Obama lied in the SOTU about energy independence.

Well because the predictions from scientists says that our weather patterns will get far more out of control. So, a very late hurricane, could be evidence of global warming.

And since scientists don't believe our earth is cooling...............finding 1 snow storm, isn't evidence for a belief that they don't have.

So its quite funny to watch this happen on FAUX news or theblaze.com. Beck and all the others are so arrogant when a big snow storm happens and claim that global warming can't be happening because of this 1 BIG STORM. They think one storm determines whether the globe is warming or cooling.

But logical people see the one big snow storm as a piece of evidence. Its not one storm that determines global warming, but it is just one more piece of evidence that suggests it is.


Do me a favor over the next couple of years. Try to notice how liberals will point to extreme weather patterns(both warm and cool) as evidence of global warming. But conservatives ONLY point to winter storms as evidence that global warming isn't happening. Why are conservatives silent when we have record heat waves and droughts? Why don't conservatives use this extreme heat as evidence that the globe isn't warming? Because they can't. They would look stupid for doing so.

So isn't it amazing that liberals look at BOTH, winter and summer, extremes as evidence of global warming, but yet conservatives can ONLY focus on extreme cold as evidence that global warming isn't occurring?

 

Angry White Guys will spew their venom regardless, of course, (with a hefty dose of their aural Viagra® from their radio gas bags) but the American people reacted quite favourably, albeit realistically, to the President's speech.

With overwhelming popular support for comprehensive immigration reform, gun purchase background checks, a decent minimum wage, and serious attention to college affordability, let's hope progress can be made.

 

And by donating to Obama he can make sure the pipeline doesn't happen till he make billions.

 

Well, to be honest, since this has been happening since 2005, its certainly possible that Buffet saw this coming before then. You know, when Bushy was in office.

He's owned railroads for years. He owns billions of dollars. He has connections that you and I could only dream about...........and still come up short.

 

Well ya.... like it's old news.

 

Again the point is you give obama money and you get to make millions from his administration. The unions, GE, Google, Warren, etc. I thought he wasn't going to do this

 

But not necessarily this issue because it happened in 2005, several years before Obama even took office.

 

Amazing that Conservatives know the difference between warming and cooling? Not really.

 

But one side uses both extremes in weather patterns...........winter and summer. The other side only focuses on winter storms because if they focused on summer heat waves, then it would contradict their logic that global warming isn't happening.

 

17 years of increasing atmospheric CO2 and an overall decline in temperatures probably doesn't either.

Your 'settled science' is junk science. It is not falsifiable.

 

Taxcutter says:
And those refinery jobs in Texas, refining the syncrude into usable products.

 

It is very easy to determine when Obama is lying on T.V. It is when his lips are moving.

 

Amazing that conservatives dont contradict themselves while liberals do? Not really.

 

CO2 can lead and lag temperature variations. Just because you can't understand this doesn't mean its junk, but it will certainly cause you to THINK that it is.

 

Sadly, they do. Liberals use both extremes to point to global warming. Snow storms and heat waves. We have no problem to use extreme winter storms as evidence of warming, since it was predicted that with global warming, extreme weather(both cold and hot) would occur.

Conservatives only use snow storms to say that global warming isn't happening. Imagine them standing in a desert in 100+ weather and making the claim that global warming isn't happening! That would be like standing in the rain and claiming that its not precipitating.

 

I'd be careful. We invaded you twice already, and that oil looks pretty sweet to our hawks.

 

That wasn't anywhere in the 'theory,' also thanks for the gratuitous insult and welcome to the ignore list. Buh-bye!

 

Obama did not say " the U.S is close to energy independence" as set forth in the OP. What he said was:

Obama's statement on energy independence: Now, one of the biggest factors in bringing more jobs back is our commitment to American energy. The "all the above" energy strategy I announced a few years ago is working, and today America is closer to energy independence than we have been in decades.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...c93358-887f-11e3-a5bd-844629433ba3_story.html

He doesn't even mention the word "Canada".

I'm starting to see where the lie is here.

- - - Updated - - -

Gasoline prices are lower than they where 6 1/2 years ago.

 

This is no comment on the disrespect of no decision, but personally, I hope he says no.

 

The fuel consumption by the US won't change so the amount of oil being refined into fuel won't change and without an increase in consumption the number of jobs does not increase. Even with increased consumption the increase in jobs, if any, are created with or without the Keystone pipeline. The problem with Keystone is the enviromental risks created by piping the crude oil across the great plains when it's less risky to just import it by ship to Texas.

The Keystone pipeline has nothing to do with any real benefit to the US but instead is all about Canada finding a cheap means of exporting so Canada can make more profits for it's mulit-millionaire oil traders.

 

Taxcutter says:
Even if the Keystone syncrude - every drop of it - was exported as refined product, US refiners would be making some money (in the US) from the value added of that product. News flash! US people work at those Texas refineries and make a good buck for doing so. More volume through those Texas refineries means more stable jobs for refinery workers.

Also the value added improves the US balance of payments.

The Great Plains are criss-crossed by tens of thousands of miles of pipelines - crude, natural gas, and refined product. They've been there for decades. The risk of one more new pipeline is infinitesimally small.

How do you get Canadian crude to Texas by ship? Ever bother to look at a map? First from the Athabasca area over the Canadian Rockies to Vancouver (by pipeline), thence into tankers and onto the Pacific by the Strait of Juan de Fuca. But from there you'd have to go through the Panama Canal to get to Texas. If they had to do that, they'd simply send the syncrude straight to China where the Chinese could have a refinery up and running in a few months. And US workers would lose out.

Running VLCCs through the tricky Strait would be a much bigger environmental risk than a pipeline across the Great Plains.

http://www.worldatlas.com/aatlas/infopage/juandefuca.htm

Notice in the link the words mariners despise: Thick fog.

 

Why not simply import crude oil from Venuzeula? It's just a short hop across the Caribbean by tanker.

Purchasing Canadian crude, or any crude oil from a foreign source, increases the US trade deficit. Why don't we start converting our vehicles to use natural gas that we have an over-abundance of? Now that would create new jobs.

 

Taxcutter says:
Venezuelan crude has vanadium in it and requires special refineries. The EPA just shut one of those refineries - located in Puerto Rico down. Also Venezuela demands a price in excess of that the Canadians ask.



"Why don't we start converting our vehicles to use natural gas that we have an over-abundance of? Now that would create new jobs."

Taxcutter says:
It would indeed, and I favor such a course of action. But the EPA requires a special, expensive, costly, and difficult-to-get license to convert gasoline and diesels to either CNG or LNG. You can buy a Chevy Silverado with CNG option, but that option adds a $10,000 premium to the price of the vehicle.

Given the big price differential between CNG and RUG, if we could get the arrogant EPA out of the way, you'd see furious conversion to CNG and LNG for bigger applications (like locomotives). But the EPA is run by ideologues. I don't foresee the Hussein Obama junta getting the EPA ideologues out of the way anytime soon.

 

People who know me on here know im a pretty die hard liberal..
And obama isnt even a liberal. He is a neo con.

 

So in other words you can't answer a simple yes or no question?