12/15/11 Fox News Republican Debate

[SnyderShrugged]

Bachman looked like a fool saying "I am a serious candidate for President"

Huntsman was the most impressive.

Newt won.

Romney did nothing to gain ground.

Ron Paul was less aggressive than usual, the fox news folks were openly hostile towards him IMO.

since they realized his chances in Iowa are now very good, and an Iowa win could possibly elevate him in NH too, they are scared crapless!

This week Hannity/Levin/Rush and all the other big government decepti-cons have gone into full on attack mode. The only problem is that they only have recycled 20 year old attacks to make.

[Larry]

My question is Why don't the oil companies pay for it [Keystone pipeline]

Uh, far as I know, they're perfectly willing to pay for it. All they're waiting on is permission.

(What they want to do is to skip that pesky environmental risk assessment process.)

[88Comrade2000]

I was going in and out of sleep the first hour; so I missed part of it.

Second hour was good. Ron Paul just ended his Republican candidacy though with his foreign policy views. While Ron will win in anti-war Iowa and he could shock and win New Hampshire; I don't see Ron Paul doing well in other states where it's just pure Republican voting. His views are not in sync with the party at all.

I do see him going third party. Actually, a Ron Paul victory in NH would shake things hope. That might finally wake some people up and we get some new candidates to enter the race. The way the Republican primaries are set up this year and they way they are allocating delegates; plenty of time for someone to still get in.

I hope for a nice ****in mess

Actually, the only reasonable person on there was Huntsman. To bad he hasn't a shot.

Still nothing has change my mind; Obama wins!

It might take a Ron Paul shocker in New Hampshire to scare the **** of Republicans and have some other people be convinced to get into the race.

[Larry]

I think that the odds of the Redskins winning out and making the playoffs are better than the odds of someone entering the race, now, and winning.

[Destino]

the pipeline?

they will.......are you under the impression it is a govt project?

Fergusun...no it will not make us independent,but it is a major,stable source though'

it would also reduce oil tanker traffic(which is much more subject to spills)

I'd prefer we develop our own ,while expanding NG

I looked up what the critics were saying about the pipeline an unexpected argument. They claim that allowing this pipeline to be built would INCREASE the cost of heavy crude to americans. They provided a link to the Transcanada's permit application that appears to support that. http://stopbigoilripoffs.com/documents/keystone-xl-pipeline-application-section-3-supply-and-markets/at_download/file

page 7 of the pdf:

7 Existing markets for Canadian heavy crude, principally PADD II, are currently

8 oversupplied, resulting in price discounting for Canadian heavy crude oil.

9 Access to the USGC via the Keystone XL Pipeline is expected to strengthen Canadian

10 crude oil pricing in PADD II by removing this oversupply. This is expected to increase

11 the price of heavy crude to the equivalent cost of imported crude. Similarly, if a surplus

12 of light synthetic crude develops in PADD II, the Keystone XL Pipeline would provide

13 an alternate market and therefore help to mitigate a price discount.

14 The resultant increase in the price of heavy crude is estimated to provide an increase in

15 annual revenue to the Canadian producing industry in 2013 of US $2 billion to US $3.9

16 billion.

Padd II defined (34th page of the pdf, page number 21)

PADD II encompasses 15 states in the Midwest from the Canadian border

This argument also leads into questioning the reasoning for this pipeline. It's being sold as delivering fuel to the US from our friendly neighbor to the north. However it appears the point is to reach a deep water port for export, not to facilitate delivery to the US.

What are your thoughts on that?

[Larry]

I noticed that. hat it looked like maybe the mission was to get the oil to a port.

But, even if that's true. If the oil is going to go to New Orleans, and leave, that's bad, exactly how?

Doesn't exporting oil have exactly the same effect on things like out balance of trade, that reducing imports would?

Or, there's another way of looking at it:

The only way we export that oil, is if somebody overseas is willing to pay more for it than what we're paying to import oil, now.

We aren't going to export oil for 10 bucks, if we have to turn around and pay 11 to import oil to make up for it.

(Although, as I type this, the thought is occurring to me that we're talking about oil companies, here. Where it's actually concievable that they would export oil at 10 bucks, and import it at 11. Actually, the more I think about it, the more I think "I wouldn't put it past them".)

[Burgold]

I

We aren't going to export oil for 10 bucks, if we have to turn around and pay 11 to import oil to make up for it.

I don't know... we do it all the time with big pharma

[twa]

I noticed that. hat it looked like maybe the mission was to get the oil to a port.

But, even if that's true. If the oil is going to go to New Orleans, and leave, that's bad, exactly how?

Doesn't exporting oil have exactly the same effect on things like out balance of trade, that reducing imports would?

