Thu Jan 24, 2013, 09:25 AM

Hagan backs Keystone Pipeline

Source: News & Observer

Democratic Sen. Kay Hagan is President Obama to approve construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline, saying it will help create jobs and provide energy security.

Hagan was one of 53 senators who signed a letter urging Obama approve the $7 billion project that would carry oil from Canada to the Texas Gulf Coast.

Nebraska Gov. Dave Heineman has approved a revived route for the pipeline through his state, putting the decision for the delayed project back in the hands of the federal government.

"Setting politics aside: Nothing has changed about the thousands of jobs that Keystone XL will create," Hagan said in a letter signed by Hagan and the other senators sent in November. "Nothing has changed about the energy security to be gained through an important addition to the existing pipeline network built with sound environmental stewardship and the best modern technology.''

Read more: http://projects.newsobserver.com/node/26810

14 replies, 1389 views

Reply to this thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum

Replies to this discussion thread

14 replies	Author	Time	Post
Hagan backs Keystone Pipeline (Original post)	Freddie Stubbs	Jan 2013	OP
The people do not want it. When the pipeline goes through her backyard feet from her home ..	marble falls	Jan 2013	#1
Unfortunately, "the people" have no say in the matter.	NorthCarolina	Jan 2013	#8
What percentage of 'the people' don't want it?	Freddie Stubbs	Jan 2013	#9
"saying it will help create jobs and provide energy security"	iamthebandfanman	Jan 2013	#2
I will create a few jobs, temporarily, and a few more for maintenance jobs, long-term.	formercia	Jan 2013	#3
Well of course she is.	fasttense	Jan 2013	#4
Hagan will not	John2	Jan 2013	#12
That's my senator!	WorseBeforeBetter	Jan 2013	#5
She must be an oil industry stooge Dem a la Mary Landrieu.	alp227	Jan 2013	#13
"sound environmental stewardship'? Ugh, that's what we're hoping for when	SaveAmerica	Jan 2013	#6
And "nothing has changed about the" environmental devastation it will cause either - n/t	primavera	Jan 2013	#7
Ok, Mr. President, it's time to "respond to the threat of climate change"	mountain grammy	Jan 2013	#10
This "thousands of jobs" claim	Bainbridge Bear	Jan 2013	#11
What I recall about job creation back when the topic was being debated before was	politicaljunkie41910	Jan 2013	#14

Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 09:28 AM

marble falls (1,918 posts)

1. The people do not want it. When the pipeline goes through her backyard feet from her home ..

Last edited Thu Jan 24, 2013, 09:29 AM USA/ET - Edit history (1)

I'll give her a listen. Bet she loves fracking, too.

Reply to this post

Response to marble falls (Reply #1)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 10:00 AM

NorthCarolina (6,767 posts)

8. Unfortunately, "the people" have no say in the matter.

Our elections are just a highly controlled and choreographed illusion that nets the same results, more or less, regardless of which candidate and/or party gets the nod. Sen. Bernie Sanders is quite correct when he says that America has become an Oligarchy. The proof is clearly evident for anyone who chooses to see the truth.

Reply to this post

Response to marble falls (Reply #1)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 10:02 AM

Freddie Stubbs (28,548 posts)

9. What percentage of 'the people' don't want it?

Reply to this post

Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 09:32 AM

iamthebandfanman (6,744 posts)

2. "saying it will help create jobs and provide energy security"

to bad it does neither!

Reply to this post

Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 09:34 AM

formercia (18,155 posts)

3. I will create a few jobs, temporarily, and a few more for maintenance jobs, long-term.

The energy security part is utter Bullshit. That oil is just passing through the US on the way elsewhere. I understood the concept of seizing land under color of Public Domain as being for the Public Good, Like Highways, Utilities and such. The Keystone Pipeline is for Private Profit, not the Public Good, and anyone who defends it on that basis is talking out of their ASS.

Reply to this post

Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 09:36 AM

fasttense (14,445 posts)

4. Well of course she is.

Our political system is broken. It stopped working when the Dancing Supremes elected our president for us.

We CAN NOT create change from within the system. It is so dysfunctional that despite vast evidence that austerity does NOT work (England may be headed for a triple dip recession.) Obama is still talking about paying off the debt by reducing spending on social programs. Despite the evidence of the earth going through destructive weather periods brought on by corporate pollution and burning fossil fuels, Democrats are calling for even more burning of fossil fuels.

PROTEST in the streets, factories and workplace, regularly, is the only thing that will cause change.

Reply to this post

Response to fasttense (Reply #4)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 01:57 PM

John2 (1,760 posts)

12. Hagan will not

have much of a problem opposing the gun issue in North Carolina but her issue is jobs in North Carolina because of the state's high unemployment. That is the main reason McCrory won. It is also the reason the Koch brother's found a foot hold in North Carolina. McCrory is promising jobs in North Carolina and have their backing. He favors drilling off North Carolina's sea coast also. The people of the state are desperate for jobs. What the Democratic Party needs to do is give alternate employment ventures in North Carolina. It is one of the biggest reasons Obama lost traction in the State. The Republicans just took advantage. That is why these people keep voting for Republicans in these Red States. Democrats need to quit ignoring the South.

Reply to this post

Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 09:38 AM

WorseBeforeBetter (7,669 posts)

5. That's my senator!

I can't wait to see what strong stand she takes on fracking in NC.

Reply to this post

Response to WorseBeforeBetter (Reply #5)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 02:08 PM

alp227 (20,522 posts)

13. She must be an oil industry stooge Dem a la Mary Landrieu.

Reply to this post

Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 09:39 AM

SaveAmerica (4,982 posts)

6. "sound environmental stewardship'? Ugh, that's what we're hoping for when

we say no to the pipeline. I'm so over cars that need gas and Congresspeople who say their Dems and care about the environment but don't do anything to help it.

Reply to this post

Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 09:39 AM

primavera (5,140 posts)

7. And "nothing has changed about the" environmental devastation it will cause either - n/t

Reply to this post

Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 10:30 AM

mountain grammy (1,625 posts)

10. Ok, Mr. President, it's time to "respond to the threat of climate change"

and say no to this disaster waiting to happen. When the dirty energy from hell people get mad at you, you know you've made the correct decision. Time to come up from the underground, into the light and into the world of clean energy. Sun and wind provided free of side effects, a gift from God. No digging, drilling or frackin' fracking required.

Reply to this post

Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 10:43 AM

Bainbridge Bear (155 posts)

11. This "thousands of jobs" claim

is probably an exaggeration. What is not an exaggeration is the fact that most of this sludge oil will be sold to foreign countries and will have nothing to do with U.S. energy independence. It will also be part of the carbon bomb that we are lighting and a decision that will make the future of our children and grandchildren increasingly tenuous. This is just another way that energy companies pump money out of the ground with little or no regard for the consequences of global warming. Hagan is just another of the hacks who help to keep this ruinous cycle going. "Sound environmental stewardship" is a cynical lie.

Reply to this post

Response to Bainbridge Bear (Reply #11)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 08:00 PM

politicaljunkie41910 (377 posts)

14. What I recall about job creation back when the topic was being debated before was

that the pipeline would create at most 6000 jobs initially for the building of the pipeline, which would run from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico to be exported. The project would have taken about 18 mos to 2 years to complete, and with it would go the vast majority of the jobs with it. Those jobs would not be required to maintain the pipeline at most a small percent of that required to build it. And then the oil is not even intended for US consumption, it's headed out of the country.

Reply to this post

Latest Breaking News (Forum)