worse than the Kochs.

badly to use the entire breadth of its own country, with all that risk of dirty crude spills, to transit foreign oil to be shipped to other foreign lands?

Makes no sense.

So, obviously we don't know everything. There has to be some secret plan in the works.

Money is going to be made by someone, no matter what the damage is. Of course it should stay in the ground.

Canadians are fighting against pipelines transporting the dirty oil through Canada as well, especially First Nations whose land those pipelines need to traverse through to get to either coast.

I can only surmise those in the US who support this pipeline are ignorant, truly ignorant of the fact there is NO benefit to them, no decreased oil prices, no increased employment, increased environmental dangers both through the pipeline itself and the Texas refineries that will process the dirty oil before it is shipped out. The only ones who benefit from this in the US are the oil companies and the politicians who are funded through contributions from those same oil companies, imo.

As for the ordinary voters, they are being flagrantly lied to. The repugs keep drumming the lie that building the pipeline will lead to "less reliance on foreign oil" - conveniently leaving out the fact that all the oil will be going to the export market.

will keep it in the spotlight with a slant towards the need for the oil, not what Obama explained yesterday, the truth! The ones who benefit already own the politicians, they are just trying to isolate the rest of us as tree huggers.
Koch is airing the first commercials I have ever see for them. Payback to the media by buying the ads and trying to get a positive image with the easily distracted.

All they care about is that a pipe through the Midwest is cheaper than a pipe through the Canadian Rockies.

Nothing like adding a little hyperbole to the debate. The State Department says there will be no environmental impact.

http://keystonepipeline-xl.state.gov/documents/organization/221135.pdf

Those "no lasting jobs" you disparage are construction jobs. Every construction job in the U.S. is temporary by definition. Are we to remove construction jobs from the jobs created number since they are not "lasting"?

from the article:

Considering, then, that the State Department study was conducted by TransCanada’s business partner, it’s little surprise that it failed to find any environmental consequences for the project. The reality is far different. On a local level, pipeline leaks and spills could have a number of drastic effects. Recent leaks from similar lines have been bad. Really bad. A New York Times article cites a 2010 leak of 840,000 gallons of bitumen into Michigan’s Kalamazoo River. The cleanup has cost $1 billion so far, and continues today.

Tar Sands oil is far dirtier and bitumin itself is corrosive. Furthermore, there are no benefits to this pipeline for people in this country and a lot of negatives.

"It's Not So Bad".

I look forward to your third act, "Thank God it Passed".

because I have no idea what you are referring to. Let's see what your next act will be.

The taxpayers will foot the bill for all environmental disasters.

The argument that things are already terrible therefore why worry about a little more, is bogus.

The point about the construction jobs is that the very small number isn't worth the risk of the pipeline. If the jobs are the main issue, spend government money on infrastructure jobs.

Got it... When you don't have science on your side, deny it. Where have we seen that before?

State Dept said as you claim, there were huge qualifiers. There is no science that will guarantee that there won't be ruptures in the pipeline. Especially 10 years down the road when the corporation that is responsible forget to upgrade (profits).

And if you're going to resort to gibberish, hinting that I am right wing or whatever, then go do that elsewhere.

I attached the State Department report to one of my posts. It is based nothing on but science. If you want to engage in what-if disaster hypotheticals then absolutely nothing would be built in this country ever again. Maybe that is what you want.

spill oil in the Gulf. The bottom line is that we don't need the pipeline and it's risk.

bridges, roads in dire need, we need not take on a risky job that Canada should be doing just because the GOP donors are waiting to be repaid for their contributions and some of the Dems are too scared to say no.
If there is a spill they have no liability. We pay.

There are a lot of them.

US anywayz is bogus. Stop the pipeline then work on restricting rail shipments. Tax the hell out of them.

Will Obama ultimately sign the bill once the legal issues have been resolved?

the Republicans guarantee to pass the Chained CPI.

I wouldn't doubt it. Gotta pay for the military/industrial/surveillance state some how.

In what may be the death knell for the controversial Keystone XL pipeline, the Canadian government of Stephen Harper has approved a purely Canadian pipeline to transport the Alberta tar sands to ships waiting to send it overseas. By eliminating the pipeline which would run across the nations largest aquifer, the environmental concerns raised over Keystone XL would evaporate immediately. It handily avoids the aquifers in Canada to boot, being east of the Paskapoo Formation in Alberta, running north of the Oak Ridges Moraine Aquifer System near Toronto, and ending before reaching the Annapolis-Cornwallis Valley Aquifers in Nova Scotia. Clearly, TransCanada has learned from its mistakes in the handling of Keystone XL.

The name of this Keystone XL killer pipeline? Energy East.

all other considerations notwithstanding.

It's possible that BHO may have finally learned how to negotiate, and issued the threat in an effort to get something in return, which the dumbass dem senate leaders didn't do -- given the lack of certainty in the stupid effort to secure another senate seat.

And the fact of the matter is, the ONLY group that is opposed to it in significant/majority numbers are liberals, so...

analysts are saying with the price of oil cratering, why? They can approve all thru want. If the economics aren't there, it won't be built but they'll ignore all that and move on to Ebola or something again.