Say whether you support/oppose the Keystone pipeline before Obama gives you the right answer

[adric mutelovic]

In light of the fact that people in both parties have been recently caught basing their decisions not on their critical thinking skills but on what their party leaders think, I am composing this thread as a vehicle for all members to state NOW whether you want Obama to approve or reject the Keystone Pipeline.

This is a good idea, IMO because it's hard for anyone to predict what Obama will do in this respect as of today.

Thanks.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

1. I am opposed to the pipeline; I want Obama to reject it. n/t

[truedelphi]

67. Then you will be soon labelled a terrorist.

http://www.popularresistance.org/transcanada-calls-nebraska-ranchers-agressive-and-abusive-t
alks-of-terrorism/

TransCanada, the Canadian corporation behind the proposed Keystone XL pipeline, is providing

security briefings to Nebraska authorities warning them to look into the application of

“anti-terrorism laws” on people who oppose the pipeline despite the fact that no Nebraskan

has committed a crime in the state in their efforts to stop the pipeline.

Bold Nebraska obtained TransCanada documents from the Nebraska State Patrol through a

Freedom of Information Act request and was alarmed to discover what they describe as efforts

to build distrust between Nebraska police and citizens who have organized to oppose the

pipeline which threatens their air, land and water.

“It’s outrageous that a foreign corporation would come into our state to sow fear of

landowners and citizens,” said Jane Kleeb, executive director of Bold Nebraska. “Every

meeting, rally, and action that we have done in Nebraska has been peaceful, non-violent and

lawful.”
###
BTW, when Obama was in San Francisco about a month ago, he said that he will be approving it to help "poor people who can't afford it if energy costs go up." (San Francisco Chronicle carried the story.)

Hmm, guess he's still for us poor people and probably still "for the children." But someone needs to explain to him that this pipeline is not going to offer help to Americans - the product is going through teh Pipleine, and then will be sent off to some foreign country.

[kyeshinka]

111. Tomato, tomahto

I prefer the term "freedom fighter."

[Deep13]

2. still opposed, for all the good it will do. nt

[truedelphi]

70. See my reply number 67 above yours. n/t

[Deep13]

160. Contemplating the end to petrolium terrifies some people. nt

[octoberlib]

3. I'm against it. nt

[Flashmann]

4. I am opposed to the pipeline; I want Obama to reject it

Ditto

[ForgoTheConsequence]

5. Opposed.

I usually side with labor but not this time.

[ljm2002]

6. Opposed. n/t

[kentuck]

7. No fair.

Trick question.

[truebrit71]

8. I have ALWAYS been against it. I fear Obama will approve it.

....

[xiamiam]

33. Obama will approve it, I'd take bets on that..nt

[G_j]

72. I've thought that to myself

but I would hate to bet on something so awful!

[truebrit71]

210. Sadly the odds will be very slim...of course he's going to approve it...

...the only question is how pretty the speech will be when he screws the planet...

[nadinbrzezinski]

9. Opposed

And I do not base my views on leaders, but I know exactly what you mean

[Wait Wut]

10. "...before Obama gives you the right answer..."

[ForgoTheConsequence]

30. So.....

For it or against it?

[rhett o rick]

32. How do you stand on this issue? nm

[Dragonfli]

36. He hasn't been told yet

[rhett o rick]

40. See my post

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3017881

[Wait Wut]

61. See my post

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3018129

[Wait Wut]

54. Who is 'he'?

[Dragonfli]

66. "It" seemed rude, and there is no indication of gender in your profile.

[Wait Wut]

78. So you assume that I am a 'he'?

When I'm not sure of a person's gender I say he/she or him/her, until the subject's gender is clarified.

But, hey, if you want to assume that everyone is a 'he' that's okay in your book.

Now, to respond to your original assumption; I have an opinion on this subject and have since about the beginning. This thread does not entice me to share my opinion since it is nothing but a childish attempt at division. If a thread is started about the subject without the playground taunts, I will be glad to share.

[Dragonfli]

89. I will not refer to you as "he" again. That never was intentional.

I did find it odd that you would not offer an opinion, it did appear to me to lend credence to the OP's point. You should not keep it a secret until after it's decided, but that is your choice, peace.

[Wait Wut]

60. I'm waiting until Pres. Obama tells me what to think.

That way, you and the rest of the 'club' can point fingers and flip out over the 'apologists'.

If someone starts an honest thread about this, I will respond. This thread is childish crap and you know it. This has nothing to do with the Keystone Pipeline and everything about dividing this site.

[rhett o rick]

93. Thank you. I appreciate your honesty. nm

[Wait Wut]

99. You're welcome. nt

[Renew Deal]

134. I thought it was funny

Even though this person may be trolling. Both parties operate this way.

[sabrina 1]

177. So are you for it or against it? I am against it and am glad that so far, Obama has not approved it

But even if he does, I will still be against it.

[Wait Wut]

191. See my post.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3018129

[Fire Walk With Me]

11. People in both parties are basing their decisions upon greed, not politics. Politics is dead:

Susan Rice Owns $300,000 in TransCanada Stock (Keystone XL Developer)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/112729600

"Susan Rice, the candidate believed to be favored by President Obama to become the next Secretary of State, holds significant investments in more than a dozen Canadian oil companies and banks that would stand to benefit from expansion of the North American tar sands industry and construction of the proposed $7 billion Keystone XL pipeline. If confirmed by the Senate, one of Rice’s first duties likely would be consideration, and potentially approval, of the controversial mega-project."


Corrupt John Boehner Invested In Oil Companies Then Pushed Keystone XL
http://www.politicususa.com/2012/01/22/john-boehner-keystone-xl.html


And of course, the Koch brothers, who stand to save $2 billion a year via the pipeline (versus using other sources). Of course, the Kochs co-created the "tea party" so any of those senators, governors, and politicians are literally Koch shills inside the government.

The Koch bros. could save $2 billion a year via the Keystone XL pipeline -Greg Palast

Study Confirms Tea Party Was Created by Big Tobacco and Billionaire Koch Brothers
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brendan-demelle/study-confirms-tea-party-_b_2663125.html

"Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini

[liberal_at_heart]

19. I don't know why but seeing this picture just reminded me of the two old guys from Trading Places.

[truedelphi]

87. Lately, all I am wondering about is what I will

Be allowed to the "Fusion Center" my government chooses for me?


http://www.popularresistance.org/transcanada-calls-nebraska-ranchers-agressive-and-abusive-t
alks-of-terrorism/

TransCanada, the Canadian corporation behind the proposed Keystone XL pipeline, is providing

security briefings to Nebraska authorities warning them to look into the application of

“anti-terrorism laws” on people who oppose the pipeline despite the fact that no Nebraskan

has committed a crime in the state in their efforts to stop the pipeline.

