Keystone takes the next step

[jc456]

How many railroad workers and truck drives along with all the folks related to those industries that are currently transporting the oil will loose their jobs when the pipeline gets operational?

move them back to putting cars filled with coal on the train line up! that would help my son in law.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Because the companies that stand to benefit already have all the employees they need.

As deadline nears friends and foes of Keystone XL pipeline step up campaigns - The Washington Post

These companies stand to make and have made huge profits long before Keystone and will continue to do so long after.

If that's what your hanging your hat on then I pity you.

No one's "hanging their hat" on this. Boehner is aggressively pushing legislation on which he, personally, stands to make substantial financial gains. There's some conflict of interest there and it's a legitimate concern.

He stands to make substantial financial gains whether Keystone goes through or not you moron!

As I said if the is your reasoning for not allowing the Keystone pipeline to go through then you are as stupid as you look.

He stands to make greater gains with the Keystone XL completed. And I don't oppose the pipeline, but why read my posts talking to tinydancer on the last page when you can sling shit?

I don't involve myself in every discussion. I focus on the one I'm in.

Sure sounds like you oppose the pipeline to me. Why else are you making an argument against Boehner being for it? Because he has a vested interest? How the hell do you think politicians on both sides of the aisle make their money? One company he's invested in may make a dollar or two and that pisses you off.

We finally get to tear into each other again

I have no problem with profits and folks getting as filthy rich as they can.
But I do have a problem with elected officials using their position and influence to enrich themselves.

Ok - lemme have it ...

 

[Camp]

How many railroad workers and truck drives along with all the folks related to those industries that are currently transporting the oil will loose their jobs when the pipeline gets operational?

move them back to putting cars filled with coal on the train line up! that would help my son in law.

That is not likely to happen. What will happen is that very few jobs will be created with the pipeline compared to the ones that will be lost by the industries currently transporting the oil from Canada. The pipeline will lower the labor cost of transporting the product and increase profits for some specific business interest, but it will hurt the labor force and lower the number of jobs needed for transporting the product. Jobs are being traded for profit, again. Funny how the promoters have their supporters convinced the pipeline will be good for job creation when it actually does the exact opposite.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

These companies stand to make and have made huge profits long before Keystone and will continue to do so long after.

If that's what your hanging your hat on then I pity you.

No one's "hanging their hat" on this. Boehner is aggressively pushing legislation on which he, personally, stands to make substantial financial gains. There's some conflict of interest there and it's a legitimate concern.

He stands to make substantial financial gains whether Keystone goes through or not you moron!

As I said if the is your reasoning for not allowing the Keystone pipeline to go through then you are as stupid as you look.

He stands to make greater gains with the Keystone XL completed. And I don't oppose the pipeline, but why read my posts talking to tinydancer on the last page when you can sling shit?

I don't involve myself in every discussion. I focus on the one I'm in.

Sure sounds like you oppose the pipeline to me. Why else are you making an argument against Boehner being for it? Because he has a vested interest? How the hell do you think politicians on both sides of the aisle make their money? One company he's invested in may make a dollar or two and that pisses you off.

We finally get to tear into each other again

I have no problem with profits and folks getting as filthy rich as they can.
But I do have a problem with elected officials using their position and influence to enrich themselves.

Ok - lemme have it ...

The fact is, he isn't doing anything illegal or unethical. You people just don't like it.

If you think this deal will make or break him financially then you're fooling yourself. He's trying to do what the majority of Americans want done.

You would have a leg to stand on and a better argument if Boehner was pushing legislation that the majority of Americans didn't want in order to enriched himself.

 

[jc456]

How many railroad workers and truck drives along with all the folks related to those industries that are currently transporting the oil will loose their jobs when the pipeline gets operational?

move them back to putting cars filled with coal on the train line up! that would help my son in law.

That is not likely to happen. What will happen is that very few jobs will be created with the pipeline compared to the ones that will be lost by the industries currently transporting the oil from Canada. The pipeline will lower the labor cost of transporting the product and increase profits for some specific business interest, but it will hurt the labor force and lower the number of jobs needed for transporting the product. Jobs are being traded for profit, again. Funny how the promoters have their supporters convinced the pipeline will be good for job creation when it actually does the exact opposite.

Well it would if the GOP works on the EPA regulations.

