ADVERTISEMENT

Fact Checker: Obama lied about Keystone

86Hawkeye

HR Legend
Gold Member
Dec 12, 2001
41,615
15,904
113
Shocking......



Obama "appears to be purposely ignoring the findings of the lead Cabinet agency on the issue."
Further, he challenged Obama's claim that Keystone would just be for Canadian oil, since producers in North Dakota and Montana want to move oil from the Bakken area through it.

Kessler gave Obama "four Pinocchios" for his comments -- the worst rating on his fact-check scale.


This post was edited on 3/3 11:15 AM by 86Hawkeye

Article
 
Originally posted by 86Hawkeye:
Shocking......



Obama "appears to be purposely ignoring the findings of the lead Cabinet agency on the issue."
Further, he challenged Obama's claim that Keystone would just be for Canadian oil, since producers in North Dakota and Montana want to move oil from the Bakken area through it.

Kessler gave Obama "four Pinocchios" for his comments -- the worst rating on his fact-check scale.

This post was edited on 3/3 11:15 AM by 86Hawkeye
He's black, how dare you.
 
Originally posted by 86Hawkeye:
Shocking......




Obama "appears to be purposely ignoring the findings of the lead Cabinet agency on the issue."

Further, he challenged Obama's claim that Keystone would just be for Canadian oil, since producers in North Dakota and Montana want to move oil from the Bakken area through it.



Kessler gave Obama "four Pinocchios" for his comments -- the worst rating on his fact-check scale.



This post was edited on 3/3 11:15 AM by 86Hawkeye
Barry be lyin again.........................................
 
Originally posted by 86Hawkeye:
Shocking......



Obama "appears to be purposely ignoring the findings of the lead Cabinet agency on the issue." 
Further, he challenged Obama's claim that Keystone would just be for Canadian oil, since producers in North Dakota and Montana want to move oil from the Bakken area through it. 

Kessler gave Obama "four Pinocchios" for his comments -- the worst rating on his fact-check scale. 


This post was edited on 3/3 11:15 AM by 86Hawkeye

Link: Article[/URL]
What a racist bastard you are.😉
Posted from Rivals Mobile
 
It'll be interesting to see how much opposition there is over the proposed pipeline across Iowa to get the Bakken crude to Illinois.
Sounds like there's going to be a lot of Iowan's getting grumpy as their land is seized. Betcha they picked a route that doesn't go across anyone's land that gives a lot of money to Gov. Branstad.
 
It should only be reported when Obama tells the truth. That would be more newsworthy at this point.
 
Originally posted by lucas80:
It'll be interesting to see how much opposition there is over the proposed pipeline across Iowa to get the Bakken crude to Illinois.
Sounds like there's going to be a lot of Iowan's getting grumpy as their land is seized. Betcha they picked a route that doesn't go across anyone's land that gives a lot of money to Gov. Branstad.
I'll take that bet....to my bank.



+1 metuo
 
Originally posted by lucas80:
It'll be interesting to see how much opposition there is over the proposed pipeline across Iowa to get the Bakken crude to Illinois.
Sounds like there's going to be a lot of Iowan's getting grumpy as their land is seized. Betcha they picked a route that doesn't go across anyone's land that gives a lot of money to Gov. Branstad.
Land seized are you insane? There are phone lines, cable lines, rail lines, and interstates, etc running across the country. They all cross peoples property.


Liberal mania at its best.
 
BBihZ7H.img



Smoke rises from the scene of a train derailment Thursday, March 5, 2015, near Galena, Ill. A Warren Buffet owned BNSF Railway freight train loaded with crude oil derailed around 1:20 p.m. in a rural area near the Galena River. Buffet who was attending a fund raiser at the White House could not be reached for comment. Meanwhile Barack Hussein Obama will not approve the Keystone Pipeline contending that while train derailments happen more frequently and cause more damage than pipelines, trains are neat to look at while they roll by while pipelines are not.
 
What's distressing about this sort of childishness is that it's part of the serial distraction effort to keep people from thinking about the important aspect of this debate. Which is whether we should be pulling this environmentally-destructive, climate-altering dirty energy out of the ground in the first place. What possible difference does it make if the XL might carry both Canadian and US dirty oil if it's insane to extract it in the first place?
 
Originally posted by Arbitr8:
Originally posted by lucas80:
It'll be interesting to see how much opposition there is over the proposed pipeline across Iowa to get the Bakken crude to Illinois.
Sounds like there's going to be a lot of Iowan's getting grumpy as their land is seized. Betcha they picked a route that doesn't go across anyone's land that gives a lot of money to Gov. Branstad.
Land seized are you insane? There are phone lines, cable lines, rail lines, and interstates, etc running across the country. They all cross peoples property.


Liberal mania at its best.

Almost all phone/cable lines are within public ROW's. Rail lines and interstates maybe at one time took private property. Eminent domain will come into play with the pipeline running through Iowa. Also, there aren't too many farmers that didn't vote for Branstad.
 
Originally posted by Kelsers:
Originally posted by Arbitr8:
Originally posted by lucas80:
It'll be interesting to see how much opposition there is over the proposed pipeline across Iowa to get the Bakken crude to Illinois.
Sounds like there's going to be a lot of Iowan's getting grumpy as their land is seized. Betcha they picked a route that doesn't go across anyone's land that gives a lot of money to Gov. Branstad.
Land seized are you insane? There are phone lines, cable lines, rail lines, and interstates, etc running across the country. They all cross peoples property.


Liberal mania at its best.

Almost all phone/cable lines are within public ROW's. Rail lines and interstates maybe at one time took private property. Eminent domain will come into play with the pipeline running through Iowa. Also, there aren't too many farmers that didn't vote for Branstad.
I thought cons were supposed to be against eminent domain? When did that become OK with that crowd?
 
Originally posted by What Would Jesus Do?:
What's distressing about this sort of childishness is that it's part of the serial distraction effort to keep people from thinking about the important aspect of this debate. Which is whether we should be pulling this environmentally-destructive, climate-altering dirty energy out of the ground in the first place. What possible difference does it make if the XL might carry both Canadian and US dirty oil if it's insane to extract it in the first place?
OK...but since it's already been decided that that oil is going to be transported one way or another, why not transport it the way that is environmentally safer (according to State Department studies) and creates jobs?
 
Originally posted by YellowSnow51:

Originally posted by What Would Jesus Do?:
What's distressing about this sort of childishness is that it's part of the serial distraction effort to keep people from thinking about the important aspect of this debate. Which is whether we should be pulling this environmentally-destructive, climate-altering dirty energy out of the ground in the first place. What possible difference does it make if the XL might carry both Canadian and US dirty oil if it's insane to extract it in the first place?
OK...but since it's already been decided that that oil is going to be transported one way or another, why not transport it the way that is environmentally safer (according to State Department studies) and creates jobs?
I wonder if in all the job calculations they figure in the jobs lost in the rail industry and the environmental cleanup industry?
 
ADVERTISEMENT