Aa
Canada's PM suggest politics behind pipeline delay
This is a couple of weeks old but it clearly proves this is nothing but Politics.
Canada's PM suggest politics behind pipeline delay
“Harper has said he has already made it clear to Obama that Canada will step up its efforts to sell oil to Asia since the decision was delayed, and would keep pushing the U.S. to approve the project.”
“Alberta's premier told The Associated Press last month that the U.S. should speed up a decision after the Canadian pipeline developer agreed to shift the route of the planned Canada-to-Texas oil pipeline out of the environmentally sensitive area of Nebraska. Premier Alison Redford said there appears now to be no reason to delay the Keystone XL pipeline.”
By ROB GILLIES
Associated Press
TORONTO (AP) - Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper strongly suggested Friday that politics was behind the Obama administration's decision to delay a proposed oil pipeline from Canada - days before his planned visit to the White House.
Harper travels to Washington on Wednesday where he and Obama are expected to announce an agreement to enhance border security and trade. Harper is also expected to urge Obama to approve the Keystone XL pipeline to the Texas Gulf Coast.
"It is not in this country's interests that we are a captive supplier of the United States of energy products, especially when we see some of the politics that are going on south of the border," Harper said.
Harper later said in an interview with Sun Media that he was "disappointed with the politics down there."
Last month, the U.S. State Department decided to delay the project until 2013, after the presidential election, to allow the project's developer to figure out a way around Nebraska's Sandhills, an ecologically sensitive region that supplies water to eight nearby states.
Harper has said he has already made it clear to Obama that Canada will step up its efforts to sell oil to Asia since the decision was delayed, and would keep pushing the U.S. to approve the project.
The pipeline is critical to Canada, which must have infrastructure in place to export its growing oil sands production from northern Alberta. The region has more than 170 billion barrels of proven reserves and daily production of 1.5 million barrels from the oil sands is expected to increase to 3.7 million in 2025. Only Saudi Arabia and Venezuela have more reserves.
The Obama administration's announcement to put off a decision went over badly in Canada, which relies on the U.S. for 97 percent of Canada's energy exports.
Harper said Canada's economic prosperity depends on the growing energy sector and said "diversifying our markets for those products is not just essential to our economic prosperity, but to our economic security."
The Keystone XL pipeline would carry an estimated 700,000 barrels of oil a day, doubling the capacity of an existing pipeline from Canada. The heavily contested project became a political trap for Obama, who risks angering environmental supporters - and losing re-election contributions from some liberal donors - if he approves it.
Senate Republicans introduced a bill Wednesday that would require the administration to approve the Keystone XL pipeline within 60 days, unless the president declares the project is not in the national interest.
But the Republican bill has little chance of approval in the Democratic-controlled Senate. The measure illustrates Republicans' belief that Obama is vulnerable on the jobs issue.
Alberta's premier told The Associated Press last month that the U.S. should speed up a decision after the Canadian pipeline developer agreed to shift the route of the planned Canada-to-Texas oil pipeline out of the environmentally sensitive area of Nebraska. Premier Alison Redford said there appears now to be no reason to delay the Keystone XL pipeline.
Andrew MacDougall, Harper's spokesman, said Harper will discuss economic competitiveness, trade and security when he visits the White House. He declined to confirm the border announcement will be made but technical media briefings are scheduled for Wednesday and an announcement has long been expected.
The border measures are expected to include better screening to reduce bottlenecks at the border, the use of new technologies, sharing information among law enforcement agencies and identifying potential threats early.
Canada is the United States' largest trading partner, with more than $1 billion in goods crossing the border every day.
Harper and Obama met last February to announce a broad road map of the initiative, but the agreement is expected to fall short of the larger vision outlined then. Obama has said the free flow of goods and services results in huge economic benefits for both countries.
Harper said Friday "a lot of hours in a lot of levels of government" have been spent hammering out details of the deal since the initiative was announced 10 months ago.
"We're seeking ways of ensuring security in North America while at the same time making sure that we continue strong Canadian access to the American market," Harper said.
