What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

The 114th Congress: How Low Can They Go?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: The 114th Congress: How Low Can They Go?

Well, if they can pass a budget (essentially meaningless, but required by law), that would be an improvement over the 113th, which didn't do so good in that department.

If they can pass appropriation bills and get them to the President for his signature before 10/1, that would be an improvement over a whole bunch of previous congresses.

If they can some how legislatively cut down on the power of Executive Orders, that would be an improvement for the entire country.

And they all lived happily ever after......
 
Re: The 114th Congress: How Low Can They Go?

Third most powerful member of the House (taking over for Cantor) is "David Duke without the Baggage"?

Again. The wrong army won the Civil War. The evidence is staggering.
 
Re: The 114th Congress: How Low Can They Go?

Barbara Boxer announced today that she would not seek another term in the Senate. In a related story, Scott Brown announced he would be seeking the open Senate seat in California.
 
Re: The 114th Congress: How Low Can They Go?

Priceless said:
Barbara Boxer announced today that she would not seek another term in the Senate. In a related story, Scott Brown announced he would be seeking the open Senate seat in California.
Click to expand...

HA!

Wait, can't tell if Onion or NYT... Which is sad.
 
Re: The 114th Congress: How Low Can They Go?

Obama's six year dodge on Keystone is getting tougher, with Congress sending a bill his way and the Nebraska Supreme Court taking away one of his primary excuses for the continued stall.
 
Re: The 114th Congress: How Low Can They Go?

Bob Gray said:
Obama's six year dodge on Keystone is getting tougher, with Congress sending a bill his way and the Nebraska Supreme Court taking away one of his primary excuses for the continued stall.
Click to expand...

You mean the GOP's only jobs bill that only creates 42 permanent jobs once it's in? Good job, GOP.
 
Re: The 114th Congress: How Low Can They Go?

ScoobyDoo said:
You mean the GOP's only jobs bill that only creates 42 permanent jobs once it's in? Good job, GOP.
Click to expand...

Between Monday and Tuesday, the economy went from "Obama's Disaster" to "GOP's Miracle."
 
Re: The 114th Congress: How Low Can They Go?

Bob Gray said:
Obama's six year dodge on Keystone is getting tougher, with Congress sending a bill his way and the Nebraska Supreme Court taking away one of his primary excuses for the continued stall.
Click to expand...

So in other words, we have a massive pipeline running through our heartland that produces most of our food, houses one of the largest aquifers in North America, carries no American oil (only Canadian), sends it down to the Gulf to be refined and sold internationally, and only provides a few dozen real jobs?

That pipeline?


Jeebus, all it sounds like is us taking on all of the risk of oil production and none of the benefits.
 
Re: The 114th Congress: How Low Can They Go?

Bob Gray said:
Obama's six year dodge on Keystone is getting tougher, with Congress sending a bill his way and the Nebraska Supreme Court taking away one of his primary excuses for the continued stall.
Click to expand...

I'm very surprised you're for this. This is the sort of corporatist boondoggle slash environmental disaster waiting to happen that you usually oppose.

Or is it that while you oppose it you also think Obama's fancy footwork on it is BS? Because... well, actually, that I can see.
 
Re: The 114th Congress: How Low Can They Go?

dxmnkd316 said:
So in other words, we have a massive pipeline running through our heartland that produces most of our food, houses one of the largest aquifers in North America, carries no American oil (only Canadian), sends it down to the Gulf to be refined and sold internationally, and only provides a few dozen real jobs?

That pipeline?


Jeebus, all it sounds like is us taking on all of the risk of oil production and none of the benefits.
Click to expand...

Risk = Public
Profit = Private
 
Re: The 114th Congress: How Low Can They Go?

Kepler said:
I'm very surprised you're for this. This is the sort of corporatist boondoggle slash environmental disaster waiting to happen that you usually oppose.

Or is it that while you oppose it you also think Obama's fancy footwork on it is BS? Because... well, actually, that I can see.
Click to expand...
A pipeline is a whole lot safer than transporting it by rail car, which is what is going on now. Ask the folks in Lac Megantic, Quebec how safe oil by rail transport is. Being worried about this pipeline having a major spill is, or should be, way down our list of environmental concerns. This country is criss-crossed with oil pipelines, many of which would be much older than Keystone and would have a higher probability of something happening. Opposition isn't to the pipeline itself at the heart, it's to tar sands oil going anywhere, which is a losing battle from the start. It's not a question of if the oil is going to the gulf area. It already is. Bottom line is this is a legitimate infrastructure project that is being opposed not on technical grounds, but on political/philosophical grounds.
 
Re: The 114th Congress: How Low Can They Go?

Bob Gray said:
A pipeline is a whole lot safer than transporting it by rail car, which is what is going on now. Ask the folks in Lac Megantic, Quebec how safe oil by rail transport is. Being worried about this pipeline having a major spill is, or should be, way down our list of environmental concerns. This country is criss-crossed with oil pipelines, many of which would be much older than Keystone and would have a higher probability of something happening. Opposition isn't to the pipeline itself at the heart, it's to tar sands oil going anywhere, which is a losing battle from the start. It's not a question of if the oil is going to the gulf area. It already is. Bottom line is this is a legitimate infrastructure project that is being opposed not on technical grounds, but on political/philosophical grounds.
Click to expand...

What happened to common ground? There's a million infrastructure projects that everyone could agree on but the Bone Man and Turtle Mitch want nothing to do with it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top