Bold Nebraska obtained TransCanada documents from the Nebraska State Patrol through a

Freedom of Information Act request and was alarmed to discover what they describe as efforts

to build distrust between Nebraska police and citizens who have organized to oppose the

pipeline which threatens their air, land and water.

“It’s outrageous that a foreign corporation would come into our state to sow fear of

landowners and citizens,” said Jane Kleeb, executive director of Bold Nebraska. “Every

meeting, rally, and action that we have done in Nebraska has been peaceful, non-violent and

lawful.”

[Fire Walk With Me]

144. Yep. Corporations/Greed plus Terror/Greed equals citizens are fucked. n/t

[liberal_at_heart]

12. opposed.

[Puzzledtraveller]

13. ouch, lol

[Catherina]

14. Categorically oppose n/t

[MNBrewer]

15. Opposed!

[ForgoTheConsequence]

16. Honestly though...

This wont prove much. The people who usually parrot whatever Obama or Jay Carney says aren't going to post here.

However you can bet your ass if Obama approves it they will be here almost immediately praising the decision and gloating about all the "jobs" it will create.

[Skittles]

24. CORRECT

the Groupies here, like dittobots, they wait to be told what to think

[G_j]

69. it seems

some don't actually have their own opinion.

[NRaleighLiberal]

17. Always been opposed, always will be, no matter what any politicians state. n/t

[truedelphi]

62. Then you will soon be labelled a terrorist!

http://www.popularresistance.org/transcanada-calls-nebraska-ranchers-agressive-and-abusive-t
alks-of-terrorism/

From the above linked article:
TransCanada, the Canadian corporation behind the proposed Keystone XL pipeline, is providing

security briefings to Nebraska authorities warning them to look into the application of

“anti-terrorism laws” on people who oppose the pipeline despite the fact that no Nebraskan

has committed a crime in the state in their efforts to stop the pipeline.

Bold Nebraska obtained TransCanada documents from the Nebraska State Patrol through a

Freedom of Information Act request and was alarmed to discover what they describe as efforts

to build distrust between Nebraska police and citizens who have organized to oppose the

pipeline which threatens their air, land and water.

“It’s outrageous that a foreign corporation would come into our state to sow fear of

landowners and citizens,” said Jane Kleeb, executive director of Bold Nebraska. “Every

meeting, rally, and action that we have done in Nebraska has been peaceful, non-violent and

lawful.”

[NRaleighLiberal]

103. .

[Marrah_G]

18. Opposed

[truedelphi]

65. Then you will soon be labelled a terrorist!

http://www.popularresistance.org/transcanada-calls-nebraska-ranchers-agressive-and-abusive-t
alks-of-terrorism/

TransCanada, the Canadian corporation behind the proposed Keystone XL pipeline, is providing

security briefings to Nebraska authorities warning them to look into the application of

“anti-terrorism laws” on people who oppose the pipeline despite the fact that no Nebraskan

has committed a crime in the state in their efforts to stop the pipeline.

Bold Nebraska obtained TransCanada documents from the Nebraska State Patrol through a

Freedom of Information Act request and was alarmed to discover what they describe as efforts

to build distrust between Nebraska police and citizens who have organized to oppose the

pipeline which threatens their air, land and water.

“It’s outrageous that a foreign corporation would come into our state to sow fear of

landowners and citizens,” said Jane Kleeb, executive director of Bold Nebraska. “Every

meeting, rally, and action that we have done in Nebraska has been peaceful, non-violent and

lawful.”

[Marrah_G]

71. I'm totally okay with that!

[truedelphi]

95. Maybe we will be cellmates at some

"Fusion Center?" And with the money being poured into those centers, they will probably be pretty great.

I'm thinking they will be spa-like, with music and art, and lots of massages for all of us "guests".

[Marrah_G]

114. If there is a hot tub I am SOOOO there!

[sabrina 1]

179. Wow, you weren't kidding. I guess I'm a terrorist then.

Think about it. To them, the greedy, corrupt profiteers, anyone who opposes their money hoarding is attacking what they view as their property. It is a sickness, they can't help it.

For the record, I consider them to be terrorists.

[canoeist52]

20. Been opposed since I first read about it.

[Hydra]

21. Opposed

No more oil. Period. No more coal, no more nukes, no more dirty power.

We have alternatives and should use them. No more destroying the environment for profit.

[woo me with science]

22. Opposed.

[truedelphi]

82. Have you heard the latest, woo me with science?

http://www.popularresistance.org/transcanada-calls-nebraska-ranchers-agressive-and-abusive-t
alks-of-terrorism/

TransCanada, the Canadian corporation behind the proposed Keystone XL pipeline, is providing

security briefings to Nebraska authorities warning them to look into the application of

“anti-terrorism laws” on people who oppose the pipeline despite the fact that no Nebraskan

has committed a crime in the state in their efforts to stop the pipeline.

Bold Nebraska obtained TransCanada documents from the Nebraska State Patrol through a

Freedom of Information Act request and was alarmed to discover what they describe as efforts

to build distrust between Nebraska police and citizens who have organized to oppose the

pipeline which threatens their air, land and water.

“It’s outrageous that a foreign corporation would come into our state to sow fear of

landowners and citizens,” said Jane Kleeb, executive director of Bold Nebraska. “Every

meeting, rally, and action that we have done in Nebraska has been peaceful, non-violent and

lawful.”

[woo me with science]

96. +1000000 This is fascistic at its core. Protest is now "terrorism."

This is how gravely dangerous the corporate authoritarians who have purchased our government really are.

[redqueen]

23. welcome to du

[Skittles]

25. opposed

[leftstreet]

26. LOL

Best OP I've seen in a long time

[JustAnotherGen]

27. Opposed

But only because the Koch Brothers want it and it only benefits them. Check out Greg Palasts writing on this subject matter.


It's about the Kochs. It always comes down to those two evil little snakes.

[on point]

28. Oppose. The route & pipe may or may not be safe, but the idea is unsafe

For the climate.

That is the pipe itself doesn't matter, the production itself is too dirty to support

[monmouth3]

34. Definitely oppose..n/t

[BrotherIvan]

29. I like the question

[xiamiam]

31. opposed..nt

[Progressive dog]

35. Unserstand that this is not a prediction and trying to tamp down

the crazy stuff about our government and our Democratic president does not show a lack of critical thinking skills--it shows an inability to cease thinking to appease the crazies.
I want the President to reject the Keystone pipeline.
If he doesn't, I will think he was wrong, but I will still support him.

