This is a guest post by The Dysfunction Junction editor Kent McCarty. McCarty is an 18 year-old student at the University of Southern Mississippi in Hattiesburg. He plans to run for President in 2048. To read more by McCarty, visit The Dysfunction Junction by clicking HERE.
While the authorization papers sit on the desk of President Barack Obama, the fate of the Keystone XL Pipeline continues to be in question. With the February 21 deadline a little over a month away, the President’s window is dwindling to decide if he’s going to go with politics over policy or make a decision that will put upwards of 20,000 American back to work and get the nation one step closer to being free of the Middle Eastern oil interest. With the project’s clear benefits, what’s the hold-up? President Obama’s attempt to pander to environmentalists and the far left who, despite inarguable evidence to the contrary from the State Department, are hell-bent on stopping the pipeline and, as a result, keeping the nation’s recovery at the pace of a turtle with paralyzed hind legs.
According to TransCanada Corp., the Keystone XL Pipeline will create at least 13,000 jobs along the pipeline’s path during the construction phase of the project, as well as upwards of 7,000 manufacturing jobs in plants that build key parts for the pipeline. Aside from the 20,000 direct jobs created, economists also suggest that hundreds of thousands of jobs could be created in towns along the pipeline’s path as a result of the pipeline’s economic impact. With unemployment holding at 8.5% and the economy virtually stagnant, the jobs created as a result of the pipeline seem to good to be true. And those on the left say they are.
To read the rest of the article, see the full article at The Dysfunction Junction by clicking HERE.
Oh come on, you’re killing me. Don’t try to get away with “the jobs created as a result of the pipeline seem to good to be true. And those on the left say they are.” and still expect me to take it seriously. How can I trust a source if they can’t get the simplest of all grammatical rules correct? “seem *too* [as in excessively] good to be true.” Sometimes I wish the Oxford standard dictionary would just merge the words together to make “to”. Nobody seems to understand how to use it anyway.
Oh come on, you’re killing me. Don’t try to get away with “the jobs created as a result of the pipeline seem to good to be true. And those on the left say they are.” and still expect me to take it seriously. How can I trust a source if they can’t get the simplest of all grammatical rules correct? “seem *too* [as in excessively] good to be true.” Sometimes I wish the Oxford standard dictionary would just merge the words together to make “to”. Nobody seems to understand how to use it anyway…