 

[nodoginnafight]

No one's "hanging their hat" on this. Boehner is aggressively pushing legislation on which he, personally, stands to make substantial financial gains. There's some conflict of interest there and it's a legitimate concern.

He stands to make substantial financial gains whether Keystone goes through or not you moron!

As I said if the is your reasoning for not allowing the Keystone pipeline to go through then you are as stupid as you look.

He stands to make greater gains with the Keystone XL completed. And I don't oppose the pipeline, but why read my posts talking to tinydancer on the last page when you can sling shit?

I don't involve myself in every discussion. I focus on the one I'm in.

Sure sounds like you oppose the pipeline to me. Why else are you making an argument against Boehner being for it? Because he has a vested interest? How the hell do you think politicians on both sides of the aisle make their money? One company he's invested in may make a dollar or two and that pisses you off.

We finally get to tear into each other again

I have no problem with profits and folks getting as filthy rich as they can.
But I do have a problem with elected officials using their position and influence to enrich themselves.

Ok - lemme have it ...

The fact is, he isn't doing anything illegal or unethical. You people just don't like it.

If you think this deal will make or break him financially then you're fooling yourself. He's trying to do what the majority of Americans want done.

You would have a leg to stand on and a better argument if Boehner was pushing legislation that the majority of Americans didn't want in order to enriched himself.

I don't care much about Keystone one way or another, so I'm not trying to pick nits.

But if we are both 100% honest - NEITHER of us know his heart. You cannot say with 100% certainty that he is promoting it ONLY because it's "what the people want" and I cannot say with 100% certainty that he is promoting it to enrich himself.

But there is a very good reason that elected officials have avoided conflicts of interest and situations that appear to be conflicts of interest. It opens them up for attack and weakens their position and their ability to influence others. He has left himself open to these attacks and he's getting them. No surprise. And I support putting things like this under the harsh glare of close scrutiny - you HAVE to.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

He stands to make substantial financial gains whether Keystone goes through or not you moron!

As I said if the is your reasoning for not allowing the Keystone pipeline to go through then you are as stupid as you look.

He stands to make greater gains with the Keystone XL completed. And I don't oppose the pipeline, but why read my posts talking to tinydancer on the last page when you can sling shit?

I don't involve myself in every discussion. I focus on the one I'm in.

Sure sounds like you oppose the pipeline to me. Why else are you making an argument against Boehner being for it? Because he has a vested interest? How the hell do you think politicians on both sides of the aisle make their money? One company he's invested in may make a dollar or two and that pisses you off.

We finally get to tear into each other again

I have no problem with profits and folks getting as filthy rich as they can.
But I do have a problem with elected officials using their position and influence to enrich themselves.

Ok - lemme have it ...

The fact is, he isn't doing anything illegal or unethical. You people just don't like it.

If you think this deal will make or break him financially then you're fooling yourself. He's trying to do what the majority of Americans want done.

You would have a leg to stand on and a better argument if Boehner was pushing legislation that the majority of Americans didn't want in order to enriched himself.

I don't care much about Keystone one way or another, so I'm not trying to pick nits.

But if we are both 100% honest - NEITHER of us know his heart. You cannot say with 100% certainty that he is promoting it ONLY because it's "what the people want" and I cannot say with 100% certainty that he is promoting it to enrich himself.

But there is a very good reason that elected officials have avoided conflicts of interest and situations that appear to be conflicts of interest. It opens then up for attack and weakens their position. He has left himself open to these attacks and he's getting them. No surprise. And I support putting things like this under the harsh glare of close scrutiny - you HAVE to.

Is he violating the law, specifically "The Political Reform Act"?

 

[nodoginnafight]

He stands to make greater gains with the Keystone XL completed. And I don't oppose the pipeline, but why read my posts talking to tinydancer on the last page when you can sling shit?

I don't involve myself in every discussion. I focus on the one I'm in.

Sure sounds like you oppose the pipeline to me. Why else are you making an argument against Boehner being for it? Because he has a vested interest? How the hell do you think politicians on both sides of the aisle make their money? One company he's invested in may make a dollar or two and that pisses you off.

We finally get to tear into each other again

I have no problem with profits and folks getting as filthy rich as they can.
But I do have a problem with elected officials using their position and influence to enrich themselves.

Ok - lemme have it ...

The fact is, he isn't doing anything illegal or unethical. You people just don't like it.

If you think this deal will make or break him financially then you're fooling yourself. He's trying to do what the majority of Americans want done.