[Dragonfli]

45. I know what you mean, I always support stuff I think is wrong.

If he doesn't, I will think he was wrong, but I will still support him.

[Progressive dog]

119. I'm glad you know what I meant and didn't deliberately get it wrong

so that you could lie about it later. I didn't realize supporting stuff was the same as supporting a person.
I understood the obvious ploy of the OP, but chose to make certain that any one but an i...t would know where I stood.

If he doesn't, I will think he was wrong, but I will still support him.
That says exactly what I meant it to say.

[Dragonfli]

120. I understand, but standing by his actions is standing by the actions themselves

but what's a liberal dog to do? Bite his masters hand just because he dumps poison in his water bowl? I think not!!!

[Progressive dog]

129. Another post another try to twist my words

perhaps to lie. What else can an insect do?

[Dragonfli]

132. Well for starters a dragonfly can hover around and observe hypocrisy and the refusal to admit it.

[Progressive dog]

139. That is so cute, don't discuss issues, ignore posts

and make up stuff about a bug without a brain.

[Dragonfli]

142. I read your post, that is where I observed hypocrisy, your denial of it was posted as well.

Now you hurt my feelings
I only said of you that you are a good little doggie that would never bite his masters hand, no matter the abuse. A dogs blind loyalty even to an abusive master is sweet and admirable in it's own way.

In return you are mean to my Dragonfly, I have to log off now and cry.

[Progressive dog]

154. It is not hypocrisy if I do not pretend to support somethimg that I don't

You apparently cannot deal with simplistic concepts, or are a spoiled child who doesn't understand how that awful Obama guy could disagree with you on anything. Best of luck with that attitude in life.

[galileoreloaded]

56. game set match on the OP. oyvey nt

[rhett o rick]

37. Nice try but none of the Obama club will respond. During the NDAA discussion it was funny to

ask whether they themselves supported indefinite detention. Couldnt get a single one to commit. They would argue to high heaven about what the wording actually meant but never commit themselves.

[bvar22]

38. What have you observed in the last 5 years...

...that gives you any doubt about what President Obama is going to do?

I OPPOSE the Keystone Pipeline,
but Wall Street, The Global Oil Cartel, and the 1% Ownership Class approve it.

There is the possibility of some clever sham political device like the Sequester,
or a Joe Lieberman scapegoat,
or a "tragic" political Hostage Situation
to lend plausible deniability to the guilty parties,
but I believe the deal is already done.

Like the great myth of the Public Option,
the Kabuki Theater,
scripted to make it look like we actually have a voice in our government,
is still playing out.



[font size=3 color=firebrick]*********SPOILER ALERT**************[/font]
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
I've seen this one before,
and it ends badly.

[font size=3]Hold on to your Memories, SUCKERS!
Cause WE're TAKING everything Else!
Hahahahahahahahaha

[hedgehog]

39. I'm not sure - I'm against the pipeline, but I keep hearing arguments that

if the pipeline doesn't go through, some worse environmental degradation will occur - for example coal shipped to China via port of Seattle - 18 trains a day!

So, pipeline yes or no: NO!

So, China burns Canadian oil or Wyoming coal:

We really need to be dumping the investment money into renewables, energy storage, energy efficiency, etc, but the people controlling the money aren't going to do that just yet.

[truedelphi]

76. fUNNY ain't it, that we have NO money for a real renewables program, but

Tons of money for surveillance state activities. The NSA center is supposed to get fourteen new buildings, and according to what a guest on Charlie Rose said last night, all the money that once was going for wars is now going for NSA and other spying activities.

Then there are all the "Fusion Centers" that will be housing all of those who do oppose the XL Pipeline. Each of those centers costs close to a billion bucks, and that is before anyone is hired to see to the care and feeding and torture of the future inmates.


http://www.popularresistance.org/transcanada-calls-nebraska-ranchers-agressive-and-abusive-t
alks-of-terrorism/

TransCanada, the Canadian corporation behind the proposed Keystone XL pipeline, is providing

security briefings to Nebraska authorities warning them to look into the application of

“anti-terrorism laws” on people who oppose the pipeline despite the fact that no Nebraskan

has committed a crime in the state in their efforts to stop the pipeline.

Bold Nebraska obtained TransCanada documents from the Nebraska State Patrol through a

Freedom of Information Act request and was alarmed to discover what they describe as efforts

to build distrust between Nebraska police and citizens who have organized to oppose the

pipeline which threatens their air, land and water.

“It’s outrageous that a foreign corporation would come into our state to sow fear of

landowners and citizens,” said Jane Kleeb, executive director of Bold Nebraska. “Every

meeting, rally, and action that we have done in Nebraska has been peaceful, non-violent and

lawful.”

[rhett o rick]

41. I oppose. nm

[Dragonfli]

42. I will oppose it until Obama supports it, then I'll change my mind and support him

What is a liberal dog to do? Bite his masters hand just because he beats him?

[truedelphi]

92. My laugh of the week. Thank

You dragonfli.

a small Friday afternoon

[Dragonfli]

98. .

[grntuscarora]

43. Strongly oppose. n/t

[frylock]

44. opposed

[Grey]

46. opposed......

[G_j]

47. opposed .. I thought Obama SAID he was too

not that that means anything..

[CanonRay]

48. Oppose, completely and absolutely

and so should Obama.

[hrmjustin]

49. I am opposed!

[freshwest]

50. Loaded question, 'before Obama gives you the right answer' demeans many here.

But since you demand we answer your question to prove purity, I've worked against pipelines and other man-made environmental disasters long before Obama graduated high school.

This pipeline was planned before PBO got into office, in case you didn't know. I've posted a lot on this and opposed it. I oppose all fossil energy and nuclear initiatives, but am also aware my views don't sway those getting a check. You might want to confront them in person, as I and others have. I assure you, it will not be a pleasant experience.

Instead of denigrating the members of a website because Obama, despite the direct threats of Charles Koch and Grover Nordquist, and having to deal with a HoR that inserted fast tracking on this pipeline since 2009 in every budget bill, and he's stalled them, you might want to check a few things.

Unless you are sure only you have the capacity to resist the wrong answer. Your broadbrush of how we don't have minds of our own and are incapable of thinking is insulting. We are not waiting for Obama to give us the right answer. I respectfully answered your question, but I suspect, not to your liking.

