystone-xl-pipeline/

With the price of oil depressed, I'm wondering if an immediate approval would actually cause construction to begin.
"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

The Whitehouse reasoning for the veto:



If your going to make an obvious play, dont fucking lie about it, just say its because of a standoff with republicans we all know thats why, done make up some bullshit that does not exist.

Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sad and potentially dangerous to National security but funny too since the tar sands oils if flowing South anyway as per this article.

http://www.desmogblog.com/2015/02/24/obama-s-veto-keystone-xl-bittersweet-texans-forced-allow-pipeline-their-land

Downsides are if it comes thru your land or you are one of the pipeline workers that will now be laid off due to the veto.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wan2doit

Sad and potentially dangerous to National security but funny too since the tar sands oils if flowing South anyway as per this article.

http://www.desmogblog.com/2015/02/24/obama-s-veto-keystone-xl-bittersweet-texans-forced-allow-pipeline-their-land

Downsides are if it comes thru your land or you are one of the pipeline workers that will now be laid off due to the veto.



Depends on what you consider the downside of getting paid a lot of money to have the pipe line run through your land.
I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Right and when I worked for transco right after high school landowners got paid pretty well. Anytime we had to come in and do work we left it better than before, and usually made improvements. Anytime trees needed to be thinned they got paid for it.

Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Anvilbrother

Quote

The Whitehouse reasoning for the veto:



If your going to make an obvious play, dont fucking lie about it, just say its because of a standoff with republicans we all know thats why, done make up some bullshit that does not exist.



This was as close to bipartisan as things have been. Nine Democrat Senators voted for it. I a would think that the President would be interested in this development and perhaps use it as a springboard for further compromise.

The President doesn't want compromise. At all. He is more interested in thumbing his nose. My understanding is that the State Department already okayed the pipeline. Everything has been there for it and even the public supports it.

thr President? Nope. I think the legacy of his presidency will be "fuck you. I'm the President."


My wife is hotter than your wife.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

This was as close to bipartisan as things have been. Nine Democrat Senators voted for it.


That's roughly 20% of Democrats who voted for it, a/k/a about 80% of Democrats who did not vote in favor of it. Personally, I don't think that's very bipartisan; it's just something less than a 100% party-line vote. Mind you, I came of age in the pre-Gingrich era, when strictly party-line votes in Congress were not virtually universal; for me, that level of permanent divisiveness is still a "new normal".

Having said that, I'll agree with those who think a lot of this is politically-motivated. But specifically, I'll betcha it's one salvo of payback for Boehner's big "fuck you" to Obama by going behind the White House's back and unilaterally inviting Netanyahu for his speech. (In other words, Boehner did the first "fuck you". The veto is Obama's "fuck you right back".) With that single amateurish move, Boehner just guaranteed that the modest amount of cooperation he might have had from the White House will now be zero for the next 2 years. Neither house of congress has a veto-proof GOP majority, so not much legislation is going to escape Obama's veto pen wherever he chooses to wield it.

Boehner's going to pay a political price for pulling that stunt, and if he thinks the GOP will be able to spin the resulting impasse to their favor in the eyes of the large Moderate wing of the electorate (pssst.. those are the ones who actually decide the elections...) come the 2016 election season, I'm predicting his gamble will lose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I guess I should have said " if it comes thru your land AND U DON'T WANT IT"

Some folks care less about the money - I know that's odd in our system but some would prefer scenery etc. to stay the same.

Just sayin' - not looking to argue - I'm for more and cheaper oil products with minimal bad side effects. ??Who decides what minimal is - big question?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Andy9o8

Personally, I don't think that's very bipartisan; it's just something less than a 100% party-line vote.



in the last couple decades,

"something less than a 100% party-line vote"
=
"very bipartisan"



I think you pretty much reference that in the following sentences, but I just wanted to post something.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ryoder

"Because this act of Congress conflicts with established executive branch procedures and cuts short thorough consideration of issues that could bear on our national interest -- including our security, safety, and environment -- it has earned my veto," Obama wrote...


Well isn't that ironic, in light of his other unconstitutional actions, like his immigration edict. Now all of a sudden he's concerned about following "proper" procedures and our national interest. Peshaw!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TomWatson

***"Because this act of Congress conflicts with established executive branch procedures and cuts short thorough consideration of issues that could bear on our national interest -- including our security, safety, and environment -- it has earned my veto," Obama wrote...


