HotWingConspiracy: The rosiest projection even the GOP put out said 20k jobs, now it's up to 10 million? WTF are all these people going to be working on?

He saw a mockup of the pipeline, and was told it was going to make 100,000 jobs. He was then told that the pipeline would be about 100 times the size of the mockup.

100 * 100,000 = 10,000,000

QED.

I'm just glad I didn't click on another goddamn townhall link. i swear, their writers stopped going to school sometime around 8th grade and just spent the subsequent years reading right-wing pundits' books and jacking off to pictures of the laffer curve.

sprawl15: PanicMan: Is it tax cuts? It's tax cuts, isn't it?

Even dumber:

FTA: None present such a black and white contrast as the dispute about the black, tar-sands crude that Canada would like to ship through the US to refineries on the Gulf via the Keystone XL pipeline. The dispute isn't about the environment, is about creating 10 million U.S. jobs.

So the lie is up to 10 MILLION now? It's getting bigger all the time.

$15 trillion.. wow.. to run Canadian oil to other countries. What, are they going to set up toll booths along the pipeline every 5 feet?

merkinpeeble: bucketeers

This word is going on my resume.

masercot: So, an essay about using the United States for a pipeline to get Canadians and Boehner wealthy by selling the oil to countries that are not the United States...

A pipeline built with substandard Indian and Chinese steel, using mostly Canadian labor, to pump Canadian oil to Saudi refineries to be sold overseas. It's the most patriotic thing I've seen since I tattooed a crying eagle on my truck nuts.

Vodka Zombie: 10 million seems a bit optimistic...

Maybe it's just me.

No, you see its not really a pipeline so much as a bucket brigade from the border to Louisiana. To run around the clock, it requires three shifts of three million bucketeers each, plus an an ancillary staff of one million bucket manufacturers, bucket logisitic specialists, and bucket maintenance engineers.

I think it's just a marketing problem. "Keystone XL" sounds like a brand of hiking boot. The proposed oil pipeline should be named something like "PRIDE EAGLE PATRIOT JOBS 'N JUICE FREEDOM PIPE FOR GOD'S BLESSED AMERICA 2012".

So....can I safely assume that the trolls that I've blocked, which now are reappearing, are the modmin accounts used to drive clicks?? I look at my filter, they are listed, and magically still appear. Hmmmm..... Tenpoundsofmodmin??

mavexe: So tell me.....Why is it that THIS pipeline will bring those numbers....whereas the others haven't.

Because this is a magic pipeline. it doesn't help facilitate oil transfer between nations, it is an import/export route for Money Fairies and Geese that Crap Golden Eggs.

sprawl15: PanicMan: Is it tax cuts? It's tax cuts, isn't it?

Even dumber:

FTA: None present such a black and white contrast as the dispute about the black, tar-sands crude that Canada would like to ship through the US to refineries on the Gulf via the Keystone XL pipeline. The dispute isn't about the environment, is about creating 10 million U.S. jobs.

Perhaps the author believes that millions of jobs would subsequently be created in the environmental clean-up sector.

watson.t.hamster: It's idiotic to say that the oil industry doesn't create wealth or jobs?

Good to see "bring your retard to Fark" day is so successful this year.

privatize social security, cut the corporate tax rate to 0%, build a base on the moon - bam, you just created all the jobs. yes. all of them.

Philip Francis Queeg: Occam's Nailfile: Philip Francis Queeg: Occam's Nailfile: You copy and paste opinions as presented in a biased study, and claim them as fact.

Nope, that quoted material is from the official Canadian government approval of the project, and is based on Transcanada's own filings.

Transcanada's own statements and filings show that the pipeline will create only a few thousand temporary jobs at most, and that it will raise prices fir gas in the Midwest.

Now tell us , where is the unbiased study which shows hundreds off thousands of jobs will be created?

Do you just ignore content, even in your own supportive documentation, that contradicts your argument? I repeat, since you clearly have reading comprehension issues:



Look at this statement:

"The possibility of KXL construction amounts to a sword hanging over the prospects of a vibrant green economy and green jobs."

Oh, yeah, that certainly sounds like a very scientific and unbiased study. No hyperbole at all, there.

And this little nugget:

"The extraction of Tar Sands oil has generated 75,000 jobs in Alberta. While these jobs are not all good jobs by any means, and they have brought with them a number of social problems and costs, the Tars Sands remains a large employer."

Do those statements sound like they are:

A) Biased
B) Unbiased

Respond, and feel free to show your work.



Where is your unbiased study? Where is your proof that the facts presented in the Canadian government's approval of the pipeline were in error?

Let me go back and read all of the support that you have provided for your claims.... Oh wait there is none.

And your cowardice is now on display, for all to see.

I do not have an unbiased study to present. I will present this for your perusal, but unlike you, I will not claim it to be unbiased. I am sure, with your google fu, you can find plenty of information to support both sides of this argument.

