My Thoughts on Comments

From New York Times article, "Obama Vetoes Bill Pushing Pipeline Approval"

Credible Comments 

1. 

This commenter is expressing a fear that President Obama will approve the pipeline, which would only help worsen the environment and only benefit oil companies. This can be seen in his comment, "please do not falter" when referring to the decision. The commenter does not want this pipeline to be built and fears it will be anyway. 

According to this comment, I believe the person to be more so concerned with who the pipeline benefits and who it doesn't. He talks about it benefitting large companies, and not the people. Because of this I think he is more so concerned about small business or individual people, rather than large corporations. 

This writer comes across as credible to me because they make their point very clear and bring up a valid point for their argument. When he brings up specific corporations, this leads me to believe he knows more about the subject or at least did some research for his comment, unlike some others. 

2. 

This comment specifically states that they fear "the moment of capitulation," or when/if Obama gives up fighting the pipeline. 

This comment leads me to believe that they also are looking to who this move would benefit, because they use a sarcastic question at the end, which they answer in a way that sounds confident and final. They also have concerns about the environment, even suggesting that this could lead to the downfall of humans. While a bit extreme, this does showcase their beliefs and make their point sound stronger. 

I thought this was a more credible sounding argument because of the ending. The question and answer was witty enough to grab my attention, and the rest of the comment also leads the reader to believe that the writer is confident and knows what he is talking about. 

Non Credible Comments 

1. 

This commenter seems to be expressing anxiety about Obama's last few decisions and the decision regarding the pipeline itself. This can be seen by the negative language used and the insults to the president. 

They seem most concerned with the job aspect of the pipeline, which most likely means that they value the idea of creating more jobs for Americans, instead of outsourcing jobs. 

I didn't think this commenter was credible because they give no proof or other knowledge at all, they just throw out a fact and then leave it alone. The last half of their comment has no argument other than insults, which does not make me want to listen to their argument. These combined lead me to believe that this commenter knows little about the topic and speaks from a party standpoint. 

2. 

This commenter is also expressing fear, more specifically about not using fossil fuels and "loony environmentalists." This can be seen form their claim that this is the worst thing since the War of 1812.

This commenter is most likely republican or conservative in views, as most liberals are more concerned about environment than this. They may value businesses and believe that the pipeline will provide more to business. 

I didn't think this commenter was credible because his only claim to being credible was being Canadian, as if that's a huge qualifier for knowing a subject and developing a solid argument about it. He may bring up history, but it is not clear and has little to do with the debate about the pipeline. It seems their comment is more emotional than argumentative.