• Sen. Sanders plans to ammend the Keystone XL pipeline bill by attaching an ammendment that will have
    45 replies, posted
[QUOTE]The Senate legislation to approve the Keystone XL pipeline faces a dead-end at the president’s desk, unless Senate Republicans pick off a few more Democratic votes to override Barack Obama's promised veto. That's why Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has proposed an open amendment process, hoping to drum up bipartisan support before the Senate votes next week. Senator Bernie Sanders has taken him up on the offer. He plans to introduce a "sense of Congress" resolution that simply affirms climate change is real, caused by the burning of fossil fuels, and must be addressed. It would say that Congress “is in agreement with the opinion of virtually the entire worldwide scientific community” and "climate change has already caused devastating problems in the United States and around the world." The question is whether McConnell would block this amendment before it came to a vote. On Tuesday afternoon he told reporters, "We are not anxious to block anybody's amendment, we are wide open.”[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.newrepublic.com/article/120760/senate-will-vote-sanders-climate-amendment-keystone[/url]
The more I see stuff from Senator Sanders, the more curious I'm becoming as to what he'd be like as President.
Absolutely fucking genius.
I'm amazed at how many US politicians want to construct a pipeline that would provide absolutely zero benefit to the US. Even [i]if[/i] they recognized it, the pipeline has no reason to be constructed.
Sorry but, in any other thread involving bill riders added by Republicans everyone goes 'THAT IS SO CORRUPT THEY SHOULDN'T DO THAT WHY IS THAT NOT BANNED HURR', but as soon as the almighty and benevolent Senator Sanders does it, it's okay?
[QUOTE=Antdawg;46934082]Sorry but, in any other thread involving bill riders added by Republicans everyone goes 'THAT IS SO CORRUPT THEY SHOULDN'T DO THAT WHY IS THAT NOT BANNED HURR', but as soon as the almighty and benevolent Senator Sanders does it, it's okay?[/QUOTE] This isn't exactly in the same league as gutting essential financial regulations by sneaking it in to a must-pass spending bill.
[QUOTE=BANNED USER;46934061]I'm amazed at how many US politicians want to construct a pipeline that would provide absolutely zero benefit to the US. Even [i]if[/i] they recognized it, the pipeline has no reason to be constructed.[/QUOTE] Won't it make gas prices cheaper? The average voter doesn't give a fuck about which country benefits more from the pipeline, they just want cheaper gas. So lawmakers are representing their constituents
[QUOTE=Antdawg;46934082]Sorry but, in any other thread involving bill riders added by Republicans everyone goes 'THAT IS SO CORRUPT THEY SHOULDN'T DO THAT WHY IS THAT NOT BANNED HURR', but as soon as the almighty and benevolent Senator Sanders does it, it's okay?[/QUOTE] No, I would say it's still not okay, but there's literally no way to stop Republicans or Democrats from doing it, and the ones that do it will happily do it to benefit themselves and their interests. Sure, the "right" thing to do is handicap ourselves and only take the righteous actions, but then you lose before you even start because the other side isn't playing fair. Sure, we should play fair but the game isn't fair, it's a weird system where we're fucked either way but we'll still have people complaining.
[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;46934112]This isn't exactly in the same league as gutting essential financial regulations by sneaking it in to a must-pass spending bill.[/QUOTE] But if a law was implemented to prevent such a rider from being amended to such a bill, then this rider would be prevented from being added to this bill too. So I take it riders are a-okay as long as they are proposed by the side of politics which Facepunch supports? Let Democrats and Independents add riders all they like, but ban the Republicans from doing it?
[QUOTE=Antdawg;46934141]But if a law was implemented to prevent such a rider from being amended to such a bill, then this rider would be prevented from being added to this bill too. So I take it riders are a-okay as long as they are proposed by the side of politics which Facepunch supports? Let Democrats and Independents add riders all they like, but ban the Republicans from doing it?[/QUOTE] I think you're taking it literally the worst possible way on purpose to attack those you're thinking are guilty of this. I can only speak for myself but I would rather no one did it. However, can you stop Republicans from having a significant edge when they do this? No, you can't. So, you're saying "Sit back and get fucked, or by a hypocrite", when there's a third option "Fight fire with fire".
[QUOTE=Jamsponge;46933980]The more I see stuff from Senator Sanders, the more curious I'm becoming as to what he'd be like as President.[/QUOTE] He called himself a democratic socialist once. He wouldn't be elected
well played
[QUOTE=Antdawg;46934141]But if a law was implemented to prevent such a rider from being amended to such a bill, then this rider would be prevented from being added to this bill too. So I take it riders are a-okay as long as they are proposed by the side of politics which Facepunch supports? Let Democrats and Independents add riders all they like, but ban the Republicans from doing it?[/QUOTE] I don't think you realize that literally most Republicans and many Democrats are the puppets of coal and oil companies. Along with WalMart and other corporations. Their riders are genuinely bad for the country. Recognizing Climate Change isn't.