You would have a leg to stand on and a better argument if Boehner was pushing legislation that the majority of Americans didn't want in order to enriched himself.

I don't care much about Keystone one way or another, so I'm not trying to pick nits.

But if we are both 100% honest - NEITHER of us know his heart. You cannot say with 100% certainty that he is promoting it ONLY because it's "what the people want" and I cannot say with 100% certainty that he is promoting it to enrich himself.

But there is a very good reason that elected officials have avoided conflicts of interest and situations that appear to be conflicts of interest. It opens then up for attack and weakens their position. He has left himself open to these attacks and he's getting them. No surprise. And I support putting things like this under the harsh glare of close scrutiny - you HAVE to.

Is he violating the law, specifically "The Political Reform Act"?

Honestly, I have no idea. I'll trust that you are more up on that and I'll trust your take on that.

Is he weakening his position and his ability to influence others on the issue? So does this help him or hurt him in terms of effectiveness in his job?

Should we just ignore it when politicians promote projects they have a financial interest in - or should we check under the hood?

 

[Lonestar_logic]

I don't involve myself in every discussion. I focus on the one I'm in.

Sure sounds like you oppose the pipeline to me. Why else are you making an argument against Boehner being for it? Because he has a vested interest? How the hell do you think politicians on both sides of the aisle make their money? One company he's invested in may make a dollar or two and that pisses you off.

We finally get to tear into each other again

I have no problem with profits and folks getting as filthy rich as they can.
But I do have a problem with elected officials using their position and influence to enrich themselves.

Ok - lemme have it ...

The fact is, he isn't doing anything illegal or unethical. You people just don't like it.

If you think this deal will make or break him financially then you're fooling yourself. He's trying to do what the majority of Americans want done.

You would have a leg to stand on and a better argument if Boehner was pushing legislation that the majority of Americans didn't want in order to enriched himself.

I don't care much about Keystone one way or another, so I'm not trying to pick nits.

But if we are both 100% honest - NEITHER of us know his heart. You cannot say with 100% certainty that he is promoting it ONLY because it's "what the people want" and I cannot say with 100% certainty that he is promoting it to enrich himself.

But there is a very good reason that elected officials have avoided conflicts of interest and situations that appear to be conflicts of interest. It opens then up for attack and weakens their position. He has left himself open to these attacks and he's getting them. No surprise. And I support putting things like this under the harsh glare of close scrutiny - you HAVE to.

Is he violating the law, specifically "The Political Reform Act"?

Honestly, I have no idea. I'll trust that you are more up on that and I'll trust your take on that.

Is he weakening his position and his ability to influence others on the issue? So does this help him or hurt him in terms of effectiveness in his job?

Should we just ignore it when politicians promote projects they have a financial interest in - or should we check under the hood?

I don't think it hurts him at all.

As long as politicians follow the law when it pertains to possible conflicts of interest and it's in line with the will of the people then I have no problem with them voting however they wish.

 

[nodoginnafight]

We finally get to tear into each other again

I have no problem with profits and folks getting as filthy rich as they can.
But I do have a problem with elected officials using their position and influence to enrich themselves.

Ok - lemme have it ...

The fact is, he isn't doing anything illegal or unethical. You people just don't like it.

If you think this deal will make or break him financially then you're fooling yourself. He's trying to do what the majority of Americans want done.

You would have a leg to stand on and a better argument if Boehner was pushing legislation that the majority of Americans didn't want in order to enriched himself.

I don't care much about Keystone one way or another, so I'm not trying to pick nits.

But if we are both 100% honest - NEITHER of us know his heart. You cannot say with 100% certainty that he is promoting it ONLY because it's "what the people want" and I cannot say with 100% certainty that he is promoting it to enrich himself.

But there is a very good reason that elected officials have avoided conflicts of interest and situations that appear to be conflicts of interest. It opens then up for attack and weakens their position. He has left himself open to these attacks and he's getting them. No surprise. And I support putting things like this under the harsh glare of close scrutiny - you HAVE to.

Is he violating the law, specifically "The Political Reform Act"?

Honestly, I have no idea. I'll trust that you are more up on that and I'll trust your take on that.

Is he weakening his position and his ability to influence others on the issue? So does this help him or hurt him in terms of effectiveness in his job?

Should we just ignore it when politicians promote projects they have a financial interest in - or should we check under the hood?