Well isn't that ironic, in light of his other unconstitutional actions, like his immigration edict. Now all of a sudden he's concerned about following "proper" procedures and our national interest. Peshaw!

As I said above, politics is give and take. When any Speaker of the House gives any President of the United States a big, public, disrespectful "fuck you" like Boehner did, there's a price to be paid. That's the reality; best embrace it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Andy9o8

Quote

This was as close to bipartisan as things have been. Nine Democrat Senators voted for it.


That's roughly 20% of Democrats who voted for it, a/k/a about 80% of Democrats who did not vote in favor of it. Personally, I don't think that's very bipartisan; it's just something less than a 100% party-line vote. Mind you, I came of age in the pre-Gingrich era, when strictly party-line votes in Congress were not virtually universal; for me, that level of permanent divisiveness is still a "new normal".

Having said that, I'll agree with those who think a lot of this is politically-motivated. But specifically, I'll betcha it's one salvo of payback for Boehner's big "fuck you" to Obama by going behind the White House's back and unilaterally inviting Netanyahu for his speech. (In other words, Boehner did the first "fuck you". The veto is Obama's "fuck you right back".) With that single amateurish move, Boehner just guaranteed that the modest amount of cooperation he might have had from the White House will now be zero for the next 2 years. Neither house of congress has a veto-proof GOP majority, so not much legislation is going to escape Obama's veto pen wherever he chooses to wield it.

Boehner's going to pay a political price for pulling that stunt, and if he thinks the GOP will be able to spin the resulting impasse to their favor in the eyes of the large Moderate wing of the electorate (pssst.. those are the ones who actually decide the elections...) come the 2016 election season, I'm predicting his gamble will lose.



The whole Presidency has been "fuck you." Long ago, the President drew lines by attacking the very core beliefs of the GOP instead of finding common ground. He went straight ahead into party politics. The machine. The GOP went right back at him. Although he has previously had Harry Reid there to play goalie and block anything the GOP tried to do. That cover is gone.

Yes, the GOP said eff you to Obama with the Netanyahu deal. This is the new normal, where egos get in the way of doing anything else. The Delocrats that supported the pipeline all did so because of union interests to protect. We know this. The ones that didn't have environmental interests. The President owes a favor to Warren Buffett to keep the trains moving.

Again, the extreme partisanship is a creature of senate rules from the 70's that created the dual track system. Used to be that a filibuster shut down everything. So if a person was going to filibuster something there was a great price to be paid and it was a huge risk. Not anymore. There is no need to work together anymore. Reagan was the last President who was good at it because he was best at gaining popular support as the Great Communicator

Clinton would get legislation, say he thinks it is a bad idea but the people voted in the Republicans so he'll sign it and a couple years later take go credit for it. And the GOP would let him.

Now? I had such high hopes for Obama. While he is not the worst President of my lifetime I think that he is far and away the most disappointing.


My wife is hotter than your wife.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Maybe Obama has been less than proactive about finding common ground, but it's seemed from the beginning as though the republicans were bound and determined to define "common ground" as "exactly the way we want it," with an added bonus if where it goes against something the Dems wanted is highlighted.

Obama is no Clinton; he doesn't really like deal-making, and can't really see how someone could look at facts and come to a different conclusion from him. Of course, that's not different from most people.

He was guaranteed to push on health care; it was one of his primary campaign promises.

Personally, I think the veto is a mistake, but because I think that the pipeline should be built. It's a hedge for energy security, and a whole lot cheaper than going to war in the Middle East.

I agree he's been disappointing; not as disappointing as Bush, but then he didn't just decide to start a war.

Until the American public has a common goal that's a little loftier than "make my opponents look like assholes at any cost" I don't really see a way out. 9/11 did have us pointing in the same direction for awhile, but that got pissed away.

I think we need to remember that smarmy politicians are the ones who will make deals, and who will identify common goals. That's a good thing sometimes, and "compromise" isn't always a dirty word.

Wendy P.
There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TomWatson


Well isn't that ironic, in light of his other unconstitutional actions, like his immigration edict.