"Even with all the problems that exist in the United States, this remains essential to our well being and our future prosperity."
This is a couple of weeks old but it clearly proves this is nothing but Politics.
http://www.wsmv.com/story/16177056/canadas-pm-suggest-politics-behind-pipeline-delay
Canada's PM suggest politics behind pipeline delay
“Harper has said he has already made it clear to Obama that Canada will step up its efforts to sell oil to Asia since the decision was delayed, and would keep pushing the U.S. to approve the project.”
“Alberta's premier told The Associated Press last month that the U.S. should speed up a decision after the Canadian pipeline developer agreed to shift the route of the planned Canada-to-Texas oil pipeline out of the environmentally sensitive area of Nebraska. Premier Alison Redford said there appears now to be no reason to delay the Keystone XL pipeline.”
By ROB GILLIES
Associated Press
TORONTO (AP) - Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper strongly suggested Friday that politics was behind the Obama administration's decision to delay a proposed oil pipeline from Canada - days before his planned visit to the White House.
Harper travels to Washington on Wednesday where he and Obama are expected to announce an agreement to enhance border security and trade. Harper is also expected to urge Obama to approve the Keystone XL pipeline to the Texas Gulf Coast.
"It is not in this country's interests that we are a captive supplier of the United States of energy products, especially when we see some of the politics that are going on south of the border," Harper said.
Harper later said in an interview with Sun Media that he was "disappointed with the politics down there."
Last month, the U.S. State Department decided to delay the project until 2013, after the presidential election, to allow the project's developer to figure out a way around Nebraska's Sandhills, an ecologically sensitive region that supplies water to eight nearby states.
Harper has said he has already made it clear to Obama that Canada will step up its efforts to sell oil to Asia since the decision was delayed, and would keep pushing the U.S. to approve the project.
The pipeline is critical to Canada, which must have infrastructure in place to export its growing oil sands production from northern Alberta. The region has more than 170 billion barrels of proven reserves and daily production of 1.5 million barrels from the oil sands is expected to increase to 3.7 million in 2025. Only Saudi Arabia and Venezuela have more reserves.
The Obama administration's announcement to put off a decision went over badly in Canada, which relies on the U.S. for 97 percent of Canada's energy exports.
Harper said Canada's economic prosperity depends on the growing energy sector and said "diversifying our markets for those products is not just essential to our economic prosperity, but to our economic security."
The Keystone XL pipeline would carry an estimated 700,000 barrels of oil a day, doubling the capacity of an existing pipeline from Canada. The heavily contested project became a political trap for Obama, who risks angering environmental supporters - and losing re-election contributions from some liberal donors - if he approves it.
Senate Republicans introduced a bill Wednesday that would require the administration to approve the Keystone XL pipeline within 60 days, unless the president declares the project is not in the national interest.
But the Republican bill has little chance of approval in the Democratic-controlled Senate. The measure illustrates Republicans' belief that Obama is vulnerable on the jobs issue.
Alberta's premier told The Associated Press last month that the U.S. should speed up a decision after the Canadian pipeline developer agreed to shift the route of the planned Canada-to-Texas oil pipeline out of the environmentally sensitive area of Nebraska. Premier Alison Redford said there appears now to be no reason to delay the Keystone XL pipeline.
Andrew MacDougall, Harper's spokesman, said Harper will discuss economic competitiveness, trade and security when he visits the White House. He declined to confirm the border announcement will be made but technical media briefings are scheduled for Wednesday and an announcement has long been expected.
The border measures are expected to include better screening to reduce bottlenecks at the border, the use of new technologies, sharing information among law enforcement agencies and identifying potential threats early.
Canada is the United States' largest trading partner, with more than $1 billion in goods crossing the border every day.
Harper and Obama met last February to announce a broad road map of the initiative, but the agreement is expected to fall short of the larger vision outlined then. Obama has said the free flow of goods and services results in huge economic benefits for both countries.
Harper said Friday "a lot of hours in a lot of levels of government" have been spent hammering out details of the deal since the initiative was announced 10 months ago.
"We're seeking ways of ensuring security in North America while at the same time making sure that we continue strong Canadian access to the American market," Harper said.