I don't think it hurts him at all.

As long as politicians follow the law when it pertains to possible conflicts of interest and it's in line with the will of the people then I have no problem with them voting however they wish.

So you don't think those situations deserve a little extra critical scrutiny? You just think we should take their word on it that they are acting in the public interest and not their own financial interest without question?

And I believe it IS hurting him. Folks bringing up his financial interest are going to make a lot of other people wonder. Maybe not you personally, but there are a lot of folks who are goiung to look more critically at his position and more critically at the pipeline because of it. It will also push more people into the ranks of those who say "They are all just lining their own pockets" and that lowers trust in government and that does hurt him in his job.

 

[Freewill]

What is the fuss about? I am told that the last pipeline out of Canada took one day to approve, this one 8 years.

Are there already pipelines from Canada and other crisscrossing the US? Yes there are many.

Is there any that carry oil sand oil? Yes, yes there are.

Is a pipeline safer then rail, truck or barges? Yes it is.

So what is the deal? Is it really a concern about eminent domain? Or something else.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

The fact is, he isn't doing anything illegal or unethical. You people just don't like it.

If you think this deal will make or break him financially then you're fooling yourself. He's trying to do what the majority of Americans want done.

You would have a leg to stand on and a better argument if Boehner was pushing legislation that the majority of Americans didn't want in order to enriched himself.

I don't care much about Keystone one way or another, so I'm not trying to pick nits.

But if we are both 100% honest - NEITHER of us know his heart. You cannot say with 100% certainty that he is promoting it ONLY because it's "what the people want" and I cannot say with 100% certainty that he is promoting it to enrich himself.

But there is a very good reason that elected officials have avoided conflicts of interest and situations that appear to be conflicts of interest. It opens then up for attack and weakens their position. He has left himself open to these attacks and he's getting them. No surprise. And I support putting things like this under the harsh glare of close scrutiny - you HAVE to.

Is he violating the law, specifically "The Political Reform Act"?

Honestly, I have no idea. I'll trust that you are more up on that and I'll trust your take on that.

Is he weakening his position and his ability to influence others on the issue? So does this help him or hurt him in terms of effectiveness in his job?

Should we just ignore it when politicians promote projects they have a financial interest in - or should we check under the hood?

I don't think it hurts him at all.

As long as politicians follow the law when it pertains to possible conflicts of interest and it's in line with the will of the people then I have no problem with them voting however they wish.

So you don't think those situations deserve a little extra critical scrutiny? You just think we should take their word on it that they are acting in the public interest and not their own financial interest without question?

That's the purpose of the Office of Congressional Ethics.

If you want the job and think you can do better, send in a resume'.

 

[nodoginnafight]

I don't care much about Keystone one way or another, so I'm not trying to pick nits.

But if we are both 100% honest - NEITHER of us know his heart. You cannot say with 100% certainty that he is promoting it ONLY because it's "what the people want" and I cannot say with 100% certainty that he is promoting it to enrich himself.

But there is a very good reason that elected officials have avoided conflicts of interest and situations that appear to be conflicts of interest. It opens then up for attack and weakens their position. He has left himself open to these attacks and he's getting them. No surprise. And I support putting things like this under the harsh glare of close scrutiny - you HAVE to.

Is he violating the law, specifically "The Political Reform Act"?

Honestly, I have no idea. I'll trust that you are more up on that and I'll trust your take on that.

Is he weakening his position and his ability to influence others on the issue? So does this help him or hurt him in terms of effectiveness in his job?

Should we just ignore it when politicians promote projects they have a financial interest in - or should we check under the hood?

I don't think it hurts him at all.

As long as politicians follow the law when it pertains to possible conflicts of interest and it's in line with the will of the people then I have no problem with them voting however they wish.

So you don't think those situations deserve a little extra critical scrutiny? You just think we should take their word on it that they are acting in the public interest and not their own financial interest without question?

That's the purpose of the Office of Congressional Ethics.

If you want the job and think you can do better, send in a resume'.

I think folks have the right to look into it for themselves. I think they have a right to investigate and make up their own minds based on whatever criteria THEY deem appropriate. In fact, I think people have a responsibility to do these things.

If you prefer to swallow (hook, line, and sinker) whatever some government agency tells you, I think that's your right too. But I don't think the elective process works best that way.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Is he violating the law, specifically "The Political Reform Act"?

