There's fuckin' MONEY TO BE HAD

We're fucked. What's the use. Time for contingency plans for the slow and pitiful diminuendo of life on this planet. That includes my offspring. I have no optimism left at this point.

and cry with you.

We need to pressure President Obama to veto this legislation. We can't let this discourage us.

to express the contempt I have for these bought BITCHES. Fuck all of them.

". Time for civil disobedience and some vandalism
That poor pipeline is going to have constant leaks and holes in it."

Yes, of course, we want the watersheds and lakes used by migrating species to be full of oil because some idiot thinks damaging the pipeline is a good idea.

Is that what you're saying?

... and graciously accept more rape at the hands of the oil and gas industry and their puppet politicians. In time, we'll forget about all of this, as we aways do, and as the oil and gas industry relies upon us to. Yeah, the sheeple may be a bit restless for a time, but we'll soon enough go back to sleep. After all, what choice do we have? We're far too domesticated to consider anything that might go against laws written for us by our corporate masters.

I'm not agreeing with the leaky pipe idea, but what's the alternative? Acceptance?

Although I have little faith anymore in American "democracy" to do anything that would compromise its monied interests, I'm normally resigned to the eventuality of us going the way of the Roman Empire and hoping that something better will arise from our ashes. But global warming feels different. It's not just us who pay the price for our corruption; we're going to take everyone else out with us. It's hard enough to watch us destroy ourselves through our ignorance, complacency, and shortsighted greed; sitting idle while watching us destroy everyone on the planet requires a level of indifference that's difficult for even me to muster.

they don't care, they care about campaign donations from lobbyists, they care about getting re-elected, they care about themselves and their personal financial situations, they care about who they are having sex with and if their wife finds out. but the environment and the people who elected them? A few do, most don't.

Nobody said stop using fossil fuels today. Nobody said our dependency wasn't built up over time. Really wondering what your point might be.

Last edited Sat Mar 23, 2013, 08:59 PM - Edit history (1)

In certain cases, slow, methodical change works.

With this issue, we do not have the luxury of incremental change.

is this the United States of Duh ??????????

These people do more harm than good. They are simply trojan horses for the oil industry. Time to start running primary challenges.

She's the oil and gas industry's bitch and picks up her money on the dresser every day of the week.

But was happy to find my Senator (Brown) voted against this abomination. I've always campaigned for him and he made me proud today.

stooge all the way.

I've donated to your Senator.

corporate gain, and further, in effect, saying fuck the promote the general welfare doctrine and the horses you rode in on.

... would love to see the entire list and how they voted if anyone can find it. Thanks again, Judi Lynn, for another important piece of news.

It's always interesting to see what the actual cost of something like this is. Market forces, and all that.

Executive Order 11423 of August 16, 1968

http://www.state.gov/e/eb/rls/othr/exec/114274.htm

&quot b) With respect to applications received pursuant to subsection (a)(i) above, the Secretary of State shall request the views of the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Defense, the Attorney General, the Secretary of the Interior, the Secretary of Commerce, the Secretary of Transportation, the Interstate Commerce Commission, and the Director of the Office of Emergency Planning. \1\ (FOOTNOTE) With respect to applications received pursuant to subsection (a)(ii) above, the Secretary of State shall request the views of the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of the Interior. With respect to applications received pursuant to subsection (a)(iii) or (iv) above, the Secretary of State shall request the views of the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Defense, the Attorney General, and the Secretary of Transportation.

***

(f) The Secretary of State shall issue or deny the permit in accordance with his proposed determination unless, within fifteen days after notification pursuant to subsection (d) or (e) above, an official required to be consulted under subsection (b) above shall notify the Secretary of State that he disagrees with the Secretary's proposed determination and requests the Secretary to refer the application to the President. In the event of such a request, the Secretary of State shall refer the application, together with statements of the views of the several officials involved, to the President for his consideration and final decision.

***
Sec. 3. The authority of the Secretary of State hereunder is supplemental to, and does not supersede, existing authorities or delegations relating to importation, exportation, transmission, or transportation to or from a foreign country. All permits heretofore issued with respect to matters described in Section 1 of this order, and in force at the time of issuance of this order, and all permits issued hereunder, shall remain in effect in accordance with their terms unless and until modified, amended, suspended, or revoked by the President or, upon compliance with the procedures provided for in this order, by the Secretary of State."

Food for thought.

Sam

Now why do you suppose he's been urging Dem senators to support Keystone deal for a few years now, but, the actual signing of the deal was put off till after Hillary had some distance from State? Everyone paying attention knew Keystone was a done deal before 2011 thanks to Hillary's 100% support to make it happen and she used State to do it.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/73445.html
Bill Clinton on Keystone XL pipeline: 'Embrace' it


Bill Clinton says it's time to build the Keystone XL pipeline.

Speaking at an Energy Department conference in Maryland on Wednesday, the former president said he was surprised the project has gotten as gummed up as it has, laying the blame on pipeline builder TransCanada.
>>>>>

the argument can be made the treaty still needs Presidential approval. The way this is progressing is that no one wants to leave their fingerprints on it. But I think it was Waxman, who is opposed to the project, who said the legislation is for show and the project cannot be approved without President Obama's cooperation. My point in posting that link was to ask if this is a tool that can be used to insist President Obama take a public position instead of equivocating.

