PDA

View Full Version : Liberal myths


speechlesstx
May 30, 2013, 07:45 AM
Let's start with an easy one, those greedy oil companies make excess profit and don't pay enough taxes. Per John Stossel:


Another myth: Big Oil makes “excess” profit. Nonsense. The oil business is fiercely competitive. If one company charges a penny too much, other companies steal its business. Apple’s profit margin is about 24 percent. McDonald’s makes 20 percent. Oil companies make half that.

Per gallon, ExxonMobil makes about 7 cents. Governments, by contrast, grab about 27 cents per gallon. That’s the average gas tax. If anyone takes too much, it’s government.

So the government makes 20 cents per gallon more then ExxonMobil does on its gas? Interesting, Apple, McDonald's and the government are all more greedy than big oil.

How about taxes? Amazon, Apple and Verizon all had an effective tax rate 1/3 or more lower (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/05/25/sunday-review/corporate-taxes.html?smid=tw-share&_r=3&) than ExxonMobil, Chevron and ConocoPhillips.


The three largest oil companies paid the most in taxes in absolute terms of all major corporations, according to data on S&P 500 companies compiled by The New York Times.

President Barack Obama has chastised oil companies for receiving billions of dollars in tax breaks. However, the Times reports that ExxonMobil paid $146 billion in taxes; Chevron paid $85 billion; and ConocoPhillips paid $58 billion over the last five years.

In terms of their effective tax rates, the big three oil companies don’t get off easily either. Exxon had an effective tax rate of 37 percent, Chevron’s effective tax rate was 39 percent, and ConocoPhillips’s was a whopping 74 percent. The U.S. corporate tax rate is 35 percent.

Read more: NYT: Oil companies paid the most in taxes | The Daily Caller (http://dailycaller.com/2013/05/29/nyt-oil-companies-paid-the-most-in-taxes/#ixzz2UmsJsCPi)


So if that isn't enough, what should it be? Or phrased another way, how much per gallon are you willing to pay?

talaniman
May 30, 2013, 09:47 AM
I will call your Stossel myth, and raise you 4 liberal facts.

CNN/Money: Global gas prices (http://money.cnn.com/pf/features/lists/global_gasprices/)

Half Of American Households Hold 1 Percent Of Wealth (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/19/households-wealth-american-1-percent_n_1687015.html)

American Pie: Wealth and Income Inequality in America (http://currydemocrats.org/in_perspective/american_pie.html)

Wealth charts | Tampabay.com - St. Petersburg Times (http://www.tampabay.com/specials/2010/graphics/wealth-graphics/)

The Global Super-Rich Stash: Now $25 Trillion - IPS (http://www.ips-dc.org/blog/the_global_super-rich_stash_now_25_trillion)

Your turn. :)

speechlesstx
May 30, 2013, 10:30 AM
There were questions to answer, "So if that isn't enough, what should it be? Or phrased another way, how much per gallon are you willing to pay?"

tomder55
May 30, 2013, 10:49 AM
Oil companies are actually energy companies. They are heavily invested in R & D on top of being the government piggy bank. There is a huge reserve of carbon based energy sources to last over a century .It is in the oil companies interest to invest in such alternatives as the shale deposits and methane hydrate;which I think is the real alt energy of the future. That R&D by itself cuts into the bottom line. So it's very believable that the margins don't match other industries.

speechlesstx
Jun 3, 2013, 08:22 AM
Liberal myth number two, there is no voter fraud.


Congressman Joe Garcia’s chief of staff implicated in phantom absentee-ballot requests scheme

Law officers raided the home of John Estes, right, on Friday, May 31, 2013. Estes was the campaign manager for Joe Garcia, left, Democratic congressional candidate who won the seat.This photo was taken on

Congressman Joe Garcia’s chief of staff abruptly resigned Friday after being implicated in a sophisticated scheme to manipulate last year’s primary elections by submitting hundreds of fraudulent absentee-ballot requests.

Friday afternoon, Garcia said he had asked Jeffrey Garcia, no relation, for his resignation after the chief of staff — also the congressman’s top political strategist — took responsibility for the plot. Hours earlier, law enforcement investigators raided the homes of another of Joe Garcia’s employees and a former campaign aide in connection with an ongoing criminal investigation into the matter.

“I’m shocked and disappointed about this,” Garcia, who said he was unaware of the scheme, told The Miami Herald. “This is something that hit me from left field. Until today, I had no earthly idea this was going on.”

Jeffrey Garcia, 40, declined to comment. He also worked last year on the campaign of Democrat Patrick Murphy of Jupiter, who unseated tea-party Republican congressman Allen West. Murphy has not been implicated in the phantom-requests operation.