"Even with all the problems that exist in the United States, this remains essential to our well being and our future prosperity."
This is a couple of weeks old but it clearly proves this is nothing but Politics.
http://www.wsmv.com/story/16177056/canadas-pm-suggest-politics-behind-pipeline-delay
LOL, Trust me I would much rather do business with you all!!!!!!
Fair nuff. Still though, at the end of the day it's not like you all are going to just stop using oil. So it has to come from somewhere...wouldn't you rather make me rich then the Middle East? Lol, just kidding. It doesn't make me rich (but it does keep our property values up....ha, so selfish aren't I).
LOL, I have not had time to research this thoroughly but do feel that all sides need to be looked at fairly. To assume Obama is or isnt playing politics and the Pubs are not is well, sorta biased as far as I can tell. Now if something is gonna tear up the evironment, polute our cherished water supply and all that, then I think it needs further investigation and that is all the opposers are asking for to my knowledge. To investigate more. That is not saying the pres is going to say yes or no but does imply that a careful look needs made. Once the environmental thing is addressed, then the number of jobs and all the other points can come into play. But not until we know the actual cost. Trust me, I still dont eat seafood after the oil spill even tho they want us to believe its safe. Even if the critters are abnormal that live there. So that is where I am coming from. Once I have time to research ALL the angles, I will know more where I stand personally. :D
“I don’t think he is forced to do anything other than say no, if that is what he wants to do”
If he says no, he says no but at least he will be doing his job instead of playing politics and hiding from it until after the election.
If he says no, he says no but at least he will be doing his job instead of playing politics and hiding from it until after the election.
I don't often find myself on the opposite side of you, so this is kinda fun..lol.
Had some friends over for drinks last night and we were talking about this issue. Now, keep in mind, we are in Alberta, home of most of these reserves, so opinions here might be a bit biased, but what I thought was a good point was made.
Canada has been proven to have the 3rd largest known reserves in the world. We are your neighbor, your friend and your allies. It's always been that way (except way back when we burned down your White House...sorry bout that!)
Right now a good chunk of your oil is coming out of the Middle East where there is strong anti American sentiment. So let's just say things keep heating up there. What better way to cripple you folks then cut off your supply of oil. Seriously. It would really hurt you. Yet you have us, willing and able to get it to you, and cutting you off is not going to happen. I can't imagine our two countries being anything but friends.
Yes, oil is currently a pollutant. But your oil consumption is not going to change over night. That is reality right? So if the Middle Eastern countries decide to cut you off cause of a war or something, then what?
Now, if Obama blocking this is politics, wouldn't his putting you in possible jeaporady that way be wrong? I mean, I like the man, but that doesn't mean I agree with everything he does.
Had some friends over for drinks last night and we were talking about this issue. Now, keep in mind, we are in Alberta, home of most of these reserves, so opinions here might be a bit biased, but what I thought was a good point was made.
Canada has been proven to have the 3rd largest known reserves in the world. We are your neighbor, your friend and your allies. It's always been that way (except way back when we burned down your White House...sorry bout that!)
Right now a good chunk of your oil is coming out of the Middle East where there is strong anti American sentiment. So let's just say things keep heating up there. What better way to cripple you folks then cut off your supply of oil. Seriously. It would really hurt you. Yet you have us, willing and able to get it to you, and cutting you off is not going to happen. I can't imagine our two countries being anything but friends.
Yes, oil is currently a pollutant. But your oil consumption is not going to change over night. That is reality right? So if the Middle Eastern countries decide to cut you off cause of a war or something, then what?
Now, if Obama blocking this is politics, wouldn't his putting you in possible jeaporady that way be wrong? I mean, I like the man, but that doesn't mean I agree with everything he does.
I hope he signs it. I would way rather help you guys out with oil then China. And coming from us seems to be safer then other countries you get it from. We don't hate you here.