Honestly, I have no idea. I'll trust that you are more up on that and I'll trust your take on that.

Is he weakening his position and his ability to influence others on the issue? So does this help him or hurt him in terms of effectiveness in his job?

Should we just ignore it when politicians promote projects they have a financial interest in - or should we check under the hood?

I don't think it hurts him at all.

As long as politicians follow the law when it pertains to possible conflicts of interest and it's in line with the will of the people then I have no problem with them voting however they wish.

So you don't think those situations deserve a little extra critical scrutiny? You just think we should take their word on it that they are acting in the public interest and not their own financial interest without question?

That's the purpose of the Office of Congressional Ethics.

If you want the job and think you can do better, send in a resume'.

I think folks have the right to look into it for themselves. I think they have a right to investigate and make up their own minds based on whatever criteria THEY deem appropriate. In fact, I think people have a responsibility to do these things.

If you prefer to swallow (hook, line, and sinker) whatever some government agency tells you, I think that's your right too. But I don't think the elective process works best that way.

And when you find something you don't like, such as Boehner making a dime out of Keystone legislation your going to do what exactly? Whine about it on USMB?

 

[nodoginnafight]

Honestly, I have no idea. I'll trust that you are more up on that and I'll trust your take on that.

Is he weakening his position and his ability to influence others on the issue? So does this help him or hurt him in terms of effectiveness in his job?

Should we just ignore it when politicians promote projects they have a financial interest in - or should we check under the hood?

I don't think it hurts him at all.

As long as politicians follow the law when it pertains to possible conflicts of interest and it's in line with the will of the people then I have no problem with them voting however they wish.

So you don't think those situations deserve a little extra critical scrutiny? You just think we should take their word on it that they are acting in the public interest and not their own financial interest without question?

That's the purpose of the Office of Congressional Ethics.

If you want the job and think you can do better, send in a resume'.

I think folks have the right to look into it for themselves. I think they have a right to investigate and make up their own minds based on whatever criteria THEY deem appropriate. In fact, I think people have a responsibility to do these things.

If you prefer to swallow (hook, line, and sinker) whatever some government agency tells you, I think that's your right too. But I don't think the elective process works best that way.

And when you find something you don't like, such as Boehner making a dime out of Keystone legislation your going to do what exactly? Whine about it on USMB?

I never said I don't like Boehner making money on the deal. I said specifically that I don't have any problem with folks making money like some folks on here do. I am saying that from MY PERSONAL perspective it makes me look at whatever he has to say about the project a little more cynically. It will prompt me to look a little harder into the deal to make up my own mind about whether or not I support it.

After doing a lot of my own research, I personally concluded that folks on both sides have lied a lot about what it means, what it will do, etc....

But I'm not worked up into a frenzy either way. I hate the subsidies that the refineries received to help them re-tool to handle this stuff and I think oil companies have been doing just fine without subsidies - I don't think they need anymore of my tax dollars too.

But the pipeline? Meh. They aren't asking for any of my land and any accidents or spills probably want affect me. So if those folks who are (or could be) affected are OK with it - who am I to say no.

 

[Care4all]

But if Keystone is passed, what will the effect be on American oil prices?

We would see prices that we haven't seen since the early 1990's. Imagine what that would do for the economy, am I right?

I've actually read that deflation is much worse than inflation...hard to believe...but the reasoning is that in a deflationary circumstance, it leads to people NOT buying now and waiting to see if prices continue to drop, where as in inflationary periods, it keeps people 'buying' now, because they know if they wait, the prices will be higher...

I'm kinda with you, that lower gasoline and oil prices should help the economy because the masses will have more disposable income to spend...but I also can understand what has been said on deflation and inflation mentioned above....

 

[nodoginnafight]

Honestly, I have no idea. I'll trust that you are more up on that and I'll trust your take on that.

Is he weakening his position and his ability to influence others on the issue? So does this help him or hurt him in terms of effectiveness in his job?

Should we just ignore it when politicians promote projects they have a financial interest in - or should we check under the hood?

I don't think it hurts him at all.

As long as politicians follow the law when it pertains to possible conflicts of interest and it's in line with the will of the people then I have no problem with them voting however they wish.

So you don't think those situations deserve a little extra critical scrutiny? You just think we should take their word on it that they are acting in the public interest and not their own financial interest without question?

That's the purpose of the Office of Congressional Ethics.

