Republicans

I read today that Republican lawmakers are furious over President Obama’s rejection of the proposed Keystone XL pipeline. WHY???

I thought that was very reasonable of him, and completely supported it. Getting back to my original point, no politician would admit to being against fuel-efficient cars (or cars "fueled" by a source other than fuel/refined oil), nor would they be in support of creating plastic bags/other uses of refined oil, etc.

So, why are Republican lawmakers against a bill that would support the non-American company TransCanada?

I guess the obvious answer is the one that makes me cringe, which is the same one that has caused me to not go to any NBA games in the near future.

If these politicians are anti-fuel (i.e. pro-new technology), how are they pro-fuel? Is it just me, or can people be both for and against supporting crude oil at the same time? Is this proof that (Republican) politicians are two-faced?

The money that would be invested in supporting this Canadian company (and give Americans jobs) could be redirected to support transport infrastructure and/or manufacturing new technology (and give Americans jobs). I guess my point is ... not supporting one specific (non-sustainable) project doesn't mean not supporting job creation. Another good use would be to have the government invest in infrastructure projects, as that would give jobs to people for construction as well as overhead jobs (e.g. being conductors, etc, for the proposed rail system).

 - -

To all those in South Carolina - vote Stephen Colbert / Herman Cain for leader of the Republican party in South Carolina!