EOM.

[panader0]

113. Rec^^^

[rhett o rick]

131. I agree that the OP was a little rude. And I admit that I went along while I preach for the

end to ridicule and rudeness. However, the OP isnt aimed at anyone that thinks for them self. If you think for yourself you would have no problem telling everyone where you stand. IMO it was aimed at those that post here that support Pres Obama's stands on issues with righteous rudeness. Those I am referring to will not commit themselves on issues that the Pres hasnt taken a clear stand. They arent here to discuss issues but to righteously bully anyone that dares to have a different opinion than the president.

Those that are posting their positions here are doing so because it is what they believe irregardless of why the President thinks. Those that are conspicuous by their absence are the ones that, after the Pres makes his position clear, will defend the President's position like they always have supported that point of view.

[truedelphi]

145. You say it as you see it, but already some have

Answered that whatever the answer from Obama on Keystone, they feel that he is to not be criticized, as uh, you noes, Sarah Palin, 2016.

[tiny elvis]

156. zeebabuda habada

get mad, baby

&feature=player_detailpage#t=63s

[Cha]

171. Brilliant response, fresh! Thanks

for taking the time to teach the OP a thing or more.

The OP wanted a flamefest with his disingenous premise and you have sorely disappointed him.

[JustAnotherGen]

189. As I wrote on Post 27

Opposed
But only because the Koch Brothers want it and it only benefits them. Check out Greg Palasts writing on this subject matter.


It's about the Kochs. It always comes down to those two evil little snakes.
Who Am I? www.mynextfortyyears.com And a Member in Good of the order of the sisters of perpetual outrage - AKA Sister Hair Flip An Idiot

And if the OP can't see how the Kochs and their minions have fooled him/her into believing Obama is the enemy and HE was the soup to nuts guy behind this then I don't want him/her on my side anymore. OP has been bamboozled.

[freshwest]

201. Well said, and needs to be said more often. Forest and trees... (warning, long post)

Anyone who 'can't see how the Kochs and their minions have fooled him/her into believing Obama is the enemy' is bambozzled or else is here depressing us from going forward, which would also be exactly what the Koches want. How anyone cannot see the money behind the media is beyond me. A DUer wrote this and I saved it, to think on and recall the items in it. I have no link, as it was in Meta:

But there are, on the internet, also some individuals, and groups, who clearly promote agendas that coincide with the same agendas as the wealthiest and most powerful interests on the planet.

DU, Kos, etc. may seem insignificant to some, but as we all know,

(1) Money strongly influences information
(2) Information becomes public opinion
(3) Public opinion elects power
(4) Power greatly influences profit margins and the distribution of power
(5) The outcome of any election can depend on a single vote

I'm just sayin'...that there are people out there with unlimited wealth, who have no qualms about sparing no expense in using their money to spread information that will form public opinion, in order to elect candidates favorable to their private profit and power interests.

There are no restrictions, or financial considerations, preventing them from doing so. If I were of their corrupt ilk, corrupt ilk meaning individuals such as the Koch Brothers, I would definitely spend a few pennies to sway public opinion in my favor, everywhere, in order to promote my self interests.

(Come to think of it, I would probably even help finance a think tank to promote my self-serving agenda. Makes good logical sense.)

I would certainly finance individuals and groups whose function it would be to swing public opinion, and the Democratic Party, to the right in any way that I possibly could. Being filthy rich beyond comprehension, I would most assuredly do this. Actually, I would probably not even have to think about it, as it would be the task of some of my highly talented, extremely well paid employees, to insure that this was done.

The Koch brothers are some of the richest people on the planet, and have used their money to influence every kind of media, from childhood and on, if they don't buy it directly. They once stayed in the shadows, behind the John Birch Society, the Libertarian Party and all its associated institutions and think tanks, they personally created.

They funded the AFP and FreedomWorks, but at long last came out of the shadows and showed themselves to threaten Obama in 2010 and created the Tea Party. Charles Koch publicly demanded, along with their pal Nordquist that they would hurt Obama if he didn't bow to them but the fabled DU version of a spineless Obama didn't.

And they have carried through on every one of their threats. You mentioned the Palast article. I posted on that and Keystone in the BOG. You know, where the weak minded Obamabots hang out and worship him, haha. They further helped their buddy, Ron Paul and now Rand, and have changed the USA from ALEC legislation state to state, with nothing less than the destruction of the public square and the federal government which obstructed their aims.

They are against all civil and human rights, which are not the same as these 'civil liberties' they sold so many on, who don't comprehend the Koches' philosophy or the consequences, but want something shiny and new, that is really as old as the monarchy. Bambozzled and not able to confess it, they now demand we bow to their ideas and incite the mob against Obama, which is the Koch brothers goal. Going at it from both sides, the best technique ever. How anyone could forget Thom Hartmann's piece here at DU and what we're up against is not a person I'll bow to, anymore than I do PBO:

Thom Hartmann: Conservative Millennials, Boomers & Libertarians all being Conned

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1017&pid=44227

Just one of many articles on their long ranging work to destroy Obama and democracy. They and their media created the Tea Party to stop the Bush tax cuts sunsetting, to get this pipeline, to destroy faith in our government and take down Obama. Not because of what he has or has not done. They want his ideals of uplifting the poor and saving this nation destroyed.

Covert Operations - The billionaire brothers who are waging a war against Obama.

by Jane Mayer August 30, 2010


David H. Koch in 1996. He and his brother Charles are lifelong libertarians and have quietly given more than a hundred million dollars to right-wing causes.

On May 17th, a black-tie audience at the Metropolitan Opera House applauded as a tall, jovial-looking billionaire took the stage. It was the seventieth annual spring gala of American Ballet Theatre, and David H. Koch was being celebrated for his generosity as a member of the board of trustees; he had recently donated $2.5 million toward the company’s upcoming season, and had given many millions before that. Koch received an award while flanked by two of the gala’s co-chairs, Blaine Trump, in a peach-colored gown, and Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg, in emerald green. Kennedy’s mother, Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis, had been a patron of the ballet and, coincidentally, the previous owner of a Fifth Avenue apartment that Koch had bought, in 1995, and then sold, eleven years later, for thirty-two million dollars, having found it too small.

The gala marked the social ascent of Koch, who, at the age of seventy, has become one of the city’s most prominent philanthropists. In 2008, he donated a hundred million dollars to modernize Lincoln Center’s New York State Theatre building, which now bears his name. He has given twenty million to the American Museum of Natural History, whose dinosaur wing is named for him. This spring, after noticing the decrepit state of the fountains outside the Metropolitan Museum of Art, Koch pledged at least ten million dollars for their renovation. He is a trustee of the museum, perhaps the most coveted social prize in the city, and serves on the board of Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, where, after he donated more than forty million dollars, an endowed chair and a research center were named for him.