If you want the job and think you can do better, send in a resume'.

I think folks have the right to look into it for themselves. I think they have a right to investigate and make up their own minds based on whatever criteria THEY deem appropriate. In fact, I think people have a responsibility to do these things.

If you prefer to swallow (hook, line, and sinker) whatever some government agency tells you, I think that's your right too. But I don't think the elective process works best that way.

And when you find something you don't like, such as Boehner making a dime out of Keystone legislation your going to do what exactly? Whine about it on USMB?

I have no doubt that some opposition to the pipeline comes from landowners who are exaggerating their "environmental concern" to try to get extra money from the oil company. And a ton of lawyers are jumping in to come up with new and creative arguments to help them do it. But Boehner's financial interest in the project is just giving them more ammo to fight the pipeline - so yeah - it DOES hurt him and his position on the pipeline.

 

[Siete]

I'm a land owner. I've owned my property for well over 20 years. I have a timber exemption. To cut a path on my property 50 yards wide and 1/2 mile long would destroy 10's of thousands of dollars of prime timber.

If and when I get ready to do that, I will. But for my government to hand over my timber to a foreign country is simply wrong.... No Keystone won't effect my property, but as a land owner I can feel for other land owners effected by Keystone. I'd donate the entire parcel if it meant saving my country, but it doesn't.

Boehner making a profit from his investments IS NOT ILLEGAL. But to buy $400,000.00 in stock between 2007 and 2009, then push, then PASS legislation that insures your investment is profitable IS A CONFLICT OF INTEREST. I don't give a damn who you are or what you say. That's wrong.

Like I've said, I'm not against the pipeline, but I'am against the principles involved with the pipeline ... anyone who isn't has NO principles.

End of story.

 

[nodoginnafight]

I'm a land owner. I've owned my property for well over 20 years. I have a timber exemption. To cut a path on my property 50 yards wide and 1/2 mile long would destroy 10's of thousands of dollars of prime timber.

If and when I get ready to do that, I will. But for my government to hand over my timber to a foreign country is simply wrong.... No Keystone won't effect my property, but as a land owner I can feel for other land owners effected by Keystone. I'd donate the entire parcel if it meant saving my country, but it doesn't.

Boehner making a profit from his investments IS NOT ILLEGAL. But to buy $400,000.00 in stock between 2007 and 2009, then push, then PASS legislation that insures your investment is profitable IS A CONFLICT OF INTEREST. I don't give a damn who you are or what you say. That's wrong.

Like I've said, I'm not against the pipeline, but I'am against the principles involved with the pipeline ... anyone who isn't has NO principles.

End of story.

I appreciate what you say. I don't know the particulars to say with certainty that Boehner's financial interest is or isn't a violation. Lonestar Logic seems to think he knows for a fact that it is not.

You guys can sweat that one out. I'm not real worked up over this issue, but if they were coming for my land (or a big patch of it), I'm sure I would be more passionate about this. I lean ever so slightly against right now.

But BOTH sides have told some whoppers about this project.

 

[Siete]

I'm a land owner. I've owned my property for well over 20 years. I have a timber exemption. To cut a path on my property 50 yards wide and 1/2 mile long would destroy 10's of thousands of dollars of prime timber.

If and when I get ready to do that, I will. But for my government to hand over my timber to a foreign country is simply wrong.... No Keystone won't effect my property, but as a land owner I can feel for other land owners effected by Keystone. I'd donate the entire parcel if it meant saving my country, but it doesn't.

Boehner making a profit from his investments IS NOT ILLEGAL. But to buy $400,000.00 in stock between 2007 and 2009, then push, then PASS legislation that insures your investment is profitable IS A CONFLICT OF INTEREST. I don't give a damn who you are or what you say. That's wrong.

Like I've said, I'm not against the pipeline, but I'am against the principles involved with the pipeline ... anyone who isn't has NO principles.

End of story.

I appreciate what you say. I don't know the particulars to say with certainty that Boehner's financial interest is or isn't a violation. Lonestar Logic seems to think he knows for a fact that it is not.

You guys can sweat that one out. I'm not real worked up over this issue, but if they were coming for my land (or a big patch of it), I'm sure I would be more passionate about this. I lean ever so slightly against right now.

But BOTH sides have told some whoppers about this project.

Boehner isn't breaking any laws. He's just a dickhead politician doing what dickhead politicians do ... pad their wallet and **** people.