I dont think he is forced to do anything other than say no, if that is what he wants to do. There are always two sides to everything so in that vein I am posting further links to chek out. It would appear all those jobs are pretty much non existant and the environment would suffer. As far as Canada selling to Asia, well they are gonna do what they are gonna do imo. Just for kicks here is some more info to ponder.
http://thinkprogress.org/green/2011/12/16/391272/myth-that-keystone-xl-creates-jobs-perpetuated-by-oil-lobby-parroted-by-congresss-oil-recipients/
However, studies conducted independently of TransCanada find much smaller jobs numbers, far from “tens of thousands.” An oil contractor hired by the State Department reported it would create between 5,000 and 6,000 temporary jobs, while an independent study by Cornell University found it would create only 500 to 1,400 temporary jobs. Once the costs of the increased pollution and risk of oil spills is factored in, Cornell found, the jobs impact is likely to be negative. The “118,000 spin-off jobs” number used by TransCanada received two Pinocchios from the Washington Post Fact Checker:
As opponents have documented, if the capital costs are lower than predicted, and if the multiplier is smaller, then the number of “spin-off jobs” can shrink dramatically. The same goes for the estimates of “permanent jobs,” which depend also on the price of oil.
….Among the list of jobs that would be created: 51 dancers and choreographers, 138 dentists, 176 dental hygienists, 100 librarians, 510 bread bakers, 448 clergy, 154 stenographers, 865 hairdressers, 136 manicurists, 110 shampooers, 65 farmers, and (our favorite) 1,714 bartenders.
http://thinkprogress.org/green/2011/12/16/391272/myth-that-keystone-xl-creates-jobs-perpetuated-by-oil-lobby-parroted-by-congresss-oil-recipients/
However, studies conducted independently of TransCanada find much smaller jobs numbers, far from “tens of thousands.” An oil contractor hired by the State Department reported it would create between 5,000 and 6,000 temporary jobs, while an independent study by Cornell University found it would create only 500 to 1,400 temporary jobs. Once the costs of the increased pollution and risk of oil spills is factored in, Cornell found, the jobs impact is likely to be negative. The “118,000 spin-off jobs” number used by TransCanada received two Pinocchios from the Washington Post Fact Checker:
As opponents have documented, if the capital costs are lower than predicted, and if the multiplier is smaller, then the number of “spin-off jobs” can shrink dramatically. The same goes for the estimates of “permanent jobs,” which depend also on the price of oil.
….Among the list of jobs that would be created: 51 dancers and choreographers, 138 dentists, 176 dental hygienists, 100 librarians, 510 bread bakers, 448 clergy, 154 stenographers, 865 hairdressers, 136 manicurists, 110 shampooers, 65 farmers, and (our favorite) 1,714 bartenders.
The way I understand it, by signing this Bill, Obama now has 60 days to make a decision on the pipeline instead of sometime in 2013. Obama’s excuse for not approving it (or promising to veto it) was he wanted an alternate route had to be determined. The Canadian Engineers has provided an alternate route but he still would not commit until 2013. He is now forced to step up to the plate and do his job instead of playing games. If I understand this correctly, Obama will have 60 days to tell you guys we will build the pipeline or to sell your Oil to China
“But the onerous provision in the legislation, insisted upon by House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, and other Republican legislators relates to the Keystone XL pipeline. Obama had indicated he would make a decision on the pipeline project after an alternate route could be determined. Legislators, through provisions in the payroll tax cut extension bill, will require the president to make a decision on the pipeline project within 60 days of signing the legislation into law.”
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/obama-now-likely-sign-payroll-tax-cut-bill-153100594.html
“But the onerous provision in the legislation, insisted upon by House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, and other Republican legislators relates to the Keystone XL pipeline. Obama had indicated he would make a decision on the pipeline project after an alternate route could be determined. Legislators, through provisions in the payroll tax cut extension bill, will require the president to make a decision on the pipeline project within 60 days of signing the legislation into law.”
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/obama-now-likely-sign-payroll-tax-cut-bill-153100594.html
So I saw last night it looks like this may go through after all? Think it's going to happen?
Definatly politics Obama would do anything to destroy America ...anything that would be good for us he would veto ...my opinion .