Or, there's another way of looking at it:

The only way we export that oil, is if somebody overseas is willing to pay more for it than what we're paying to import oil, now.

We aren't going to export oil for 10 bucks, if we have to turn around and pay 11 to import oil to make up for it.

(Although, as I type this, the thought is occurring to me that we're talking about oil companies, here. Where it's actually concievable that they would export oil at 10 bucks, and import it at 11. Actually, the more I think about it, the more I think "I wouldn't put it past them".)

A port ,and most importantly a refining and distribution network....oil is not of much value w/o it and the refining and chemical industry makes many things from it besides gasoline(just like NG)

it could increase prices in the markets with a glut though....as would Canada selling it to China

Destino....are you saying we should support rejecting commerce to possibly benefit Mid-Westerners?

If jobs and trade are less important than a few cents a gallon in Kansas feel free to oppose the pipeline....of course it could also have a impact on lowering east coast gas prices if approved,since we pipe our refined products to ya'll. (and ya'll are effected more by the risk of erratic import prices)

Don't much matter here since we already pay more than the Midwest,and have a surplus of oil.

It would probably result in even more refineries here....which I'd prefer someone else host:pfft:

[Destino]

I noticed that. hat it looked like maybe the mission was to get the oil to a port.

But, even if that's true. If the oil is going to go to New Orleans, and leave, that's bad, exactly how?

Doesn't exporting oil have exactly the same effect on things like out balance of trade, that reducing imports would?

Or, there's another way of looking at it:

The only way we export that oil, is if somebody overseas is willing to pay more for it than what we're paying to import oil, now.

We aren't going to export oil for 10 bucks, if we have to turn around and pay 11 to import oil to make up for it.

(Although, as I type this, the thought is occurring to me that we're talking about oil companies, here. Where it's actually concievable that they would export oil at 10 bucks, and import it at 11. Actually, the more I think about it, the more I think "I wouldn't put it past them".)

I noticed that you use the word "we" a lot in this post. Do you mean Canada and the US? That is Canadian oil that will be moved to refineries/port to be shipped out. The US is merely playing the role of the port in this situation and I doubt we'll see any portion of the revenue from the export proceeds being that it's a Canadian oil company selling their products to other nations.

I could be wrong on that.

As for the market effect of exporting versus importing. I have no idea. The oil markets are manipulated so frankly who knows what would be done with pricing. Oil is inelastic and openly manipulated by suppliers and less openly by others.

[Destino]

Destino....are you saying we should support rejecting commerce to possibly benefit Mid-Westerners?

If jobs and trade are less important than a few cents a gallon in Kansas feel free to oppose the pipeline....of course it could also have a impact on lowering east coast gas prices if approved,since we pipe our refined products to ya'll. (and ya'll are effected more by the risk of erratic import prices)

Don't much matter here since we already pay more than the Midwest,and have a surplus of oil.

It would probably result in even more refineries here....which I'd prefer someone else host:pfft:

I'm not saying a thing yet. I ran into that and found it to be somewhat unexpected so I figured I would share. I haven't begun actually looking into it so I have no idea if those claims are true. Even if the price did go up in one area the question would be how much and what the estimated impact would be (if that could be accurately estimated) that would then have to be compared to the supposed benefits. I know that everyone on stage last night was talking about 20k jobs and that alone makes me think that figure is either an outright lie or padded.

On this issue my official position is "I don't know, maybe".

[twa]

You gain the fees and taxes applicable,as well as ensuring a supply and the jobs building and maintaining it w/o spending tax dollars.

If you want to make sure it stays in the US simply enter a long term contract to purchase it.

Do you think they will pay exports costs while selling it elsewhere cheaper?....business doesn't work like that

We do tax the pipelines,it is not free to ship across states or the US

add

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/12/16/keystone_blue-collar_blues_112430.html

By siding with the radical greenies and standing against the Keystone pipeline, Obama has turned his back on the most traditional voting bloc in the Democratic Party: blue-collar, hardhat workers.

Manufacturing workers. Construction workers. Truckers. Pipefitters. Plumbers. The Keystone opposition coming out of the White House is completely alienating all these people, the folks who work with their hands. And it's these workers who have been decimated in the recession far more than any other group in the economy.

David Barnett, the head of the United Association of Plumbers and Pipefitters, told me on CNBC that unemployment is currently running at 20 percent to 25 percent in this blue-collar sector. He has repeatedly lobbied the White House to allow the Keystone pipeline to go through, and he notes high environmental standards in the work his men do. And yet even now, three years after the initial Keystone reviews began, the issue is still not resolved.

How can you have a jobs bill without putting blue-collar workers back to work? Answer: stubborn ideological insistence.