One dignitary was conspicuously absent from the gala: the event’s third honorary co-chair, Michelle Obama. Her office said that a scheduling conflict had prevented her from attending. Yet had the First Lady shared the stage with Koch it might have created an awkward tableau. In Washington, Koch is best known as part of a family that has repeatedly funded stealth attacks on the federal government, and on the Obama Administration in particular.

With his brother Charles, who is seventy-four, David Koch owns virtually all of Koch Industries, a conglomerate, headquartered in Wichita, Kansas, whose annual revenues are estimated to be a hundred billion dollars. The company has grown spectacularly since their father, Fred, died, in 1967, and the brothers took charge. The Kochs operate oil refineries in Alaska, Texas, and Minnesota, and control some four thousand miles of pipeline. Koch Industries owns Brawny paper towels, Dixie cups, Georgia-Pacific lumber, Stainmaster carpet, and Lycra, among other products. Forbes ranks it as the second-largest private company in the country, after Cargill, and its consistent profitability has made David and Charles Koch—who, years ago, bought out two other brothers—among the richest men in America. Their combined fortune of thirty-five billion dollars is exceeded only by those of Bill Gates and Warren Buffett...

A lot more at the link:

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/08/30/100830fa_fact_mayer

Remember, folks, that they have much more money in their hands now. Even to fund the right and the left and conspiracy theorists. They have made it very profitable and popular to denigrate the Democratic Party and Obama. Some may not question negativity and jump on it like a dog on a piece of raw steak and get very excited about it. Better see who's tossing that red meat and why they're doing it. Big picture.

[Kali]

192. good post

and as someone who lives right next to one major nat-gas line and ranches with 3 other large pipelines, including one that spilled and contaminated a stock pond (and sickened/killed several animals), yet also directly benefits from occasional large equipment work and a residential tap off one of them (not to mention whatever may have originally been paid for the right of way through the patented land), I am opposed to this project.

[graham4anything]

51. Whatever John Kerry, Susan Rice, Joe Biden, Bill Clinton say is good enough for me.

[Wait Wut]

64. +a gazillion!!!!

[Zen Democrat]

52. I completely resent your tone. I love Obama. I am 100% against Keystone.

I haven't agreed with many of Obama's decisions. Yet I love him. Go figure that out, before you give yourself the wrong answer.

[freshwest]

146. +1,000. At least he didn't call us 'you people.'

[pnwmom]

53. I'm opposed. But if it passes anyway, I won't have a hissy fit

and do something that it will make it even easier for the Rethugs to take over.

[FSogol]

94. Well said. n/t

[truedelphi]

108. Have you even seen "Gaslands" yet?

This Pipeline is a catastrophe. It means some 17 states will be losing important aquifers that the crops depend on, that migrating birds will perish when denied pristine watering holes, when drinking water is owned by Nestle because a resource that was once free is taken away from us, to be replaced by Nestle that offer bottled water at $ 1.59 a pop. And remember, since Congress has not yet had the will to re-write the Cheney Energy Bill of 2005, the companies that will be building the Pipeline will be excused for any and all mistakes they make. Only the local, state or Federal governments "might" possibly help a community if an oil leak threatens a community. (Not likely though, when you realize how little help that community in Tennessee has received for its destruction by massive oil leak just a few weeks back.)

There was a time not too far back, when being pro-environment began to be a talking point employed by BOTH PARTIES. But that is so "2000" of me to discuss.


And now with the control of the government securely in the pockets of the One Percent and the MIC, and with the control of the Democratic Party "safely" in the pockets of DLC folks like Obama and Hillary Clinton, with the social program and environmental role of that once great, middle class promoting party now scrapped, with those at the top of the DLC controlled Democratic Party leadership managing to make the environment not even a Talking Point (I mean, too bad for us plebians, when our water is gone, the habitat for the animals and birds is destroyed, etc) I can say that regardless of who is in the Oval Office, the middle class is till being reamed, the Banks are taking 48 cents out of every dollar of profit, and the environment is now about to be smashed into oblivion, but you will think it is all OKAY because the person helping to do this is a guy with a "D" after his name.

And we already know what Obama will be doing about the Pipeline - he said so to S.F. Chronicle the last time he was here in San Francisco, some few weeks back. He said to reporters that he would be approving it, on account of how otherwise poor people would find their energy bills too high. (Never mind that this talking point doesn't even reflect truth - the pipeline will not bring energy to us in the states; the pipeline will be bringing it to Gulf of Mexico ports where the product will go overseas to help people there.

[pnwmom]

185. Half a loaf is better than none.

With the Dems, we only get half a loaf but with the Rethugs, we starve.

I'll continue to support the less bad option.

[Kali]

194. your first paragraph is a classic example of why many think we have no credibility

there are serious potential impacts to this project, but to make outrageous claims like 17 states will lose their aquifers and everybody will have to buy bottled water is just ridiculous.

[truedelphi]

205. Would you be happier with me if I stated that

Seventeen states would be exposed to possible loss of their aquifers?

Anyway what are the damn advantages of this project? Destruction of the environment, a few jobs for a very few years, and the product is not even used here - it is shipped overseas. Other than like Bill Clinton's family before his, the Obama family will never ever have to worry about money again.

I am so tired of the celebrity-arization of our politicians. And people needed to friggin' worship the very people that have sold us out.

[NickB79]

184. Because fucking the global biosphere for millenia to come

Is clearly nothing important enough to have a "hissy fit" over

[pnwmom]

187. It's not important enough to risk putting the country back in the hands of the Rethugs --

which would pass the pipeline without hesitation and doesn't even believe in global warming.

[NickB79]

208. Game over for the climate if this pipeline is built per James Hansen of NASA

The time for discussion and moderation with the climate deniers is over. We're likely already past the point of no return with regard for catastrophic climate change. The Arctic will be ice-free by the end of this decade at best, and once that occurs the thawing permafrost will throw billions more tons of carbon into the atmosphere no matter what we do. My 3-yr old daughter will get to grow up in a devastated world fighting (figuratively and literally) to survive.

If this pipeline is built, acts of civil disobedience up to and including blowing a hole in the damn thing are fully warranted IMO.

[SamKnause]

55. Pipeline

Vehemently opposed !!!!!!