How come it's unconstitutional when Obama does it, but not when other presidents do the almost exact same thing? Is your partisanship showing?
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My disappointment is that another campaign promise was to find common ground. It was a big one of hope and change.

Hope and change were quickly obliterated. We knew what we were getting with Bush. That's why I wasn't even disappointed because I had the bar set so low. I actually believed Obama. It did not take long for him to dash that hope.


My wife is hotter than your wife.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lawrocket

***

Quote

This was as close to bipartisan as things have been. Nine Democrat Senators voted for it.


That's roughly 20% of Democrats who voted for it, a/k/a about 80% of Democrats who did not vote in favor of it. Personally, I don't think that's very bipartisan; it's just something less than a 100% party-line vote. Mind you, I came of age in the pre-Gingrich era, when strictly party-line votes in Congress were not virtually universal; for me, that level of permanent divisiveness is still a "new normal".

Having said that, I'll agree with those who think a lot of this is politically-motivated. But specifically, I'll betcha it's one salvo of payback for Boehner's big "fuck you" to Obama by going behind the White House's back and unilaterally inviting Netanyahu for his speech. (In other words, Boehner did the first "fuck you". The veto is Obama's "fuck you right back".) With that single amateurish move, Boehner just guaranteed that the modest amount of cooperation he might have had from the White House will now be zero for the next 2 years. Neither house of congress has a veto-proof GOP majority, so not much legislation is going to escape Obama's veto pen wherever he chooses to wield it.

Boehner's going to pay a political price for pulling that stunt, and if he thinks the GOP will be able to spin the resulting impasse to their favor in the eyes of the large Moderate wing of the electorate (pssst.. those are the ones who actually decide the elections...) come the 2016 election season, I'm predicting his gamble will lose.



The whole Presidency has been "fuck you." Long ago, the President drew lines by attacking the very core beliefs of the GOP instead of finding common ground.

Oh boo hoo. If you're going to make the president's failure your "number one priority", and if you're going to brag about it (McConnell) -- you really can't get upset when the president strikes back.
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TomWatson

***"Because this act of Congress conflicts with established executive branch procedures and cuts short thorough consideration of issues that could bear on our national interest -- including our security, safety, and environment -- it has earned my veto," Obama wrote...


Well isn't that ironic, in light of his other unconstitutional actions, like his immigration edict. Now all of a sudden he's concerned about following "proper" procedures and our national interest. Peshaw!

Obama wasn't breaking any new ground on executive immigration orders:

http://www.pensitoreview.com/2014/11/17/impeachable-18-immigration-executive-orders-by-republican-presidents/
"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Every time the FACTS of a situation are pointed out to the Reich Wing Conservatives, they simply refuse to acknowledge them.

Facts are completely meaningless to them. All that matters is "truthiness" that backs up the opinions of their media outlets that they parrot verbatim.

The Rescumlicans started plotting against the "Kenyan socialist" (translation, that fucking nigger!) as soon as McCain lost the election. They have done everything possible to prevent any forward progress by this administration, to the point of intentionally sabotaging efforts to fix the economy.

These same fucktards then verbally vomit bullshit about the president being seen as weak by Putin, Jong Un, etc. The fucktards are allowed to have it both ways by the Reich Wing Conservative followers.

In the real world, if you do everything that you can to undercut, demean, insult, and heckle a sitting US president, you can't then turn around and bitch about the perception that he is weak.
The fucktards have made that perception happen by their own actions. Then they have the gall to bitch about it, and the RWC followers stupidly go along with the fucktards.

The RWCs are driving the USA to ruin, and are very proud of themselves for doing so. It is quite stunning to see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kallend

******

Quote

This was as close to bipartisan as things have been. Nine Democrat Senators voted for it.


That's roughly 20% of Democrats who voted for it, a/k/a about 80% of Democrats who did not vote in favor of it. Personally, I don't think that's very bipartisan; it's just something less than a 100% party-line vote. Mind you, I came of age in the pre-Gingrich era, when strictly party-line votes in Congress were not virtually universal; for me, that level of permanent divisiveness is still a "new normal".