The Teamsters support the Keystone. So does the AFL-CIO. So do the machinists. And along with the plumbers and pipefitters, so does the Laborers' International Union of North America.

And we're not just talking about the 20,000 jobs that would accrue directly from the pipeline, but the secondary and tertiary jobs from a long supply chain that total well over 100,000.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

If Dems would comply by not bringing up FDR at the drop of a hat....the 40's are over.

You honestly think FDR gets mentioned by democrats as much as Reagan does by republicans?

:haha:

[oisn1]

You honestly think FDR gets mentioned by democrats as much as Reagan does by republicans?

:haha:

Yeah exactly. Reagan gets brought up more than the founding fathers. I've never seen FDR like this,

Deserved or not, Reagan is almost god-like in Republican circles.

[SnyderShrugged]

Paul must have been received better than I thought last night. Already almost a $1Million for his "original" Tea Party anniversary moneybomb so far today.

Thats encouraging.

https://secure.ronpaul2012.com/

[Larry]

FactCheck article on the debate.

The final Republican presidential debate in advance of the Jan. 3 first-in-the-nation Iowa party caucuses produced a few claims we found worthy of quibbling over. Gingrich challenged Bachmann’s factual accuracy regarding the former speaker’s record on abortion — but we found Bachmann was mostly correct. On the other hand, Bachmann used an inflated jobs figure when she criticized Obama’s decision to delay approval of a Canadian oil pipeline through the U.S.

. . .

We’re still reviewing some of the claims for accuracy, and may post more findings in the days to come. Meanwhile, here’s what we found so far:

"a few claims we found worthy of quibbling over" sounds like about as close to a stamp of accuracy as I've ever seen from FactCheck.

[Stadium-Armory]

This comment isn't really about the debate, but I see the pipeline being discussed in this thread.

The republicans have been clamoring for less taxes, but now want to block a bill that extends a tax cut if they can't add the pipeline approval to it? What am I missing?

[Larry]

This comment isn't really about the debate, but I see the pipeline being discussed in this thread.

The republicans have been clamoring for less taxes, but now want to block a bill that extends a tax cut if they can't add the pipeline approval to it? What am I missing?

This tax cut isn't only for rich people.

[Dan T.]

I am reallyyyyyyyyyyyyy liking Huntsman.

Maybe Huntsman/Paul 2012? Sanity we can believe in :pfft:

And Herman Cain has the inside track for ambassador of Ubeki-beki-beki-beki-stan-stan.

[G.A.C.O.L.B.]

Na, didn't you see Cain's interview with Barbera Walters? He's gonna be Secretary of Defense.

---------- Post added December-16th-2011 at 01:14 PM ----------

Yeah exactly. Reagan gets brought up more than the founding fathers. I've never seen FDR like this,

Deserved or not, Reagan is almost god-like in Republican circles.

And Reagan would be ostracized in today's GOP. Negotiated with terrorists, as well as with Iran. Raised the debt ceiling, raised taxes. I'm on the phone so I can't pull up the link, but there's a great video mashup of Obama and Reagan essentially giving the same speech on taxes on the wealthy.

[twa]

This tax cut isn't only for rich people.

No it isn't...it is a tax cut to a 'supposedly' dedicated tax to fund entitlements being SOLD as a stimulus

He has the wrong party doing the blocking.....of real stimulus and jobs

[Larry]

No it isn't...it is a tax cut to a 'supposedly' dedicated tax to fund entitlements being SOLD as a stimulus

Yeah, I know how much you hate tax cuts being sold as a stimulus. Every time somebody does it you jump right in there and tell them how wrong they are.

[No Excuses]

but there's a great video mashup of Obama and Reagan essentially giving the same speech on taxes on the wealthy.

[Destino]

Na, didn't you see Cain's interview with Barbera Walters? He's gonna be Secretary of Defense.[

WHAT?!

(sorry couldn't resist)

[twa]

You don't see a problem with cutting a dedicated tax for programs already heading for disaster?

I certainly do like tax cuts as much as the next person,but this is no different than the borrowing of the SS funds to finance the spending sprees.

you want a example of beneficial tax cuts?....look at some of the states proposed tax rebates to the pipeline.

giving up half of non-existent tax revenue to gain the other half in real cash and increased jobs.ect

Naturally there is opposition to such things by those that want more

[G.A.C.O.L.B.]

That's it. Love that vid.

---------- Post added December-16th-2011 at 01:53 PM ----------

WHAT?!

(sorry couldn't resist)

Lmao. One of Stewart's finest bits.

(And credit to Walters. Not only did she hit Cain with the "WHAT?!?!", but she also called the Kardashian's talentless hacks to their faces in her interview with them.)