President Obama vetoes Keystone pipeline bill

[Suzanimal]

United States President Barack Obama as promised has vetoed a bill from Congress that for now will halt construction of the controversial Keystone XL pipeline.

Defying the wishes of the Republican-led House and Senate, the president on Tuesday rejected the years-in-the-making would-be legislation that sought to pave the way for a 1,179-mile pipeline to carry crude tar sands oil from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico.

Congress authorized the bill more than a week ago, and in recent days it was handed off to the White House.

"The president does intend to veto this pace of legislation, and we intend to do it without drama or fanfare or delay,” Josh Earnest, the White House press secretary, said at a scheduled media briefing early Tuesday afternoon in Washington, DC. Later in the day it was confirmed that the president had, in fact, vetoed the bill.

Ahead of the president’s expected decision, House Speaker John Boehner and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell—top-ranking Republicans representing Ohio and Kentucky, respectively—published an op-ed condemning Obama’s intentions.

"The allure of appeasing environmental extremists may be too powerful for the president to ignore. But the president is sadly mistaken if he thinks vetoing this bill will end this fight," they wrote. "Far from it. We are just getting started."

http://rt.com/usa/235227-obama-veto-pipeline-bill/

 

[Mr.NoSmile]

Pretty sure that everyone saw this coming, and I don't believe there are enough votes to even override his veto, either.

 

[invisible]

Wow! I think this is both the first time he has ever held to one of his promises, and done something right for once.
This isn't about "appeasing environmental extremists", it's about upholding property rights and not forcing eminent domain on people.

 

[KingNothing]

Wow! I think this is both the first time he has ever held to one of his promises, and done something right for once.
This isn't about "appeasing environmental extremists", it's about upholding property rights and not forcing eminent domain on people.

Well, it isn't about that. It should be about that, but it isn't. This specific action was about appeasing environmental extremists, and voters that Democrats want to court.

 

[invisible]

Well, it isn't about that. It should be about that, but it isn't. This specific action was about appeasing environmental extremists, and voters that Democrats want to court.

Perhaps that is the case, that he did the right thing for the wrong reason. But if that's true, then why hasn't he eliminated the halliburton loophole and simply ended the issue?

 

[pcosmar]

This specific action was about appeasing environmental extremists, and voters that Democrats want to court.

SO WHAT.
I don't care why he killed this stupidity. He killed it.
GOOD.

And the hell with everyone that was pushing for this bullshit..

 

[invisible]

SO WHAT.
I don't care why he killed this stupidity. He killed it.
GOOD.

And the hell with everyone that was pushing for this bullshit..

Killed it for now. Don't worry, it'll be back soon enough, after a few dozen more train derailments and tanker truck crashes. Perhaps the fracking industry and chamber of commerce will manage to bankroll a few more candidates into office in the meantime.

 

[puppetmaster]

Perhaps that is the case, that he did the right thing for the wrong reason. But if that's true, then why hasn't he eliminated the halliburton loophole and simply ended the issue?

Can't stand imminent domain but warren buffet is happy that this bitch does his bidding....

 

[AngryCanadian]

I am for once happy. The senators have failed to prove just how safe the Keystone pipeline would be even for Canadians.

 

[amartin315]

wow. both pauls are in favor of the pipeline and most of this thread seems to be against it?

 

[Brett85]

wow. both pauls are in favor of the pipeline and most of this thread seems to be against it?

There are a lot of "left libertarians" within the liberty movement.

 

[dannno]

There are a lot of "left libertarians" within the liberty movement.

Hah, I didn't realize property rights was a leftist issue.

 

[The Gold Standard]

There are a lot of "left libertarians" within the liberty movement.

Yes, it is the "left libertarians" that oppose the seizure of private property by the government.

 

[The Gold Standard]

Hah, I didn't realize property rights was a leftist issue.

You beat me to it. Apparently "right libertarians" approve of government confiscation of property for some uses, but not others.

 

[kahless]

There are a lot of "left libertarians" within the liberty movement.

I have not heard enough on this either way but my concerns were related to our government executing eminent domain on property owners on behalf of a foreign corporation. I do not see how that would make one a "left libertarian" for being against eminent domain.

If Ron/Rand are supporting it as mentioned by the poster above and they do not have issues with eminent domain then that would make them far worse than "left libertarians" on this issue.

 

[kahless]

You beat me to it. Apparently "right libertarians" approve of government confiscation of property for some uses, but not others.

You guys are fast or I am old and slow. I have to remember to refresh but did not seem like all that long when I started typing.

 

[Brett85]

Hah, I didn't realize property rights was a leftist issue.

Yes, it is the "left libertarians" that oppose the seizure of private property by the government.

So you're claiming that Ron Paul supports the seizure of private property by the government?

 

[The Gold Standard]

So you're claiming that Ron Paul supports the seizure of private property by the government?

I can't watch the video at work, but if he supports this then he sure does. The man isn't perfect. It's possible he supports it on the condition that no one involuntarily surrenders their property. Or he might just have been playing politics. It doesn't affect how I feel about it one way or another.

 

[dannno]

So you're claiming that Ron Paul supports the seizure of private property by the government?

He seems to be less in favor of the Fed Gov banning it and more in favor of returning the power to setup these things to the states and local governments. Sort of like how he is for ending the federal war on drugs, even though states may make the same mistake of banning drugs.

I'm ok with the pipeline, I'm not ok with eminent domain seizures.

Do you think Ron Paul is ok with eminent domain seizures?

 

[dannno]

I can't watch the video at work, but if he supports this then he sure does. The man isn't perfect. It's possible he supports it on the condition that no one involuntarily surrenders their property. Or he might just have been playing politics. It doesn't affect how I feel about it one way or another.

I'm pretty sure he just doesn't want to see the headline "Rand Paul's Father Ron Paul Doesn't Support the Keystone Pipeline" plastered across mainstream media.