The numbers presented in this TownHall article are clearly pulled out of someone's ass. I have not debated that. But your study's language also indicates a clear bias, which undermines the calculations and conclusions drawn, and calls into question the entire study's credibility. As intelligent as you try to portray yourself, you certainly should be aware of that already - you simply lack the character to admit it.

Bottom line, whether you choose to see it or not:

1. The project is privately funded, and will create jobs.

2. For every job directly created, additional family members will be lifted out of poverty.

3. For every job directly created, a multiple of economic activity will result, creating more jobs and more wealth, and improving the lives of the people who live in many communities.

4. For every job directly created, tax revenues will be generated as well.

5. For every job directly created, the number of people relying on entitlements to live will decrease by a measurable degree.

6. Refusal on the part of the Obama administration to approve the project directly prevents the above positive economic impacts from taking place.

Those are facts, Queeg. Statements like "these jobs are not all good jobs by any means" are not facts. They are opinions, shrouded in just enough data to make them appear persuasive.

Gotta run, have a nice day.

Philip Francis Queeg: Occam's Nailfile: You copy and paste opinions as presented in a biased study, and claim them as fact.

Nope, that quoted material is from the official Canadian government approval of the project, and is based on Transcanada's own filings.

Transcanada's own statements and filings show that the pipeline will create only a few thousand temporary jobs at most, and that it will raise prices fir gas in the Midwest.

Now tell us , where is the unbiased study which shows hundreds off thousands of jobs will be created?

Do you just ignore content, even in your own supportive documentation, that contradicts your argument? I repeat, since you clearly have reading comprehension issues:



Look at this statement:

"The possibility of KXL construction amounts to a sword hanging over the prospects of a vibrant green economy and green jobs."

Oh, yeah, that certainly sounds like a very scientific and unbiased study. No hyperbole at all, there.

And this little nugget:

"The extraction of Tar Sands oil has generated 75,000 jobs in Alberta. While these jobs are not all good jobs by any means, and they have brought with them a number of social problems and costs, the Tars Sands remains a large employer."

Do those statements sound like they are:

A) Biased
B) Unbiased

Respond, and feel free to show your work.

keylock71: I'm really enjoying the "Won't somebody think about the poor and unemployed?!?" angle coming from folks, who laugh at the prospect of people dying without insurance and have been trying to dismantle the "Safety Net" for the last 30 years or so...

Lots of very intelligent people have argued that our safety net, as it exists, encourages more poverty than it corrects. If that weren't true, then why is it that the more money we pour into it, the more people rely on it?

This is your argument:

"Give me some food. I'm poor."

"No. But I'll give you a job, and you can buy your own food."

"YOU DON'T CARE ABOUT TEH POOR!"

monoski: Occam's Nailfile: What if it's 100,000 jobs, or 50,000 jobs? That's 100,000-300,000 men, women, and children no longer needing to collect food stamps, or live in poverty and depression, or endure the divorce, alcoholism, drug abuse, crime, and domestic violence that comes alone with being poor.

You are making the assumption that everyone hired will come from the unemployment roles. Do you see a problem with that?

And what happens to the jobs those people abandon, do they just go away, you farking genius?

Hollie Maea: Occam's Nailfile: Why the hell would the Obama administration prevent it?

Maybe because the house GOP forced him to make a decision before a full environmental impact study could be conducted, in a blatant effort to "embarrass" him? But of course you already knew that.

Come on, you aren't really that stupid are you? The "we need more study" excuse has been the go-to excuse to stop every energy project that's been proposed for decades.

fark whether or not he is embarrassed. Does he give a shiat about Americans that can't feed their families, or not? It's that simple.



This is a real problem, and not just a problem on paper, or a hypothetical boogieman like "OMG WHAT IF IT LEEKS!!11!". It's an illustration of 45 million human beings living like beggars in the greatest nation in the world. Do you really mean to say that the danger of some hypothetical future seepage of oil is so severe that we should ignore an opportunity to help these people?

How can you libs even say that with a straight face, and claim to give a flying fark about the poor?

Remember when Bart changed the D's on his report card to A+'s and Lisa told him he should have forged plausible grades? I guess Townhall never saw that episode.

Mrtraveler01: dumbobruni: there are a whole lot of people in this thread that have not read the article.

the article is about oil shale, not just Keystone.

/i know, i know. welcometofark.jpg

FTA:
None present such a black and white contrast as the dispute about the black, tar-sands crude that Canada would like to ship through the US to refineries on the Gulf via the Keystone XL pipeline. The dispute isn't about the environment, is about creating 10 million U.S. jobs.

You were saying?

You extract a point he made about Obama not persuing Shale oil and extrapolate it to the full article? Reading comprehension for fail, Alex.

Alphax: sprawl15: PanicMan: Is it tax cuts? It's tax cuts, isn't it?

