Democrats Strongly Oppose Energy Independence: Stall Keystone Pipline

yep, if only we had access to that Canadian oil, we would be energy independent

Pipelines leak. This is inescapable. It is not unreasonable to want to avoid an environmental scourge.

Surprise surprise. seemingly thoughtful liberal policies leaving us in a weaker position down the road.

North American energy independence (ok, actually just us and canada) would make issues in the middle east irrelevant.

ISIS is making mad money off oil right now. how is it that the price is plummeting despite the level of turmoil in iraq/syria? Any other time the Middle East gets this wild, the price of oil goes up!! ISIS has taken a 25% pay cut over the past 5 months.

Europe receives a lot of its energy/gas from Russia - surprise surprise, Russia remains relevant on the global stage.

Liberals - start connecting the dots on these economic issue like you "do" on all that "social justice" bull I hear you talking about and you'd realize that you've wasted a good chunk of your life and your parents'/rich aunt's money on a worthless undergraduate/graduate degree in social work.

Republicans men are 100% closet h*m*sexuals. Bruce Jenner is a hardcore Republican.

Again you libtards feel the need to lie to make a point. It's not 100@%....I'd say more like 66%.

This will be fixed in January. For the majority of Americans who don't hang out at high brow parties trying to impress our liberal friends, the economy, job creation and energy independence are important topics needing to be furthered by our political leaders.

Wonder how many more thrashings the dems will need to suffer before they hear us.

So since the economy is steadily improving, hundreds of thousands of jobs are being added every month, and U.S. Energy production is at an all time high, shall I assume that what you want us to hear is that Republicans want to destroy this country?

Lol angry teabaggers want their oil back!

Lol, a libtard trying to be funny.

If you think the Keystone XL pipeline will do a damn thing to promote US energy independence you are a complete and utter moron. Actually, it's worse than that. You are a completely self-delusion moron who is also the most gullible person in the entire freaking world. God! I hope you never reproduce...

So you proclaim "God!", but I'm self-delusional and gullible? Right.

krispy kremlin wrote:

So you proclaim "God!", but I'm self-delusional and gullible? Right.

What does him being delusional and gullible have to do with whether or not you are? Can't you both be?

This is a perfect example of how stupid you are. You are in high school. You lack critical thinking ability. Stop posting here.

Those that oppose this pipeline do so because the process of extracting oil from those sands is particularly harsh on the environment.

And locals in the US don't want a pipeline of oil going through their land.

The benefits from this pipeline aren't that great.

Some temporary jobs. An easy way to that oil down here.

It certainly doesn't bring us close to energy independence.

If the pipeline never happens, that oil still gets pulled and is sent down by train.

So stopping the pipeline doesn't stop the process that hurts the environment, really, except for not having potential pipe spills.

It will probably get done, I guess.

The whole thing is pretty small potatoes to both sides.

It just gets mentioned all of the time for political points.

Do it. Don't do it. Whatever.

Doing it won't help with gas prices or energy independence or the unemployment rate.

Stopping it won't save the planet.

Here's why I oppose KXL:

1. The oil will go abroad. If it goes abroad it won't be used in North America. The Soviets had a great policy of importing oil despite having tons of it. Now they're sitting pretty, and have Ukraine and Eurpoe by the balls. It's a far-sighted strategy, but a good one.

2. Let the Canadians build a pipeline to the St. Lawrence river.

3. Not many jobs, really, and they're mostly gone once the thing is built.

4. Oh, yeah, the environment and risk, but that's a low priority for me.

The libs oppose the pipeline not because they fear the pipeline leaking, but because they are opposed to the process of refining tar sands into a viable product. Unfortunately, with the price of oil where it is at, tar sands are on the table and will go to market regardless of their collective conscience (ironically, they will likely go there in a less efficient manner making the environmental impact even worse). The only question is whether or not we want to create jobs creating the pipeline, refining the product and exporting the product. I don't get the opposition because the resource is going to be exploited at some point in the future anyhow, as demand for oil keeps rising and high yield reserves are diminished.

I am liberal.

I do not oppose the pipeline, I oppose the idea that Congress or the President has any direct say on if/when/how it is built. There are plenty of laws describing what needs to happen to get the pipeline, just follow them and it will eventually get built, that is fast enough.

I also am not happy the Repubs don't understand the the pipeline is designed to help send oil and gas out of the country.

A North American wrote:

Here's why I oppose KXL:

1. The oil will go abroad. If it goes abroad it won't be used in North America. The Soviets had a great policy of importing oil despite having tons of it. Now they're sitting pretty, and have Ukraine and Eurpoe by the balls. It's a far-sighted strategy, but a good one.

2. Let the Canadians build a pipeline to the St. Lawrence river.

3. Not many jobs, really, and they're mostly gone once the thing is built.

4. Oh, yeah, the environment and risk, but that's a low priority for me.

You true about the number of long-term jobs - about 35 - with about 55,000, I believe, helping to build it. But on the evironment - you are just flat out wrong. Obama's own state department had concluded the pipeline will reduce greenhouse emissions 42% - yes 42%!!! - over how the oil will now be transported - which is by rail. All the idiot liberals who voted against it are just nunuckleheads.

Only 42%? You'd think a pipeline would produce 100% less emissions than a train.

Phase 1, 2, 3a, 3b (2015) of the Keystone pipeline already exist. Canada already sends heavy tar sands oil through it to US refineries.

The phase 4 extension, which is what is not being approved, does not offer anything other than a shorter, direct route through Nebraska and a few other states. See the map here:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/43/Keystone-pipeline-route.png/220px-Keystone-pipeline-route.png

With or without the phase 4 extension, Canadian oil will still flow to the US for processing or export. Republicans have continually claimed otherwise, and they are lying.