Read more here: Congressman Joe Garcia’s chief of staff implicated in phantom absentee-ballot requests scheme - Miami-Dade - MiamiHerald.com (http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/05/31/v-fullstory/3426745/miami-congressman-joe-garcias.html#storylink=cpy)

West lost by less than 2000 votes.

excon
Jun 3, 2013, 09:00 AM
Hello Steve:

I'll play.

Wingnut belief #1. Everybody in this great nation of ours, got the best health care in the world BEFORE Obamacare.

excon

speechlesstx
Jun 3, 2013, 09:16 AM
Hello Steve:

I'll play.

Wingnut belief #1. Everybody in this great nation of ours, got the best health care in the world BEFORE Obamacare.

Excon

That's not a liberal myth. But here's one:


"And that means that no matter how we reform health care, we will keep this promise: If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor. Period. If you like your health care plan, you will be able to keep your health care plan. Period. No one will take it away. No matter what." -Barack Obama

talaniman
Jun 3, 2013, 10:19 AM
How is that a myth? You're making tuff up. Sure he said it and its true nobody is forcing you to change doctors or health insurances or underwear for that matter.

You must not like your doctor any more.

speechlesstx
Jun 3, 2013, 10:57 AM
How is that a myth? You're making tuff up. Sure he said it and its true nobody is forcing you to change doctors or health insurances or underwear for that matter.

You must not like your doctor any more.

FactCheck.org : Keep Your Insurance? Not Everyone. (http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/keep-your-insurance-not-everyone/)

ObamaCare to trigger health insurance cancellation notices | Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/30/obamacare-to-usher-in-health-insurance-cancellation-notices/?test=latestnews)

Wendell Potter: Obama Should Have Known Better Than to Make This Promise (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/wendell-potter/obama-should-have-known-b_b_3378452.html)

Like your health care policy? You may be losing it (http://news.yahoo.com/health-care-policy-may-losing-184734527.html)

Your health insurance policy could be canceled - San Jose Mercury News (http://www.mercurynews.com/health/ci_23347666/your-health-insurance-policy-could-be-canceled)

Any questions?

speechlesstx
Jun 5, 2013, 04:25 AM
Liberal myth no. 3, Zerocare will lower the cost of non-group insurance.


The key thing to remember is that back when Obamacare was being debated in Congress, Democrats claimed that it was right-wing nonsense that premiums would go up under Obamacare. “What we know for sure,” Obamacare architect Jonathan Gruber told Ezra Klein in 2009, “is that [the bill] will lower the cost of buying non-group health insurance.” For sure.


Rate Shock: In California, Obamacare To Increase Individual Health Insurance Premiums By 64-146% - Forbes (http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/05/30/rate-shock-in-california-obamacare-to-increase-individual-insurance-premiums-by-64-146/)

Supporters think a possible 146% increase is good news.


New California health insurance rates unveiled - Los Angeles Times (http://articles.latimes.com/2013/may/23/business/la-fi-calif-health-rates-20130524)

excon
Jun 5, 2013, 04:49 AM
Hello again, Steve:

I don't know if you understand the problem of "overreach". It means that even IF what you say is true, because you've overreached in the past with the crap about death panels and stuff, nobody is going to believe you.

Same thing about Obama and his enemy's list..

excon

talaniman
Jun 5, 2013, 05:12 AM
FactCheck.org : Keep Your Insurance? Not Everyone. (http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/keep-your-insurance-not-everyone/)

ObamaCare to trigger health insurance cancellation notices | Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/30/obamacare-to-usher-in-health-insurance-cancellation-notices/?test=latestnews)

Wendell Potter: Obama Should Have Known Better Than to Make This Promise (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/wendell-potter/obama-should-have-known-b_b_3378452.html)

Like your health care policy? You may be losing it (http://news.yahoo.com/health-care-policy-may-losing-184734527.html)


Your health insurance policy could be canceled - San Jose Mercury News (http://www.mercurynews.com/health/ci_23347666/your-health-insurance-policy-could-be-canceled)

Any questions?

I wonder if you actually read the articles or just the headlines?

speechlesstx
Jun 5, 2013, 05:20 AM
I wonder if you actually read the articles or just the headlines?

I would ask you the same question.

speechlesstx
Jun 5, 2013, 05:22 AM
Hello again, Steve:

I dunno if you understand the problem of "overreach". It means that even IF what you say is true, because you've overreached in the past with the crap about death panels and stuff, nobody is gonna believe you.

Same thing about Obama and his enemy's list..

excon

Priceless, some guy's policy is going to double and you're talking to me about overreach.

talaniman
Jun 5, 2013, 05:53 AM
Liberal myth no. 3, Zerocare will lower the cost of non-group insurance.



Rate Shock: In California, Obamacare To Increase Individual Health Insurance Premiums By 64-146% - Forbes (http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/05/30/rate-shock-in-california-obamacare-to-increase-individual-insurance-premiums-by-64-146/)

Supporters think a possible 146% increase is good news.