[treestar]

57. Oh please like you haven't already made up your mind?

Obama will at least give reasons and you should consider them too. Why not consider both sides before deciding?

I don't really care much about this and don't know enough about it to decide. Are you against it just because it is an oil pipeline? That the 1% will profit off of? Do we not need oil to run all the shit we have? At least right now? Can we get enough solar power to do away with oil overnight? I heard wind power is pretty dangerous and so is nuclear power.

Is this being prepared as the next outrage?

[ForgoTheConsequence]

63. LMAO

I don't really care much about this and don't know enough about it


Probably just should have stopped there.

[treestar]

77. At least I remain neutral while I don't know much about it

Maybe you should stop making up your mind before knowing all sides of a question.

[ForgoTheConsequence]

85. I lived in Nebraska for years.

Now I live right across the river. I've done my due diligence when it comes to informing myself, like I do with most issues. It may surprise you that some people who might actually be impacted by an issue educate themselves and have opinions on said issue but we're not all windsocks. Grow a spine and stand for something.

[neverforget]

175. And then goes on to defend in a roundabout way oil.

[G_j]

74. some of us are informed nt

[treestar]

80. Well then why don't you present arguments?

Or fact, rather than flamebait like the OP? Why don't you argue your side, consider the other side, and argue against its arguments?

And why, when someone else in informed on a subject, do you ignore them entirely in favor of your pre-dispositions?

This board makes the left look unreasonable and hyper-emotional.

[G_j]

162. I have no idea what you are talking about

do you know me? I was simply commenting that some of us have researched this subject because its important to us to know about it. You can do the same thing without having to ask me to make my case.
There is plenty to explore on both sides of the debate. My opinion was formed from doing a lot of reading. If that's predisposed, so be it.

[Jamaal510]

206. +1

"This board makes the left look unreasonable and hyper-emotional."

Some of the stuff I read on here just borders on embarrassing, like with the recycled outrages about Obama being supposedly desperate to eliminate the Big Three and how people try to say that he is no different than his predecessor, just because of a few policies they may be at odds with him on. And there is also the matter of how very few of these people appear to even recognize that Congress's inability to cooperate has been responsible for the stalemate in D.C. They act like there is no Congress, and that Obama is a king who can do anything, but hasn't been creating jobs quickly because he is some lazy ass ignoramus.
Apparently ODS isn't unique to just the far-right.

[immoderate]

58. Oppose.

--imm

[Chisox08]

59. The Keystone pipeline would be an utter catastrophe.

If you believe that nothing can go wrong when you build a pipeline over the largest aquifer in North America, then be willing to take the first drink from the oil filled water.

[JNelson6563]

68. Ok, wow.

I cannot believe the shit-flinging I am seeing so very much of all over GD these days.

So many OPs with the sole purpose for insulting other DUers. I'd say this one takes the cake.

Thank you for working so hard to continue promoting division. Really helps the powers that be and hurts the little people.

But perhaps it makes you feel righteous.

Pathetic.

Julie

[truedelphi]

100. It's hard to even think we are now in a reality

Where many Democrats oppose the environment... It once came with the label. You were for the Earth or you were against her. And if you were against her, you voted Republican.

You can hardly blame us Old School types for wanting to figure out how many on this board are Old School Dems.

[JNelson6563]

161. Here, take these crutches

'cause that's about the lamest ass excuse for a defense I've seen in a while. Of course you are trying to defend/excuse divisive, counter-productive, obnoxious behavior so what I reckon that's about the best we're going to get.

Julie

[truedelphi]

211. Thanks for the

divisive, counter-productive, obnoxious ad hominem reply that was your reply.

And please keep your crutches. One of us will need them. I doubt it will be me. I come from a very long lived line of people, who were on their feet till that day in their nineties when they died.

In her thirties, my mom even beat a diagnosis of total paralysis that doctors said was hers after the car she was hit by a semi trailer doing sixty.

[AtomicKitten]

73. I'm opposed.

Both Clintons, however, are for it.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brendan-demelle/hillary-clintons-keystone_b_997523.html

[CaliforniaPeggy]

86. Your graphic is STUNNING.

It should be in its own thread.

People need to see this!

[AtomicKitten]

199. I posted it here ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023022353

So far, it has been received with a collective DU yawn.

[truedelphi]

90. That graphic is amazing.

As far as the Clintons: They are One Percenters all the way. I am not surprised. And of course, it was the State Department under Hillary Clinton that first proposed it.

[mckara]

75. Keystone and Tar Sands Oil are Terrible Ideas to Develop

[dlwickham]

79. not thrilled with the idea of it

but I think it will be approved

not to be a snob or anything but it is going through a bunch of red states

maybe if something happens like a big ass spill, it may make people who live there and the people who run those states think a bit more about protecting the environment

I'm not wishing that anything does happen-just want to make that clear

I'm hoping that it brings the number of jobs promised but I know that it won't

[ForgoTheConsequence]

97. People there do care.

There are plenty of ranchers and farmers against it in Nebraska. And a spill wouldn't just be catastrophic to the people in those states.

[magellan]

81. 100% opposed. n/t

[RainDog]

83. LOLOL

I love this.

you're called quite a few.

[veganlush]

84. opposed. its time to move past

Stored solar and get to using real-time solar

[giftedgirl77]

88. opposed, the damn thing is evil

& nothing but problems.

[bunnies]

91. opposed. nt

[secondvariety]

101. Opposed.

That muck from the tar sands is some nasty shit.

[Bennyboy]

102. Oppose,always have

Won't change my mind. Sadly I am dead sure that Obama will give the go ahead.

[zeemike]

104. I am against it now and will be against it then

No matter who approves of it.

But there is big bucks that have invested in this....and they want that investment to make them money...and politicians want some of that money...so they will fuck over American people at the drop of a hat for that money.

[Myrina]

105. Opposed.

n/t

[Enthusiast]

107. Oppose

And I will remain opposed after President Obama okay's it.

I am also willing to take bets.

[panader0]

109. Opposed

That was an easy one.

[Laelth]

110. Oppose. n/t

-Laelth

[robinlynne]

112. REJECT. but he didn't.

[rug]

115. Oppose.

[Spirochete]

116. No fucking pipeline

period.

[Blue_In_AK]

117. Oppose, no matter what the president says.

[judesedit]

118. Opposed. #1 -People should be able to drink their water without the fear of being poisoned

Come up with some clean energy sources, you greedy narcissists. It's out there. People should be able to drink their water without being afraid of getting sick and live in their homes without thinking it may be swallowed up at any moment.

