tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16816866.post866062663788697442..comments2024-02-29T02:10:56.878-08:00Comments on J O S H U A P U N D I T: Dems Throw Mary Landrieu To The wolves, Reject Keystone PipelineFreedom Fighterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13649470110087808596noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16816866.post-50443951029000785362014-11-19T13:41:04.898-08:002014-11-19T13:41:04.898-08:00Just, you know, comparatively speaking Louie. ; ...Just, you know, comparatively speaking Louie. ; )Robhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13332213651195340500noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16816866.post-74321165658892763192014-11-19T10:03:16.007-08:002014-11-19T10:03:16.007-08:00ff has many more literary skills than i.
here, he ...ff has many more literary skills than i.<br />here, he demonstrates the use of mutually exclusive terms:<br /><br /><i>with the more sensible senate Democrats</i><br /><br />well done ff.<br />well done.louielouienoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16816866.post-23739071602242086512014-11-19T09:31:13.491-08:002014-11-19T09:31:13.491-08:00"...they likely will have a veto proof majori..."...they likely will have a veto proof majority..." While this may be true, is it possible that some democrats might have voted yea to the Keystone in order to help Ms. Landrieu and she simply did not get enough of them? As such, might these votes flip back to nay when it comes up again thus denying the veto proof majority needed? Also, knowing this likely was not going to pass with a veto proof majority anyway so is it possible the "climate change Nazis" did not waste energy opposing it? When the new Senate is seated, might they spend more effort bribing and blackmailing Senators to vote nay getting the Democrats who voted yes to flip those votes nay and perhaps getting a few Republicans to vote nay as well?<br /><br />While I like your optimism that a veto proof majority is "likely," very respectfully such optimism seems unwarranted. While I agree this should have been passed long ago, might it be a bit late now? <br /><br />You see even if the pipeline gets passed Canada has likely already made other arrangements to sell this oil to countries like China. Might we pass a bill to build a pipeline and find out the country who was going to supply the oil as has already made other arrangements leaving us with a pipeline but no oil?<br /><br />Frankly the pipeline for Canada never made much sense to me anyway. Why enter a contract with a bankrupt, has been, country like the US when contracts to sell this can be entered into with up and coming countries like China and India. Also, Russia hates the US with a passion unmatched in the history of civilization. I'd think it unwise for Canada to do business with the US on much of any level. P!ssing off nations like Russia simply does not make good business sense. Unfortunately American leaders seem to stupid to figure this one out. I'm sure the Russian and Chinese leadership are enjoying watching US leaders humiliate themselves and the country they are supposed to be representing. B.Posternoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16816866.post-86941581044864162172014-11-19T03:17:48.324-08:002014-11-19T03:17:48.324-08:00roflmao
the internet is an interesting thing/entit...roflmao<br />the internet is an interesting thing/entity.<br />from a speech given on 4/6/2010, ms. landrieu states:<br /><br /><i>"I don't need this job badly enough -- maybe some people do, I don't -- to throw the people of my state under the bus to protect myself politically," Landrieu said in an impassioned speech on the Senate floor.</i><br /><br />roflmao<br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F54rqDh2mWA" rel="nofollow">video footage of landrieu going home, to wherever that is.</a>louielouienoreply@blogger.com