| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| Most Disagree with O's Keystone Pipeline Decision |
| 2012-01-25 |
| More than half of likely voters disagree with President Obama's decision to deny a permit for the construction of the Keystone XL oil sands pipeline, according to The Hill Poll. Seventy-five percent of Republicans, 69 percent of conservatives and slightly more than half of centrists disagreed with Obama's decision, the poll found. But environmentalists -- many of whom have been disappointed by Obama's tenure thus far -- praised his decision, saying the project was risky and would have increased global warming. If all the environmentalist just died, there would be a reduction is global warming. As long as their residual carbon was interred, of course! Fifty-seven percent of liberals and 54 percent of Democrats in the poll supported Obama's choice. Waitaminute! Does this mean that most enviros are into control of everyone by the all-powerful state, run by our betters? (democrats, that is.) |
| Posted by:Bobby |
| #12 Who knew Environmentalists = Greenhouse gas advocates. Which releases more CO2 into the atmosphere? 1. Piping Canadian oil to the US and shipping Persian Gulf to China - or - 2. Piping, then shipping Canadian oil across the Pacific ocean and shipping Persian Gulf halfway across the planet to the US? |
| Posted by: Shimble Guelph5793 2012-01-25 23:39 |
| #11 Oh I forgot this scoop. Tomorrow the Canadain Prime minister will lobby at the World Economic Forum at Devos that Canada is now open to selling oil to the rest of the world. We now sell 99% of the oil to the US. Thats going to change baby. |
| Posted by: Northern Cousin 2012-01-25 23:17 |
| #10 Ok, I am going to say it. Who is the USA's biggest trading partner? Its not China, Japan or the EU. Its Canada. Over 55% of all US exports go to Canada. Those, by the way, are mostly manufactured goods, not raw materials. Today the State of the Union address speaks of - well- protectionism. HMMMMM. Even this pipeline deal would have generated more jobs south of the border than in Canada. Maybe this pipeline should just stay in Canada and go to newly developed refineries in Canada. If the US has under utilized refineries in Texas. Well, the USA had its shot. Pipelines east and west in Canada and no more to the south. The US is just too fickle with its best neighbour. |
| Posted by: Northern Cousin 2012-01-25 23:09 |
| #9 Make the ads simple. The Dems & the unions have that down to a T. |
| Posted by: Anguper Hupomosing9418 2012-01-25 21:43 |
| #8 Its only a mere 20,000-50,000 lost local jobs at a time of bad national economy - no big??? * ION BHARAT RAKSHAK > [Business Insider] SETH GODWIN: IFF YOU'RE AN AVERAGE WORKER, YOU'RE GOING STRAIGHT ["racing"] TO THE BOTTOM. Time to take control of your own econ destiny + stop relying on old school/establishment ways. IIUC, AKA "STOP BEING A SHEEPLE - START YOUR OWN BUSINESS + BE YOUR OWN BOSS". ARTIC > GODWIN > argued that current recession = a "forever recession" = marks the end of the "Industrial Age" for the US-World. * SAME > [Gary] SHILLING SAYS NEW GLOBAL RECESSION IS HERE. * SAME > IMF REPORT: GLOBAL ECONOMY SLOWING SHARPLY [EuroZone headed for recession later this year]. |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2012-01-25 21:39 |
| #7 That environmentalists are the key opponents is pathetic - it shows they are ignorant 'useful idiots' for some other cause. The new pipeline would be environmentally cleaner than 1) continuing to overload the old pipelines, 2) transporting the oil on trains or trucks, 3) transporting through other pipelines (existing and new) across much less benign topography to the west coast and shipping out, and 4) having the oil end up being used in China, with essentially no environmental regulations, rather than the US. |
| Posted by: Glenmore 2012-01-25 19:39 |
| #6 Make the ads simple. Like the first comment on the thread about the price of gas that was posted today. A block of wood could understand that. |
| Posted by: Rjschwarz 2012-01-25 16:54 |
| #5 When has Obummer ever listened to his subjects? |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2012-01-25 16:31 |
| #4 #2 - I agree with the difference between primary & general election voters. However, you also have the problem of open primaries, where the other party can support the goofball opposition candidate, an example of how better information can lead to a poorer outcome. How you can reason with people who get their political ideas from ads run during "Real Housewives" is beyond my comprehension. |
| Posted by: Anguper Hupomosing9418 2012-01-25 16:12 |
| #3 The decision was made to generate profit for Obama crony Warren Buffett - details here. |
| Posted by: Cincinnatus Chili 2012-01-25 16:05 |
| #2 I think primary voters tend to be better informed than those that show up at the last minute for the main election. The Republicans need to make sure that they get their opinions out there, not just on Fox and Rush and the blogs but where Joe-I-don't-follow-politics might get it. Ads during The Real Housewives or something. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2012-01-25 14:48 |
| #1 These polls never link one opinion with another. In this case, which candidate does their sample of likely voters support for election to the Presidency in 2012? [Don't mention the pipeline decision in this question] I expect the results would clash with other polls. I have come over to the view that US presidential elections are decided by the ignorant and un-informed. That's why campaign money is poured into deceitful negative ads. |
| Posted by: Anguper Hupomosing9418 2012-01-25 13:28 |