"I haven't changed my opinion of Obama. I really do still like him, and if American I would vote for him. That doesn't mean I have to like every decision. Same goes for our PM. Don't like him, but do like this particular decision...if of course he sticks to it. We'll see. "
What?? lol.
"I haven't changed my opinion of Obama."
Me either.
Me either.
Well you just completely destroyed my image of you...lol. Just kidding. Still significant and the best piece I have read on this whole issue.
I'm sure you know that I merely copied and pasted that excerpt from the site I referenced at the end of the post.
I wish I was that smart but unfortunately........ I'm not.
Mike
I wish I was that smart but unfortunately........ I'm not.
Mike
Very well put! You pretty much summed the whole situation up. And what you say is reality. An excellent post!
Conclusions
The worst possible outcome for the U.S. — but now a more realistic possibility — is that Canada builds a pipeline to the coast and ships that crude to China. This is the worst possible outcome because the U.S. will have to source crude from more remote destinations and in many cases from countries whose interests are opposed to U.S. interests. It would be ironic if as a result of this decision we end up importing more from Venezuela’s oil sands while Canada’s oil sands end up in China. Opponents have not seriously considered this very real possibility, and if this is what happens then their actions will have actually increased global carbon emissions.
The Canadian Finance Minister visited China in the wake of the announced delay, stating that the decision may “accelerate Canada’s efforts to ship crude to Asia.” In fact, Canada’s Prime Minister communicated this directly to Chinese President Hu Jintao. China is already snatching up oil sands firms as quickly as they can — the surest sign that oil sands development is not going to slow down. And if this happens — U.S. demand remains high, crude from the oil sands is shipped to China, and the U.S. imports crude from countries with perhaps a dirtier environmental and/or social footprint — the outcome will be much worse than if the pipeline was delivering Canadian oil to U.S. refineries.
While we play political games, China is licking their chops in the view that this will enable them to gain more of the oil sands for themselves. In the next few years, the U.S. is likely to face even higher oil prices and will be scrambling to meet demand. The idea that China will lock up supply from America’s close ally while we continue to import oil from unstable regions seems like a bad joke.
The U.S. loses out on billions of dollars in private investment that would create jobs for building the pipeline, and jobs for maintaining the pipeline and processing the crude oil. Incidentally, one of the reasons some Canadians were against the pipeline is they didn’t like the idea of exporting jobs to the U.S. And personally, I don’t understand why Canada doesn’t just build a refinery themselves, keep those jobs at home, and export finished products. That is the path being taken by many oil exporters.
I believe that the U.S. will face an oil supply crunch in the next few years that has great potential to put us into a much deeper economic hole. I believe that the more desperate we — and the rest of the world — become, the more we will turn to ever dirtier sources of carbon. We have seen unintended consequences arise again and again from those who had good intentions, and the threat of those unintended consequences is why I can’t stand with the protesters on this issue. I respect their dedication, but I don’t believe the outcome will be desirable for anyone.
To close, let me make some comments on the protesters themselves. I have a high degree of respect for sincere people who are trying to make the world a better place, and I believe most of the protestors fall into this category. In most cases, these are people who believe that climate change 1). Is a grave threat to civilization; 2). Can be stopped by taking stands like the one they took against Keystone. I believe that these are sincere people who believe they can make a difference; why else would they risk arrest to protest the pipeline? And in fact, they have made a difference. It is unlikely that the decision would have been delayed without the massive protests. But at the end of the day, I disagree with them on some important points. I don’t believe shutting down the project will do anything to slow the development of tar sands, and thus it will do nothing to impact global carbon emissions. If I believed that protesting would actually have the desired impact of weaning the U.S. off of fossil fuels, I would be out there protesting with them.
Perhaps Bill McKibben and his fellow protestors are aware of the things I have written about here, but they said “Well, we have to do something.” I respect their right to try to stop the pipeline, but I hope they also respect my right to disagree.
Quick Summary
I don’t want this summary to serve as an alternative to the essay itself, because my reasoning behind the points is key to the points themselves. But being that this is a long document, the following summary will serve as a quick refresher of the key points made above.