Having said that, I'll agree with those who think a lot of this is politically-motivated. But specifically, I'll betcha it's one salvo of payback for Boehner's big "fuck you" to Obama by going behind the White House's back and unilaterally inviting Netanyahu for his speech. (In other words, Boehner did the first "fuck you". The veto is Obama's "fuck you right back".) With that single amateurish move, Boehner just guaranteed that the modest amount of cooperation he might have had from the White House will now be zero for the next 2 years. Neither house of congress has a veto-proof GOP majority, so not much legislation is going to escape Obama's veto pen wherever he chooses to wield it.

Boehner's going to pay a political price for pulling that stunt, and if he thinks the GOP will be able to spin the resulting impasse to their favor in the eyes of the large Moderate wing of the electorate (pssst.. those are the ones who actually decide the elections...) come the 2016 election season, I'm predicting his gamble will lose.



The whole Presidency has been "fuck you." Long ago, the President drew lines by attacking the very core beliefs of the GOP instead of finding common ground.

Oh boo hoo. If you're going to make the president's failure your "number one priority", and if you're going to brag about it (McConnell) -- you really can't get upset when the president strikes back.

This is bs. The GOP hated Clinton, too. Clinton still managed to work with them. Obama faced a challenge from the gate. Obama decided that he was going to respond with greater dickishness. Obama promised he wouldn't do exactly what he has been doing.

He became Bush. Obama has behaved in ways that are celebrated only by those who love him no matter what. Three or four vetoes through six years is a mighty fine example of why his president failed. He wouldn't even tell Reid to send stuff to him so he could veto it.

Please note that I hold you in infinitely higher regard than funjumper who I cannot see as having put forth a rational thought ever.


My wife is hotter than your wife.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lawrocket

*********

Quote

This was as close to bipartisan as things have been. Nine Democrat Senators voted for it.


That's roughly 20% of Democrats who voted for it, a/k/a about 80% of Democrats who did not vote in favor of it. Personally, I don't think that's very bipartisan; it's just something less than a 100% party-line vote. Mind you, I came of age in the pre-Gingrich era, when strictly party-line votes in Congress were not virtually universal; for me, that level of permanent divisiveness is still a "new normal".

Having said that, I'll agree with those who think a lot of this is politically-motivated. But specifically, I'll betcha it's one salvo of payback for Boehner's big "fuck you" to Obama by going behind the White House's back and unilaterally inviting Netanyahu for his speech. (In other words, Boehner did the first "fuck you". The veto is Obama's "fuck you right back".) With that single amateurish move, Boehner just guaranteed that the modest amount of cooperation he might have had from the White House will now be zero for the next 2 years. Neither house of congress has a veto-proof GOP majority, so not much legislation is going to escape Obama's veto pen wherever he chooses to wield it.

Boehner's going to pay a political price for pulling that stunt, and if he thinks the GOP will be able to spin the resulting impasse to their favor in the eyes of the large Moderate wing of the electorate (pssst.. those are the ones who actually decide the elections...) come the 2016 election season, I'm predicting his gamble will lose.



The whole Presidency has been "fuck you." Long ago, the President drew lines by attacking the very core beliefs of the GOP instead of finding common ground.

Oh boo hoo. If you're going to make the president's failure your "number one priority", and if you're going to brag about it (McConnell) -- you really can't get upset when the president strikes back.

This is bs. The GOP hated Clinton, too.

BS back at you. You only have to read the hate filled invective on the right wing blogs, the vile name calling, the "birther" garbage that still goes on, the claim that he's a Muslim, etc. to see that there's no comparison. And no GOP leader came out openly to state that the #1 priority (ahead of doing the peoples' business) was to make Clinton a 1 term president.
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lawrocket

My disappointment is that another campaign promise was to find common ground. It was a big one of hope and change.

Hope and change were quickly obliterated. We knew what we were getting with Bush. That's why I wasn't even disappointed because I had the bar set so low. I actually believed Obama. It did not take long for him to dash that hope.



Well, one of Bush's early promises (very early first term) was that he was going to cooperate with Congressional Democrats.

Article from just after the Supreme Court decided that Bush won:

http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2000-12-14/news/0012140323_1_dick-cheney-congressional-republicans-george-w

That didn't last long.

After his second term, he decided that a 2% victory was a mandate, and he was going to "spend that political capital" and do whatever he wanted.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.
"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0