Jump to content


Biden's Day 1 & Beyond Executive orders


Which Executive orders do you agree with  

14 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

27 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

 

 

 

 

Keystone was never going to create jobs. That boondoggle wasn't believable the first time he pushed it. Strike one.

 

That's not Biden's immigration proposal, so strike two.

 

And the Paris Accord hasn't hurt any of the other countries that joined it, so that's strike three.

 

Mitch "breeding unity with every tweet" McConnell, Ladies & Germs.

  • Plus1 2
Link to comment

26 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

 

Support all of it.

 

Being involved with the Paris accord is a good thing.  We can have input.  The only people who would agree with this are people who don't believe in climate change or science.

 

Total BS on the Keystone pipeline.  Those are temporary jobs.  Moscow Mitch must love seeing a foreign country and company taking land away from American land owners with very little long term benefit to this country,  Maybe his name needs to be changed to Ottawa Mitch.

 

Immigration?  How about Mitch start working on a comprehensive immigration package instead of complaining about this.  His attitude towards this needs it's own thread.  The fear mongering over amnesty is pathetic and simple minded towards our problems.

 

 

  • Plus1 3
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
16 minutes ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

 

This is actually a pretty interesting topic to me as far as arguing the points for and against, mostly because I'm not sure how I feel about it.

But with that being said, this Tweet is utterly over the top ridiculousness. There are going to be a handful of examples here and there where a transgender girl is dominant in a high school sport and it feels unfair, and maybe it is unfair. But there is absolutely no chance this is doing to "eviscerate" women's sports. It will probably make no noticeable difference. There is no way you will have boys lining up to say they are transgender just so they can play against female competition. That is never going to happen. Almost no one is willing to do that unless they are actually transgender, and very few people are transgender.

I have the same concerns.  Honestly, if I had to make the decision, I wouldn't be for this until a comprehensive study is done on exactly how it's going to work.  like you said, it's going to affect very few people.  Why can't a biological male participate in male sports even though he is transgender a woman?

 

This would be a very difficult and touchy way to do it, but, maybe a rule could be put in that they have to participate in male sports until a sex change procedure is done making them the other gender.  I'm typically someone who believes the whole bathroom issue was way over blown by phobics.  But....how are locker rooms going to work?  going into Walmart and using a stall in a bathroom is totally different than using an entire locker room, showers...etc.

 

Very difficult situation.

Link to comment

15 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

Tell us what you know about the pipeline and we'll fill you in.

 

(Lol).

 

I've read a handful of articles the last couple days, including the WSJ article this morning. I understand the environmental concerns (climate change, as Biden mentioned), but shutting down the Pipeline isn't going to do away with the country's need and/or consumption of oil.... It's only going to change where we get it (Russia, Venezuela, etc.). Jobs will be lost. Fuel prices will undoubtedly go up. I'm all for phasing into the "green" side of energy, but it should be just that.... phasing into it.

Link to comment

21 minutes ago, B.B. Hemingway said:

I've yet to see a good reason to abruptly shutdown the Pipeline. Maybe I'm missing something.

Do you have a problem with a foreign government and company using eminent domain to take American land owners land so they can pump their oil to a port to export it with every little to no benefit to the US?

10 minutes ago, B.B. Hemingway said:

 

(Lol).

 

I've read a handful of articles the last couple days, including the WSJ article this morning. I understand the environmental concerns (climate change, as Biden mentioned), but shutting down the Pipeline isn't going to do away with the country's need and/or consumption of oil.... It's only going to change where we get it (Russia, Venezuela, etc.). Jobs will be lost. Fuel prices will undoubtedly go up. I'm all for phasing into the "green" side of energy, but it should be just that.... phasing into it.

Problem is.....WE aren't getting this oil.

  • Plus1 3
Link to comment
25 minutes ago, B.B. Hemingway said:

 

I've read a handful of articles the last couple days, including the WSJ article this morning. I understand the environmental concerns (climate change, as Biden mentioned), but shutting down the Pipeline isn't going to do away with the country's need and/or consumption of oil.... It's only going to change where we get it (Russia, Venezuela, etc.). Jobs will be lost. Fuel prices will undoubtedly go up. I'm all for phasing into the "green" side of energy, but it should be just that.... phasing into it.

 

None of the oil from the Keystone XL Pipeline is destined for America. It's too dirty to use in the US under Bush-era guidelines. The oil would have to be refined here, then shipped overseas.

 

America is a pass-through for this stuff, and Canadian oil companies are getting the American government to declare eminent domain and take our farmers' land.

 

My wife's uncle helped build a couple of the pipelines that exist in Nebraska now. The whole promise of "thousands" of jobs is laughable. A couple hundred dudes work on a pipeline, and they don't hire new people for every mile. Maybe a few new ones state to state, but at most we're talking a thousand jobs, and likely far fewer.

 

I have no idea why American politicians ever agreed to this pipeline. But I can guess, and it's not a charitable guess.

 

And I haven't even touched on the environmental impact of the spills. Those typically get hushed up, but they destroy land every year.

 

 

You edited to add the "LOL" at the top, and I'm not sure why...

 

  • Plus1 3
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
8 minutes ago, knapplc said:

I have no idea why American politicians ever agreed to this pipeline. But I can guess, and it's not a charitable guess.

This is the part that I can't understand when I try my best to give them the benefit of the doubt and think maybe....somehow.....there's a silver lining for Americans in this.  I just got nothing.  

 

I'm guessing that if you really dig into "charitable donations" of some of this company through third parties to certain politicians......you just might find our answer.

 

The really big mistake they made is thinking they could put it through Indian land with no pushback.  It was almost like...hey....if we put it there....nobody cares about the Indian reservations anyway.

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...