Keystone XL rejection = Windfall profits for Berkshire Hathaway

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by Obamanation, Jan 24, 2012.

  1. #1
    Really, a brilliant play by Obama. Make a good show of protecting the environment while protecting the profits of your political campaign contributors at the cost of the American taxpayers, American jobs, and the environment.
     
    Obamanation, Jan 24, 2012 IP
  2. Bushranger

    Bushranger Notable Member

    Messages:
    2,841
    Likes Received:
    257
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    200
    #2
    One wonders how many people are employed watching oil go down a pipe as opposed to the number it would take to load & unload a train. Maybe he's protecting US jobs as well as the environment?

    The pipe will create more temporary jobs to make it but will then permanent remove the rail workers required from then on. It's not as if you'll see any of the 50c saving at the bowser.
     
    Bushranger, Jan 24, 2012 IP
  3. mmerlinn

    mmerlinn Prominent Member

    Messages:
    3,197
    Likes Received:
    819
    Best Answers:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    320
    #3
    Typical political cronyism. And screw the taxpayer and consumer.
     
    mmerlinn, Jan 25, 2012 IP
  4. Obamanation

    Obamanation Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    8,016
    Likes Received:
    237
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    180
    #4
    That was my point. He is protecting profits of political contributors, but at the cost of the environment. Moving oil by barrel on train is much more hazardous to the environment than the pipeline.


    I saw the "Can capitalism go to far" thread make mention of the potential benefit of protecting jobs by shunning advancement. If you'll recall, that is how the Soviet Union died. We have 10s of millions more people employed today than when we industrialized, replacing workers in factories with automation, and people hand picking corn with harvesting machines. Jobs replaced by automation produce opportunities for new jobs. It amazes me that people still give credence to these types of arguments.
     
    Obamanation, Jan 25, 2012 IP
  5. PoliticalTraveler

    PoliticalTraveler Peon

    Messages:
    59
    Likes Received:
    0
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #5
    Interesting article. I had no idea. Another politician working for the highest paying donor. I just wish there was a candidate that had a chance against Obama during next election.
     
    PoliticalTraveler, Jan 31, 2012 IP
  6. Obamanation

    Obamanation Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    8,016
    Likes Received:
    237
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    180
    #6
    Romney has a good chance. Damn near 50/50 odds right now, which isn't bad against an incumbent, and those odds should get better for Romney once he is the official nominee.

    Realistically, for Obama to stay in office, either a) unemployment is going to need to improve or b) he is going to need to run the best campaign in history, making the case for re-electing a loser, or more likely, demonizing Romney.

    Obama may be the crappiest president in history, but he is a hell of a campaigner. It should be interesting to watch. What should be far more interesting, and valuable to the nation, is watching the Senate go to the Republicans. We get enough new Senate seats and Obama can keep the white house. We will simply start overriding vetos.
     
    Obamanation, Jan 31, 2012 IP