Even dumber:

FTA: None present such a black and white contrast as the dispute about the black, tar-sands crude that Canada would like to ship through the US to refineries on the Gulf via the Keystone XL pipeline. The dispute isn't about the environment, is about creating 10 million U.S. jobs.

So the lie is up to 10 MILLION now? It's getting bigger all the time.

$15 trillion.. wow.. to run Canadian oil to other countries. What, are they going to set up toll booths along the pipeline every 5 feet?

Can liberals farking not read? He refers to all Shale oil programs. Seriously, learn to farking read.

None present such a black and white contrast as the dispute about the black, tar-sands crude that Canada would like to ship through the US to refineries on the Gulf via the Keystone XL pipeline.

We get it already.

I have a better idea: put all of the Teatards on rubber rafts and inner tubes, float them out to sea, and harpoon them for rendering down for heating oil. This will improve the country in several ways:

1. Cheaper health care, since the majority of the Tea party are old, fat, and smoke because SOCIALISM
2. Energy independence
3. Fewer child rapes (since Rush Limbaugh will be harpooned along with the rest of the Teahadis
4. Extend the lifetime of Social Security by a few more decades (see point 1)
5. De facto increase in the literacy rate in the US.

Mrtraveler01: You were saying?

He does actually eventually start rambling incoherently about oil shale.

Oil shale is a simple test to find out if someone is stupid and hasn't ever paid attention to history. Ever since the 40s, every time oil prices go up a bit, the less lucid amongst us have charged into Colorado or Wyoming or wherever they think the best place to squeeze a little oil out of rocks is at the time, built little boom towns that turn into ghost towns a couple of years later when they figure out that it takes more money and energy than they will ever get out of it. Next week on townhall.com: how the "newly discovered" Oronoco Sludge will fix our energy problems forever.

sprawl15: HotWingConspiracy: The rosiest projection even the GOP put out said 20k jobs, now it's up to 10 million? WTF are all these people going to be working on?

He saw a mockup of the pipeline, and was told it was going to make 100,000 jobs. He was then told that the pipeline would be about 100 times the size of the mockup.

100 * 100,000 = 10,000,000

QED.

Well shiat, I guess numbers don't lie.

crazydave023: I stopped reading after "whackjob environmentaliists"
Where are they gettin 10 million jobs created from?
Does anybody call these people out?

Unemployment in the US is what, 12.8 million? So they are saying this will slash unemployment by 78%?

I was hanging out last night and some person was saying the world wasn't overpopulated because there were 5000 square miles of land per person on Earth. I was like really? Run your own numbers dude...

dennysgod: I can't believe they are still farking this chicken.

Wow, we're up to 10 million jobs now. First off TransCanada counts jobs yearly, so they hire 10,000 one year, and they work for 2, that's 20,000 jobs when in fact only 10,000 people are working plus these are all temporary, according to TransCanada the number of permanent jobs is only in the hundreds.

You would hope so - if an oil pipeline was to create 10 million jobs I would have visions of a long line of people handing buckets to each other.

John Ransom is the Finance Editor for Townhall Finance... He lives just south of Denver, in one of the great, original, western cowboy towns of Castle Rock, Colorado.

Ah yes, the delusional good ole boy fantasy. I'm guessing he has two horses on a half acre and refers to it as his ranch. Christ, what a pussy. Hey John, if you're reading this, you're just a whore, like the ones you see cruising Colfax Avenue. Your johns are internationally-owned oil companies.

It must have been a pipeline that allowed the GOP to build those thousands of hospitals, tens of thousands of schools, hundreds of thousands of clinics, millions of new houses, and tens of millions of miles of new roads, without spending a dime, and while lowering the price of oil, they were always bragging about in Iraq.

Otherwise it almost seems like their claims were suspiciously exaggerated.

legalize slavery?

CapnBlues: I'm just glad I didn't click on another goddamn townhall link. i swear, their writers stopped going to school sometime around 8th grade and just spent the subsequent years reading right-wing pundits' books and jacking off to pictures of the laffer curve.

Given the shape of the laffer curve, this is more likely than you think.

8080801

The GOP can add 10 million jobs and $15 trillion to the US economy without spending a dime

best part.....forever

10 million seems a bit optimistic...

Maybe it's just me.

Ohwaityoureseriousletmelaughevenharder.jpg

MindStalker: PanicMan: Is it tax cuts? It's tax cuts, isn't it?

No, article is about Keystone XL. Sorry nice try.

It's like flipping a coin these days. Heads it's tax cuts, tails it's drill baby drill!

PanicMan: Is it tax cuts? It's tax cuts, isn't it?

Even dumber:

FTA: None present such a black and white contrast as the dispute about the black, tar-sands crude that Canada would like to ship through the US to refineries on the Gulf via the Keystone XL pipeline. The dispute isn't about the environment, is about creating 10 million U.S. jobs.

Is it tax cuts? It's tax cuts, isn't it?

As if they would even if they could.