[QUOTE=Antdawg;46934141]But if a law was implemented to prevent such a rider from being amended to such a bill, then this rider would be prevented from being added to this bill too. So I take it riders are a-okay as long as they are proposed by the side of politics which Facepunch supports? Let Democrats and Independents add riders all they like, but ban the Republicans from doing it?[/QUOTE] The only way to get bipartisan support for fixing an exploit in the system is to get both sides to screw the other over with that very same exploit. Dems/Independents are already on board with rider control (at least as far as the constituents go), but the Repubs aren't. So if the Republicans start getting hurt by it, they'll start to motion towards putting a stop to it. By which time the Dems will be saying "hahaha, suckers" and pass it (or at least we hope so)
[QUOTE=Antdawg;46934082]Sorry but, in any other thread involving bill riders added by Republicans everyone goes 'THAT IS SO CORRUPT THEY SHOULDN'T DO THAT WHY IS THAT NOT BANNED HURR', but as soon as the almighty and benevolent Senator Sanders does it, it's okay?[/QUOTE] It's astonishing how you don't see the difference between Bernie Sanders doing it with an issue that has devastating implications for all life on Earth as we know it, climate change, and Republicans doing it blatantly to be corrupt with issues like a necessary, must-pass budget bill that affects the entire United States on a historic level. Climate change needs to be recognized, Sanders is completely right to do this because the Republicans are the ones who predominantly want to pretend it doesn't exist and disregard its effects, and that's how simple it is. Good on him. He's giving them a justified taste of their own bitter medicine. [editline]15th January 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Antdawg;46934141]But if a law was implemented to prevent such a rider from being amended to such a bill, then this rider would be prevented from being added to this bill too. So I take it riders are a-okay as long as they are proposed by the side of politics which Facepunch supports? Let Democrats and Independents add riders all they like, but ban the Republicans from doing it?[/QUOTE] When it comes to straightforward issues like this, that the Republicans for the most part ignorantly deny, yeah, sure-- I've got no problem with it. No sane human being does.
[QUOTE=BANNED USER;46934061]I'm amazed at how many US politicians want to construct a pipeline that would provide absolutely zero benefit to the US. Even [i]if[/i] they recognized it, the pipeline has no reason to be constructed.[/QUOTE] Are you kidding me? zero benefit? The economic boost not only from the increased independence of the united states from foreign resource, but also from a increased availability of oil, the number of jobs created directly in the construction and operation of the pipeline, as well as the indirectly influenced opportunities for the housing, food, and services required for all of the people involved with the pipeline? That is ZERO benefit? I can see the concern with the potential environmental dangers, but in all actuality there are relatively few. Pipelines from Canada into the United States exist already, and are relatively disruptive to surrounding property. (Source: I live and hunt (animals don't notice) less than 10 miles from one, and If you didn't know it had been built, you would have hard time knowing it was there.) The mere transportation of natural gas and oil doesn't create a desolate landscape that some picture with the idea of the pipeline. While the concern of burning fossil fuels is important, that is hardly connected to the building of the pipeline in itself.
[QUOTE=Antdawg;46934141]But if a law was implemented to prevent such a rider from being amended to such a bill, then this rider would be prevented from being added to this bill too. So I take it riders are a-okay as long as they are proposed by the side of politics which Facepunch supports? Let Democrats and Independents add riders all they like, but ban the Republicans from doing it?[/QUOTE] there is a difference between attempting to make congress recognize scientific fact and [URL="http://www.military.com/daily-news/2014/02/27/senators-insert-iran-sanctions-into-vets-bill.html"]attempting to slip additional sanctions to iran into a bill about fixing veteran's affairs[/URL]
[QUOTE=skzerk;46935141]Are you kidding me? zero benefit? The economic boost not only from the [B]increased independence of the united states from foreign resource[/B], but also from a increased availability of oil, the number of jobs created directly in the construction and operation of the pipeline, as well as the indirectly influenced opportunities for the housing, food, and services required for all of the people involved with the pipeline? That is ZERO benefit? I can see the concern with the potential environmental dangers, but in all actuality there are relatively few. Pipelines from [B]Canada[/B] into the United States exist already, and are relatively disruptive to surrounding property. (Source: I live and hunt (animals don't notice) less than 10 miles from one, and If you didn't know it had been built, you would have hard time knowing it was there.) The mere transportation of natural gas and oil doesn't create a desolate landscape that some picture with the idea of the pipeline. While the concern of burning fossil fuels is important, that is hardly connected to the building of the pipeline in itself.[/QUOTE] ?