And the other issue is that those in favor of this project seem to be making a power grab from the Executive Branch. It is not the legislative arm that is in charge of approving treaties. It the situation were reversed and a Republican president were in office, and Congressional Dems tried a maneuver like this, the squawking would never cease.

Sam

years ago. She has made deals with countries contingent upon Keystone over the last few years, as well. There is no going back and revisiting and reviewing and that is the reality. Every report from the State Dept had been crafted to make that deal happen over the last 4 years, and delivered to Obama's desk.

Stephen Chu was against the deal, too, but he slipped back in 2011 and admitted that the deal was already done. The problem is that Clintonites made sure the major media only saw balls kept up in the air and they reported it that way.

Wow! I'm stunned!

I don't think she wants her name on this if she is going to run in 2016. There is a lot of "leave no fingerprints" emerging over the controversial treaty.

But a Secretary of State still needs a tacit at least approval from the President. Read the 1968 Executive Order.

Sam

with the expectation of doing a greater good down the road - like he is on this trip to the Mideast. There is a reason Obama wouldn't do it in his first term - HRC was never considered an honest broker to both sides the way Kerry is - HRC was clearly in the camp of the neocons, much like Bush.

This is what you WON'T see and hear from US media:

http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/israeli-apology-the-background-story.aspx?pageID=238&nID=43493&NewsCatID=409

Everyone actually paying attention knew this was a done deal years ago.



Environmental groups want Hillary Clinton's recusal from pipeline review

Several environmental groups called Thursday for Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton to recuse herself from the review of a $7 billion oil pipeline project because of comments she made last month suggesting support for it.

TransCanada's Keystone XL pipeline needs a permit from the State Department because the pipeline would cross the U.S.-Canadian border to carry Canadian oil to the U.S. Gulf Coast.

Clinton said Oct. 15 that she was inclined to approve the pipeline. The environmental groups say that's improper because the pipeline is still under review.

"Secretary Clinton's bias on this unnecessary and controversial pipeline undermines the credibility of the State Department's review," Erich Pica, president of Friends of the Earth, said in a statement.
>>>
http://journalstar.com/news/local/environmental-groups-want-hillary-clinton-s-recusal-from-pipeline-review/article_8283b622-e870-11df-8bb1-001cc4c002e0.html

that should be the end of Hillary's ambition for the WH. Hillary depends on the support of environmentalists, and Biden is going to look awfully good to be the next Democratic candidate for the WH.

And set up the 'assessments' and reports delivered to the WH that were designed to be positive for Keystone. The deal was made over 2 years ago. Hillary needed distance from it so she wouldn't be seen signing the deal before her Hillary2016 run. I wouldn't be surprised if all that polling that is showing her as undefeatable had been sponsored by her camp to get the results out before Keystone deal gets officially signed. Kerry accepted State knowing he would be the one taking the hits for this deal that he had always been against. I loathe this type of political maneuvering.

WTF is up with Conservatives anyway? You would think that they would be natural conservationists. All the unintended consequences garbage that they spout, if they really stood on the principles of leaving their offspring with more freedom and better life they would give as much of a shit about the destruction of our planet through the use of fossil fuels as they do about the national debt.

Anyway, it saddens me to see that our side isn't really taking a strong stand and is being bulldozed with the issue. What will sadden me even more is if the President signs it into law.

Besides a few temporary jobs, the Keystone XL Pipeline will not benefit us.

We will get the pollution while foreign entities get the oil products produced at an off-shore tax haven in the Gulf of Mexico.

Allowing a foreign corporation to use our eminent domain laws to condemn property belonging to U.S. citizens is also very troubling, to say the least!

I posted to another thread on this before I saw this one. I was so appalled that my Dem senator Michael Bennett would vote for this amendment that I emailed him immediately. But the problem as always is that he too was bought by the huge oil, gas, and coal industries in Colorado MSNBC just finished a piece on the amendment with a reporter from WaPo. Seems like they were trying to do an objective piece but it was entirely on environmental differences and they mentioned nothing about the State Dept EIS scandal (go to Mother Jones). Also did not bring up that it's not just GOP like Vitter who have been bought but many Dems like Mary Landrieu who even though she knows what BP has has done to the gulf and to the nation also knows she will never keep her seat unless she votes for the pipeline. They do not mention that Canada will not let TransCanada pipe the heavy crude through their most beautiful areas or build refineries on the west coast because the risk of spills is so great. Or that the oil will be sent from our Gulf refineries to Asia. Or that the pipeline will provide less than 4000 jobs while it increases the destruction of our planet.

which is much more risky, environmentally.

Also, the AFL-CIO supports the pipeline.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/28/business/energy-environment/afl-cio-backs-keystone-oil-pipeline-if-indirectly.html

should refine the oil in canada, and pipe refined product directly to markets - far less pipeline across aquifers

If in doubt, check the note upthread of the bribe money paid over to ensure that
they "remembered" where their best interests lay on this decision.

Also check the people who consistently defend the pipeline.

there's a myth out there that there is some grand battle between the Democrats and the Republicans. If that were true, then Harry Reid would have bargained with the GOP over this, he would have gotten something for us out of it. But that grand battle is a lie, they're working together.

This is the ''new'' bi-partisanship party, with the Wall Street cabinet, remember? The ''80's Republican'' party? The 13th-dimension chess party? Well, this is how they move.

- It's your move now......

.....



Had enough of all our Fake Democrats yet, America? Had enough corporate purchase of elections?