[timdog44]

121. Opposed. This is only to serve

the Koch brothers. They want the Canadian "oil" or "nonoil" (for monetary reasons) so they don't have to buy the heavy crude from Venezuela. This stuff, and it is not really oil, goes to Texas to be refined and then is shipped to the other side of the world. This does not help Americans at all. By the end of its possible construction, there will only be about 50 jobs created. If Canada wants to ruin their country, fine, build their own refinery and pipeline it to the coast. Not across the sacred lands of America.

[tularetom]

122. Unfortunately I think Obama is gonna give me the wrong answer

And it's not hard at all for me to predict what he'll do.

[mbperrin]

123. I am opposed to this filthy environmental-disaster-waiting-to-happen.

It allows Canada to export a semi-crude product so filthy they won't refine it, to export it across numerous states and finally to Texas, where air quality will be affected negatively, and all for a diesel fuel so poor it can't be used here, but will be sold in South America.

Pipelines have few employees running them after installation, and they all leak. ALL.

My family has lived right in the middle of the largest domestic oil field in the US for 91 years, and I did not read any of the previous material from a book - I have lived it, and have first hand information from refinery employees on the Gulf Coast as well.

NO> NO> HELL, NO!

[loyalsister]

124. At the risk of being labeled an apologist, dittohead, Obamabot.....

I can see possibilities that may be positive. The national conscious has not fully moved away from coal and oil as the primary, forever energy sources. I question whether moving just a step away from tradition regarding those sources might finally open people's minds to different sources to a point where it will be demanded by a majority so large that no politician can be elected without supporting wind and solar energy. Critical mass, I guess it's called.
I also wonder if it could develop an industry as large as oil that would move toward a large unionized industry. Having some imagination about it, I don't have a solid opinion on it.

[Gore1FL]

125. Reject it.

I am not fond of projects where we take all of the risks and oil companies take all of the rewards.

[Plucketeer]

126. I'm opposed to the pipeline

and I trust I'll be opposed to what our esteemed leader will say about it.

[DCBob]

127. Im dont reject things like pipelines automatically like some on this board.

There are advantages and disadvantages of this obviously. I think it gets built eventually... there is too much momentum and pressure from many sides. If its built correctly following all environmental and safety regs then why not?

[CaliforniaPeggy]

155. Why not?

Because evil people will benefit from it, is why.

The Koch Brothers will benefit, hugely. Many members of Congress too.

It will not be built correctly with all environmental protections in place, of that you can be sure.

It is simply awful, without any redeeming qualities.

[Jack Rabbit]

128. I am opposed

I remain so whatever Obama decides.

[old guy]

130. Opposed!!

[ret5hd]

133. Why are you all feeding this fuckin' troll?

[freshwest]

147. Because we don't accept the OP ordering us what to think as if we're dumbies.

Other than that, yes, I agree the OP is complete bullshit against members of this website who are long-time environmental activists and are duly informed of Obama's opposition to this pipeline.

Also of PBO's job title which is to represent all of America, not just the people who hate him more than the birthers.

If they're not the same group, that is. There is more than one way to call a man illegitimate and not worthy of the office, and they are posted here every day.

OP has not returned to tend his flame bait, either, which is typical of disruptors.

[Cha]

158. Excellent question, ret5hd.

[Renew Deal]

135. Opposed

I haven't gotten a good enough reason to build it. That can change of course.

[TheKentuckian]

136. Very much against

[BlueJazz]

137. oppose. That makes it 205 oppose to 7 for.

[Fuddnik]

138. Adamantly oppose

[blkmusclmachine]

140. I know what BHO will do, but I OPPOSE IT anyway.

[Vincardog]

141. I oppose it because it is an environmental disaster. Why should we allow this toxic sludge to be

Transported across our country, to be refined and exported to China; leaving us with only the risk, the waste and not even any Tax revenue?

I believe President Obama will approve it in spite of the incestuous relationship between the people who prepared the supposed "independent" environmental impact report, and the company that would benefit from this environmental disaster.

[Smickey]

143. Oppose

[ecstatic]

148. Neutral. If we're using the most energy, then why shouldn't we deal with the fallout

of explosions, oil spills, etc.? I understand the environmental concerns. Like many others, I think we should switch to cleaner forms of energy. But unfortunately we haven't yet.

So why should environmental damage that is a direct result of the energy WE USE be restricted to third world countries?

Still, I consider myself neutral because though I'm concerned about the environment, I'm a realist who understands that the pipeline has to go somewhere as long as we're consuming the amount of energy we're consuming.

I'm open to changing my mind if the arguments are not based on a smug sense of entitlement and hypocrisy.

[Kali]

195. you make a larger point

to one I tried to articulate in a small way by acknowledging my direct benefit to pipelines in my vicinity along with the personal knowledge of the risks.

our easy opposition to this project and our easy blindness to our culpability. NIMBY on a global scale.

[freshwest]

204. +1,000 to you and the poster you responded to, telling the truth, not the media truth.'

[Recursion]

149. I think automatically opposing hydrocarbons is not a strategy

Find me a replacement and I'll work for it

[reformist2]

150. I think it makes some sense *runs and hides*

[LostOne4Ever]

151. Oppose

Im opposed to the pipeline.

[mike_c]

152. opposed....

eom

[kenny blankenship]

153. Do Not Want.

[1-Old-Man]

157. Opposed to it by the existing or any alternative route

We, the United States, should not be the conduit by which the dirtiest large energy source available is delivered to the world, particularly because little to no long term benefit will accrue to the nation from becoming that conduit.

By the way, does anyone honestly think the Government does any better a job at regulating and maintaining pipelines than it does the interstate highways?

And we are talking about putting the ground water in jeopardy of unrepairable damage in a stretch spanning from our border with Canada all the way to the Gulf of Mexico.

No, I'm not for it. Not by the current route or by any other route that connects the point of origin with our Gulf Coast. Haven't we seen enough of the damage you can expect when moving huge quantities of oil is concerned?

And who will profit from this nonsense? Certainly not 'we the people'.

[WinkyDink]

159. Oppose.

[JI7]

163. i don't think you give a shit about the pipeline, people like you probably spend

most of your time online attacking anyone who supports the President or other Democrats.

why didn't you start a thread asking people to contact the president or others to oppose the pipeline ? or anything else.

just like the patriot act, all these years nobody did anything other than use it to attack others.

[Jim Lane]

164. I for one HAVE contacted the White House to oppose the pipeline.

I also think the OP's question is worth asking and that your speculation as to motive is irrelevant.