[QUOTE=BANNED USER;46934061]I'm amazed at how many US politicians want to construct a pipeline that would provide absolutely zero benefit to the US. Even [i]if[/i] they recognized it, the pipeline has no reason to be constructed.[/QUOTE] Other then the fact that it would create a cap load of jobs and is a hell of a lot safer for the environment then fraking. It's alot easier to stop an oil leak on land then it is on the middle of the ocean.
[QUOTE=dark soul;46935341]Other then the fact that it would create a cap load of jobs and is a hell of a lot safer for the environment then fraking. It's spot easier to stop an oil leak on land then it is on the middle of the ocean.[/QUOTE] It's not going to stop fracking. It's transporting bitumen from the Canadian oil sands. Which, will be transported to someone regardless of if it's us or not.
[QUOTE=dark soul;46935341]Other then the fact that it would create a cap load of jobs and is a hell of a lot safer for the environment then fraking. It's alot easier to stop an oil leak on land then it is on the middle of the ocean.[/QUOTE] It's going to create some temporary jobs and a very minimal amount of permanent jobs. It's in our best interest to not build the pipeline.
[QUOTE=dark soul;46935341]Other then the fact that it would create a cap load of jobs and is a hell of a lot safer for the environment then fraking. It's alot easier to stop an oil leak on land then it is on the middle of the ocean.[/QUOTE] 2,500 temporary construction jobs, and 35 permanent jobs. Some say this might boom the economy
[QUOTE=Antdawg;46934141]But if a law was implemented to prevent such a rider from being amended to such a bill, then this rider would be prevented from being added to this bill too. So I take it riders are a-okay as long as they are proposed by the side of politics which Facepunch supports? Let Democrats and Independents add riders all they like, but ban the Republicans from doing it?[/QUOTE] Someone missed their nap time.
[QUOTE=lavacano;46934609]The only way to get bipartisan support for fixing an exploit in the system is to get both sides to screw the other over with that very same exploit. Dems/Independents are already on board with rider control (at least as far as the constituents go), but the [B]Repubs aren't.[/B] So if the Republicans start getting hurt by it, they'll start to motion towards putting a stop to it. By which time the Dems will be saying "hahaha, suckers" and pass it (or at least we hope so)[/QUOTE] Most conservatives I have talked to tend to be on the same boat. We hate riders just as much as the next person, as it's been used in the past for ridiculous reasons.
[QUOTE=LoganIsAwesome;46935436]2,500 temporary construction jobs, and 35 permanent jobs. Some say this might boom the economy[/QUOTE] Yeah and with those temporary jobs it's going to bring in 3.4 billion dollars to the US economy. The pipeline already runs all the way down to Nebraska, so why not finish it. You people act like not building the damn thing is gonna stop climate change or something.All its going to do is create jobs and make trading oil with Canada easier.
[QUOTE=dark soul;46935670]Yeah and with those temporary jobs it's going to bring in 3.4 billion dollars to the US economy. The pipeline already runs all the way down to Nebraska, so why not finish it. You people act like not building the damn thing is gonna stop climate change or something.All its going to do is create jobs and make trading oil with Canada easier.[/QUOTE] Yeah and wanna know what will help the US economy too? Not needing to worry about if our planet is habitable for the future. Not needing to pay the price of Global Warming in 50 years. We can create hundreds of thousands of jobs if we switched to renewable energies. Sure, building it won't stop climate change. But it will prevent some of the dirtiest oils from being extracted. Is the price really worth it?
[QUOTE=LoganIsAwesome;46935810]Yeah and wanna know what will help the US economy too? Not needing to worry about if our planet is habitable for the future. Not needing to pay the price of Global Warming in 50 years. We can create hundreds of thousands of jobs if we switched to renewable energies. Sure, building it won't stop climate change. But it will prevent some of the dirtiest oils from being extracted. Is the price really worth it?[/QUOTE] It's gong to the Chinese if not to us. last I heard they were going to route it through the BC forests and mountains to be loaded on ships to go to China. It's not like Canada's going to say "the Americans don't want our oil, better shut down the industry!" The stuffs getting refined either way. [editline]14th January 2015[/editline] I feel like Climate change measures and recognition is a fair compromise. Let them build it. But make them admit that carbon emissions are an issue. [editline]14th January 2015[/editline] It would give precedence to future climate bills.
i want to marry bernie sanders errr i mean vote for him to be president... yeah that's what I mean.
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;46935620]Most conservatives I have talked to tend to be on the same boat. We hate riders just as much as the next person, as it's been used in the past for ridiculous reasons.[/QUOTE] Unfortunately, the average conservative in the US doesn't really have representation anymore, as best as I can tell. There's the Democrats which are somewhere on the liberal side and the ultra-conservative Republicans.
[QUOTE=lavacano;46936256]Unfortunately, the average conservative in the US doesn't really have representation anymore, as best as I can tell. There's the Democrats which are somewhere on the liberal side and the ultra-conservative Republicans.[/QUOTE] No pretty much all of your "liberals" are conservative leaning to the rest of the world
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.