I’m in agreement with the protesters that:
• Our addiction to oil is a big problem;
• Tar sands development has a negative effect on the environment.
I believe the goal of reducing carbon emissions by stopping the pipeline will not be achieved because:
• The tar sands will be developed no matter what;
• “Game Over” for the climate will not be decided by the U.S. and Canada;
• Carbon emissions will continue to climb because of China and India, even if the tar sands weren’t developed.
In fact the outcome of denying the pipeline will hurt us because:
• Tar sands oil will go to China/Asia instead;
• China — not the U.S. — will have the jobs that come along with refining the oil;
• The U.S. may end up importing more oil from Venezuela’s oil sands and relying on supply from unstable regions.
http://oilprice.com/Energy/Oil-Prices/Why-I-Would-Approve-the-Keystone-XL-Pipeline-Despite-Environmental-Concerns.html
The worst possible outcome for the U.S. — but now a more realistic possibility — is that Canada builds a pipeline to the coast and ships that crude to China. This is the worst possible outcome because the U.S. will have to source crude from more remote destinations and in many cases from countries whose interests are opposed to U.S. interests. It would be ironic if as a result of this decision we end up importing more from Venezuela’s oil sands while Canada’s oil sands end up in China. Opponents have not seriously considered this very real possibility, and if this is what happens then their actions will have actually increased global carbon emissions.
The Canadian Finance Minister visited China in the wake of the announced delay, stating that the decision may “accelerate Canada’s efforts to ship crude to Asia.” In fact, Canada’s Prime Minister communicated this directly to Chinese President Hu Jintao. China is already snatching up oil sands firms as quickly as they can — the surest sign that oil sands development is not going to slow down. And if this happens — U.S. demand remains high, crude from the oil sands is shipped to China, and the U.S. imports crude from countries with perhaps a dirtier environmental and/or social footprint — the outcome will be much worse than if the pipeline was delivering Canadian oil to U.S. refineries.
While we play political games, China is licking their chops in the view that this will enable them to gain more of the oil sands for themselves. In the next few years, the U.S. is likely to face even higher oil prices and will be scrambling to meet demand. The idea that China will lock up supply from America’s close ally while we continue to import oil from unstable regions seems like a bad joke.
The U.S. loses out on billions of dollars in private investment that would create jobs for building the pipeline, and jobs for maintaining the pipeline and processing the crude oil. Incidentally, one of the reasons some Canadians were against the pipeline is they didn’t like the idea of exporting jobs to the U.S. And personally, I don’t understand why Canada doesn’t just build a refinery themselves, keep those jobs at home, and export finished products. That is the path being taken by many oil exporters.
I believe that the U.S. will face an oil supply crunch in the next few years that has great potential to put us into a much deeper economic hole. I believe that the more desperate we — and the rest of the world — become, the more we will turn to ever dirtier sources of carbon. We have seen unintended consequences arise again and again from those who had good intentions, and the threat of those unintended consequences is why I can’t stand with the protesters on this issue. I respect their dedication, but I don’t believe the outcome will be desirable for anyone.
To close, let me make some comments on the protesters themselves. I have a high degree of respect for sincere people who are trying to make the world a better place, and I believe most of the protestors fall into this category. In most cases, these are people who believe that climate change 1). Is a grave threat to civilization; 2). Can be stopped by taking stands like the one they took against Keystone. I believe that these are sincere people who believe they can make a difference; why else would they risk arrest to protest the pipeline? And in fact, they have made a difference. It is unlikely that the decision would have been delayed without the massive protests. But at the end of the day, I disagree with them on some important points. I don’t believe shutting down the project will do anything to slow the development of tar sands, and thus it will do nothing to impact global carbon emissions. If I believed that protesting would actually have the desired impact of weaning the U.S. off of fossil fuels, I would be out there protesting with them.
Perhaps Bill McKibben and his fellow protestors are aware of the things I have written about here, but they said “Well, we have to do something.” I respect their right to try to stop the pipeline, but I hope they also respect my right to disagree.