Yes, if Obama approves the pipeline, some people who simply don't like Obama will try to use that decision to lower his approval rating in the eyes of environmentally conscious voters. To prevent that scenario from happening, Obama and his supporters have two alternatives. One is to fire off personal attacks against anyone who disagrees with Obama about anything -- said personal attacks to include speculation about motives based on no discernible evidence whatsoever.

There is a second approach that Obama can take if he wants to retain the support of a lot of environmentalists who voted for him twice. Spelling out that second method is left as an exercise for the reader.

[JI7]

165. those who care about the environment are working on various issues, i know

some think going off on the internet about how angry you are and attacking others is showing support for your cause but it isn't.

you look like a fucking joke. just like the wingnut bush supporting assholes who are attacking Obama over NSA . but i'm pretty sure most of them are the same ones so not really surprised.

[Jim Lane]

170. Please clarify something for me.

Is a statement like "you look like a fucking joke. just like the wingnut bush supporting assholes" an example of the tactic of "going off on the internet about how angry you are and attacking others"?

If not, why not?

Thank you for any enlightenment you can provide.

[JI7]

173. yeah, i'm attacking the internet warrior assholes

who try to act like they are some martyrs and some shit.

[Nye Bevan]

166. I stand with the AFL-CIO on this issue.

http://lawcha.org/wordpress/2013/02/28/the-afl-cio-and-keystone-xl-pipeline/

[JI7]

167. looks like a bunch of people's activism consists of Bashing Obama and anyone who supports him

the fact you made such an op to me shows you don't care about the pipeline at all. you posted nothing on trying to stop it.

instead your goal and hope is to bash Obama other Democrats and anyone who supports them.

you will get behind people like Ron Paul to do it also. i see what the wingnuts are doing and saying the shit is the same i see from Obama bashers on DU and other Dem sites .

[The Second Stone]

168. Opposed. Another destruction of public and private lands

for the private benefit of a few.

[tarheelsunc]

169. Support.

...

Made you look.

I oppose it as any sensible citizen should.

[jazzimov]

172. It's not really that simple,

I oppose the pipeline because of environmental issues - BUT they seemed determined to ship the dirty oil anyway. If the pipeline isn't built, then they will ship the dirty oil through the US using means which are actually WORSE than using a pipeline.

So, I really oppose the shipments. But if the shipments are going to happen anyway, I would rather use the safest means available - which means building the pipeline.

[forestpath]

174. Oppose.

[Jackpine Radical]

176. Opposed.

And I fully anticipate that Obama will approve it.

He has never--NEVER--opposed the wishes of Big Money during his tenure in the White House & I don't expect him to start now.

And if you try to cite something like Obamacare to discredit my statement, I can assure you that the legislation was written in close consultation with the insurance companies, and contains enough bennies to have gotten them on board. Now, of course, their unbridled greed is causing them to seek the overturn of the parts of the legislation that cost them money while retaining the parts that pour money into their coffers.

[Archaic]

178. He should reject the pipeline.

There is no track record to show that any energy company will decide to be proactive in a disaster.

Coal companies had to be forced to clean up. They were fine externalizing their costs to the public by dumping their pollution, unscrubbed, into the environment for all of us to breathe.

Oil companies continue to have pipeline / tanker / oil rig problems. And only clean it up, or hide it to stop the temporary PR issue. They will sell everything they pump. The stuff that is lost doesn't go to market, so they don't care about it. They only plug leaks to get their product back to market.

If these guys want their pipeline so bad, they should run it themselves, at their cost, to Nova Scotia, and put up their own damn port and refineries.

I don't understand why we're subsidizing the cost of refining their product sooner by allowing it over our land. They've already had pipeline problems, why should they build more of them?

[Art_from_Ark]

180. It's another Mayflower, Arkansas in the making

Lest we forget:

[whatchamacallit]

181. I oppose the shit out of it. n/t

[life long demo]

182. About time I expressed my opinion - Opposed

for many reasons, one being it's oil and we should be looking for and supporting environmental sound energy sources. Two because of the even worse than petroleum effects of a spill with tremendous damage caused by tar sand oil. We can't even clean up regular oil spills yet, and tar sand oil is worse.

[YeahSureRight]

183. 100% against it however if Obama does not directly approve it and I think he will he will have a

minion do it and he will say he had no choice.

He wants it he just lacks the courage to spit in the face of the base once again and tell them he wants keystone.

[GeorgeGist]

186. He will approve.

Easy.

[Shankapotomus]

188. Oppose

But that doesn't mean I'm not going to vote Democrat next time if President Obama gives this one to Republicans.

I will not lose focus. Right now the battle is between D's and R's. If we don't make it shameful to have an R next to your name, how will we ever make it shameful to back R policies? The first step is to punish R's so much that no one wants to be an R openly in name. Then we'll have the leverage to press our politicians for real D policies.

This merry-go-round of punishing D's for every wrong policy choice, I don't think is working. It sets us back every time and we have to start all over each time we regain power after the R's have wrecked things even more.

Certainly, pressure them on policy. But let's remember, a political landscape where R's feel comfortable existing in name, is never going to be ripe for consistent D policies.

[Chan790]

190. Reject Keystone XL.

It's a boondoggle that will raise oil prices domestically. That's actually the purpose of it...increase domestic prices while increasing supply on the world market. That's right from the materials they used to sell it to investors.

[DirkGently]

193. Opposed. A worthy experiment.

[Fearless]

196. Strongly oppose

[ohheckyeah]

197. Opposed.

It would be a disaster just waiting to happen.

[LWolf]

198. I oppose. Obama should reject.

I don't expect him to.

[cantbeserious]

200. I Oppose Supporting Oligarchs Sending Oil To Refineries To Be Consumed As Gas Overseas

eom

[avaistheone1]

202. Strongly oppose.

[MuseRider]

203. Opposed, always have been.

It comes very close to where I live. Not as close as I feared thankfully but too close. Right up the road from where my farm is the entire highway blew up a bunch of years ago when one of the many pipelines exploded. I am sick and tired of our health, land, air, water and our very lives mean so little they can just do this and call us terrorists.

LOL for your thread. They may post in here but they won't tell you what they believe until they know what they have to defend. Funny though, it would be fun to compare and contrast I think you know exactly how that would go.

[Daniel537]

207. Support 100%.

Instead of wasting time trying to pass amnesty for illegal aliens, Obama should approve this ASAP.

[RB TexLa]

209. Support

[KoKo]

212. Opposed...(eom)