Biden kills 70,000 jobs in his first day.

Canada is socialism. We want to spread socialism by providing inroads through the pipe line ? Next, we’ll all be carrying an ACLU card.

 

And this is why the left is seen as busines unfriendly, if ever looking for an example.

Absolutely no ****s given about killing 10s of thousands of jobs with the strike of a pen.

Ideological la la land agendas over peoples ability to put food on the table.

 

And here comes all the deflection.

 

By that logic, all construction project labor is temporary. That doesn't change the fact that killing projects means union labor loses work. In this case getting laid off.

 

Left wing logic. We should have never invented the computer. That way all the people in the type writer industry would still be employed and those nasty server warehouses wouldn't be polluting the air.

 

Lol

He said it COULD.

The people that just got laid off didn't MIGHT get laid off they actually did.

 

Oh, you mean industries that are financially unsustainable without subsidize from government?

 

Absolutely.

4 guys in a Ram with a hammer and a wrench ought to be able to take care of building it from Alberta to the Gulf.

No problem.

 

You’re right, but for another reason. It gave dumb ideas from conservatives including Trump, a forum

 

that is right wing logic, they hate science

 

Obviously, not enough. Other then healthcare workers and teachers and older students and pro athletes whose teams can afford it and govt workers, NO ONE gets regularly tested. NO ONE. THATS PRETTY MUCH 90% of the population does not get regularly tested. Oh, you can get tested by recommendation, but it’s one time and not regularly and usually only for special circumstances. Your comments are hilarious.

 

Science and facts. They don’t even like the dictionary.

 

Has Biden followed his standard script, i.e., has he told the people who lost their jobs to learn how to code?

 

No they don't. You just spewed out a pathetic talking point....it's not a coincidence that you aren't even attempting to back it up.

 

Your comments are hilarious. Where my brother lives they were giving out 30 dollar gift cards to be tested. Teens and baby mommas were going everyday.

 

Whatever that meant ¯\_(º¸º)_/¯

 

Or, how about you address WHAT was said, rather than who said it? You know, the old "Don't shoot the messenger" thing...

 

There has never been a need for the USA in the Keystone XL pipeline. Canadian oil has long been shipping thru older pipelines. It benefits American refineries in the mid-west. It reaches oil storage facilities as far south as Oklahoma. The end result being lower gas prices in states fed by those refineries. More than that, decades of supply are added to what Americans can draw upon.

You see, I take a rather selfish, nationalistic view of why Keystone XL should be stopped. I want that oil to stay close to the USA, not see it sold around the world. Not see it benefit the Chinese Communist Party.

By building Keystone XL a high volume, high speed route from Canada to the oil super tanker terminals on the Gulf is provided. The Canadian oil then enters the global market in massive volume, and the biggest customer is China. Canada makes more money, sure, but I am not a Canadian and do not care about that. I care about America having a greater store of oil available to pull from, for a longer period of time. I am interested in our enemy not having this access, this vital material at their disposal.

Sure, the environmental concerns sound compelling to some. To others, the trampling of tribal lands pisses them off. Still others see the short term construction worker employment, vastly exaggerate the numbers and ignore the short-lived nature of the work to claim it is a god send to the American economy. I don't care about any of that.

The reality I see is that high speed high volume pipeline takes the oil out of our hands and pisses it away to nations we least want to see get it. We lose the benefit, Canada makes more money than they already are and our enemies benefit.

Nope, not a pipeline I need.

 

Sure. Let's blame the occupant of the Oval Office because a previously unknown virus caused worldwide havoc, the destruction of jobs, companies, and entire economies. Many of which will never come back. Any of your favorite restaurants go under?

Look, it sucks. Both the disease and the side effects that were caused by our reaction to it. But the man who happened to be POTUS is not at fault. It's a virus fercrissake. Unless you have some evidence that he was somehow literally responsible for creating or releasing it into the wild, then we can talk.

 

They need it. Without the chronic poverty, and the empty perpetually unfilled promises to fix it, they would not have very many voters.

 

Then how about you dissect the article, and explain what is not correct and why? This has nothing to do with "he who will not be mentioned". He didn't say it, he didn't write the article, and he didn't sign the EO at the root of this issue. Stick to issues and facts, and stop obsessing about "he who will not be mentioned". He's gone. Yesterday's news.

 

At the risk of going off topic in my own thread, I've been discussing replacing gas taxes with a weight/mile fee with a lefty friend of mine, and he insists it's a bad idea because it will negatively impact "those of lesser means". What he refuses to see is that it's really the rich(ish) yuppies with their hybrids and electric cars who by NO gas, and therefore pay NO gas taxes who are the ones who will really bear the burden of such a change. And those who drive big, evil, gas guzzling SUVs. It will cost them more, too, because of the weight part, and who drives those? People who have the money to acquire them. Certainly not "those of lesser means" because they tend to be more expensive options.

 

The same way you or I might kill jobs by pulling out of a home construction project we agreed to fund, that builders, framers, plumbers, contractors, and on and on, who WOULD have been hired until we went back on our word end up not being hired BECAUSE we went back on our word. Maybe a bit simplistic, but I think it gets the point across in an easily understood manner.

 

Well, at least we got some tax relief, and SCOTUS justices that understand their role is to INTERPRET laws, not create them. Oh, and at least some respect for the Second Amendment. I can't even imagine what would have happened on those issues had HRC won in 2016. Higher taxes, activist Justices, and an overwhelming desire to kill the 2A by any means necessary, whether through legislative processes, or judicial fiats. It matters not to her and her supporters, as long as they can get their goals met. As a country, we would be in a much worse position.