Quick Summary
I don’t want this summary to serve as an alternative to the essay itself, because my reasoning behind the points is key to the points themselves. But being that this is a long document, the following summary will serve as a quick refresher of the key points made above.
I’m in agreement with the protesters that:
• Our addiction to oil is a big problem;
• Tar sands development has a negative effect on the environment.
I believe the goal of reducing carbon emissions by stopping the pipeline will not be achieved because:
• The tar sands will be developed no matter what;
• “Game Over” for the climate will not be decided by the U.S. and Canada;
• Carbon emissions will continue to climb because of China and India, even if the tar sands weren’t developed.
In fact the outcome of denying the pipeline will hurt us because:
• Tar sands oil will go to China/Asia instead;
• China — not the U.S. — will have the jobs that come along with refining the oil;
• The U.S. may end up importing more oil from Venezuela’s oil sands and relying on supply from unstable regions.
http://oilprice.com/Energy/Oil-Prices/Why-I-Would-Approve-the-Keystone-XL-Pipeline-Despite-Environmental-Concerns.html
Well, this I can tell you. The political pressure on Harper to go ahead and sell to Asia is incredibly strong. If this pipeline doesn't happen, and Harper cow tows to US politics, his future here - well, he doesn't have one. He already is not the most popular PM we have ever had. In fact, his nickname is "lint". That's cause he has been so deep in the US Presidents pocket. First Bush and now Obama.
I haven't changed my opinion of Obama. I really do still like him, and if American I would vote for him. That doesn't mean I have to like every decision. Same goes for our PM. Don't like him, but do like this particular decision...if of course he sticks to it. We'll see.
I haven't changed my opinion of Obama. I really do still like him, and if American I would vote for him. That doesn't mean I have to like every decision. Same goes for our PM. Don't like him, but do like this particular decision...if of course he sticks to it. We'll see.
”It's just that we have always supported the US first and foremost.”
Obama is counting on that. I almost wish Harper would call his bluff. This Pipeline is in the best interest of both Canada and The U.S. I stand by a previous post I made,
“The Pipeline is going to be built eventually so, Obama is trying to shelve it until 2013. This way he can still appear to be kissing the a$$es of the Tree Huggers to secure their vote until after the election.”
Even though The Republicans are using us as Pawns, it will force Obama to give a logical explanation of why he will not approve the pipeline. On the other hand, I am sure Obama is counting on the Senate to protect him from having to veto it.
Yep, we’re nothing but game pieces and Obama feels confident that Canada is not going to sell to Asia. It’s a shame what our Heartless Politics is doing to us but also has the power to gridlock Canada.
Obama is counting on that. I almost wish Harper would call his bluff. This Pipeline is in the best interest of both Canada and The U.S. I stand by a previous post I made,
“The Pipeline is going to be built eventually so, Obama is trying to shelve it until 2013. This way he can still appear to be kissing the a$$es of the Tree Huggers to secure their vote until after the election.”
Even though The Republicans are using us as Pawns, it will force Obama to give a logical explanation of why he will not approve the pipeline. On the other hand, I am sure Obama is counting on the Senate to protect him from having to veto it.
Yep, we’re nothing but game pieces and Obama feels confident that Canada is not going to sell to Asia. It’s a shame what our Heartless Politics is doing to us but also has the power to gridlock Canada.
Yep, no question this decision has decreased his popularity in these parts. I am an Albertan, and here it's downright ugly. However, Asia is screaming for us to provide them more oil. It's just that we have always supported the US first and foremost. That's why whatever happens there politically impacts us so much. I'm still not a fan of Harper, but it's nice to see him standing up for what's right for Canada for once. It's about time one of our Prime Ministers did that.
You must join this user group in order to participate in this discussion.
You are reading content posted in the Current Events . . . Group
A list of national and international resources and hotlines to help connect you to needed health and medical services.
Herpes sores blister, then burst, scab and heal.
Herpes spreads by oral, vaginal and anal sex.
STIs are the most common cause of genital sores.
Condoms are the most effective way to prevent HIV and STDs.
PrEP is used by people with high risk to prevent HIV infection.
