No sh*t. That's because the media isn't liberal.

The media are subdivisions of giant multi-national for-profit corporations. The idea that they would skew left is ludicrous. Sure, leftists exist in the mainstream MSM media, but the industry is reliably right-wing on the whole.

Lionel Mandrake: The media are subdivisions of giant multi-national for-profit corporations. The idea that they would skew left is ludicrous. Sure, leftists exist in the mainstream MSM media, but the industry is reliably right-wing on the whole.

You're telling me that GE, NBC's former parent company, isn't the liberalst bunch of libs just because they make nuclear reactors for the Navy and 30mm cannons for the Air Force?

I think you smoked some bad granola, Wavy Gravy.

tnpir: So, is this the part where we summarily dismiss TFA because it's Media Matters?

Not just Media Matters - SOROS-OWNED Media Matters.

Mrtraveler01: Color me shocked. Everyone kept reciting TransCanada's press release of it creating 200,000 jobs and how it would ensure "energy independence" without any scrutiny of the fact that these two facts are nothing but bullshiat.

Liberal media my ass.

20,000 or 200,000 jobs? Uh, not even close.

"...the Cornell University Global Labor Institute finding that the pipeline would add only 500 to 1,400 temporary construction jobs. The authors of the September report also said that much of the new employment stemming from Keystone would be outside the U.S.

Transcanada itself cast doubt on its employment forecast when a vice president for the company told CNN last fall that the 20,000 jobs Keystone would create were temporary and that the project would likely yield only "hundreds" of permanent positions."

Linky (pops)

Mrtraveler01: Because everytime I bring that up, no one ever seems to believe me.

It's a liberal media conspiracy

If I'm Obama this is what I say: "Ok you will have your pipeline as long as you mandate in the legislation that any oil flowing through that pipeline must be sold ONLY to America and cheaper than other sources of oil are being sold for.

Lets see how badly Republicans want to bring oil into the US.

The Onanist: Mrtraveler01: Color me shocked. Everyone kept reciting TransCanada's press release of it creating 200,000 jobs and how it would ensure "energy independence" without any scrutiny of the fact that these two facts are nothing but bullshiat.

Liberal media my ass.

20,000 or 200,000 jobs? Uh, not even close.

"...the Cornell University Global Labor Institute finding that the pipeline would add only 500 to 1,400 temporary construction jobs. The authors of the September report also said that much of the new employment stemming from Keystone would be outside the U.S.

Transcanada itself cast doubt on its employment forecast when a vice president for the company told CNN last fall that the 20,000 jobs Keystone would create were temporary and that the project would likely yield only "hundreds" of permanent positions."

Linky (pops)


Who gives a shiat if it creates 2000 jobs or 20,000?
That oil will be burnt by someone on this planet, so since we are the closest we should be the ones to use it as transport costs will only create more emissions. We should take reasonable precautions. There is no other calculation that needs to take place.
This is Obama listening to the flat earth wing of the party; neoluddites who champion logic and science only when it suits there designs. As often as not they deny logic and science with all the passion of Zoroastrian priest in 3rd century b.c Persia who is being lectured about the deposit of hydrocarbons and combustion.

Washington Post Editorial Board, January 18th

...We almost hope this was a political call because, on the substance, there should be no question. Without the pipeline, Canada would still export its bitumen - with long-term trends in the global market, it's far too valuable to keep in the ground - but it would go to China. And, as a State Department report found, U.S. refineries would still import low-quality crude - just from the Middle East. Stopping the pipeline, then, wouldn't do anything to reduce global warming, but it would almost certainly require more oil to be transported across oceans in tankers.
Environmentalists and Nebraska politicians say that the route TransCanada proposed might threaten the state's ecologically sensitive Sand Hills region. But TransCanada has been willing to tweak the route, in consultation with Nebraska officials, even though a government analysis last year concluded that the original one would have "limited adverse environmental impacts." Surely the Obama administration didn't have to declare the whole project contrary to the national interest - that's the standard State was supposed to apply - and force the company to start all over again.
Environmentalists go on to argue that some of the fuel U.S. refineries produce from Canada's bitumen might be exported elsewhere. But even if that's true, why force those refineries to obtain their crude from farther away? Anti-Keystone activists insist that building the pipeline will raise gas prices in the Midwest. But shouldn't environmentalists want that? Finally, pipeline skeptics dispute the estimates of the number of jobs that the project would create. But, clearly, constructing the pipeline would still result in job gains during a sluggish economic recovery.
There are far fairer, far more rational ways to discourage oil use in America, the first of which is establishing higher gasoline taxes. Environmentalists should fight for policies that might actually do substantial good instead of tilting against Keystone XL, and President Obama should have the courage to say so.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obamas-keystone-pipeline-rejec t ion-is-hard-to-accept/2012/01/18/gIQAf9UG9P_story.html?sub=AR