New California health insurance rates unveiled - Los Angeles Times (http://articles.latimes.com/2013/may/23/business/la-fi-calif-health-rates-20130524)

That's your side of it, even though you failed to read the article I feel, but you have left off the whole reason for ACA in the first place... the costs of medical care has tremendously increased, the insurance was rising, while covering less, and if you had insurance you were paying for those that don't and ran to the emergency room for everything.

Lets not forget those poor souls that paid premiums for years and found out the insurance wasn't there when they needed it. Ordinary people like YOU that thought they were doing the right things.

Yeah its still going up because the costs are still going up. Ever wonder why? Well find out for yourself. Steven Brill wrote on the subject for Time magazine and you should read it and get more facts to this story than just from the Insurance company, and financiers who profit from your illnesses.

The cost of everything is going UP Speech, but has your paycheck? So stop spouting right wing talking points and study the whole issue for yourself, and read your own links and not just the headlines.

Your conclusions are half baked because you ignore half the facts.

speechlesstx
Jun 5, 2013, 06:43 AM
That's your side of it, even though you failed to read the article I feel, but you have left off the whole reason for ACA in the first place... the costs of medical care has tremendously increased, the insurance was rising, while covering less, and if you had insurance you were paying for those that don't and ran to the emergency room for everything.

Lets not forget those poor souls that paid premiums for years and found out the insurance wasn't there when they needed it. Ordinary people like YOU that thought they were doing the right things.

Yeah its still going up because the costs are still going up. Ever wonder why? Well find out for yourself. Steven Brill wrote on the subject for Time magazine and you should read it and get more facts to this story than just from the Insurance company, and financiers who profit from your illnesses.

The cost of everything is going UP Speech, but has your paycheck? So stop spouting right wing talking points and study the whole issue for yourself, and read your own links and not just the headlines.

Your conclusions are half baked because you ignore half the facts.

My conclusions are half-baked? I made two conclusions: Supporters think a possible 146% increase is good news.


Supporters were upbeat after an initial look at the proposed premiums, while critics remain unimpressed.

"These rates are way below the worst-case gloom-and-doom scenarios we have heard," said Peter Lee, executive director of Covered California, the state agency implementing the healthcare law.

Feel free to explain to the world how my conclusion was "half-baked."

The second was Zerocare will not lower the cost of non-group insurance. The rest of the previous excerpt:


"But let's be clear, some consumers will have prices that go up. There may be some sticker shock."

http://b-i.forbesimg.com/theapothecary/files/2013/06/Calif-rate-shock-graph1.png

Only in the liberal world does "sticker shock" from "prices that go up" mean the cost of non-group insurance plans are decreasing. But hey, I'm not stopping you from living in a world of delusion, but I work with facts.

excon
Jun 5, 2013, 06:45 AM
Hello again, Steve:

I just want to know how much the death panels cost. I'm ready.

excon

speechlesstx
Jun 5, 2013, 06:58 AM
Hello again, Steve:

I just wanna know how much the death panels cost. I'm ready.

excon

It's probably covered, like birth control.

talaniman
Jun 5, 2013, 07:03 AM
You didn't care the prices were high and getting higher before ACA, why are you so upset now? You said nothing of the death panels you paid for then, but all of a sudden you are concerned.

Wake up and pay attention. You conservatives kill me coming late to the party and hollering about the music.

Oh and that's not sand you're burying your head in.

speechlesstx
Jun 5, 2013, 07:23 AM
You didn't care the prices were high and getting higher before ACA, why are you so upset now? You said nothing of the death panels you paid for then, but all of a sudden you are concerned.

Wake up and pay attention. You conservatives kill me coming late to the party and hollering about the music.

Oh and that's not sand you're burying your head in.

Stop the lies, Tal. None of that is true.

tomder55
Jun 18, 2013, 01:29 PM
Liberal myth exposed by Louisiana State Senator Elbert Guillory


Hello, my name is Elbert Lee Guillory, and I'm the senator for the twenty-fourth district right here in beautiful Louisiana. Recently I made what many are referring to as a 'bold decision' to switch my party affiliation to the Republican Party. I wanted to take a moment to explain why I became a Republican, and also to explain why I don't think it was a bold decision at all. It is the right decision — not only for me — but for all my brothers and sisters in the black community.

You see, in recent history the Democrat Party has created the illusion that their agenda and their policies are what's best for black people. Somehow it's been forgotten that the Republican Party was founded in 1854 as an abolitionist movement with one simple creed: that slavery is a violation of the rights of man.

Frederick Douglass called Republicans the 'Party of freedom and progress,' and the first Republican president was Abraham Lincoln, the author of the Emancipation Proclamation. It was the Republicans in Congress who authored the thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth amendments giving former slaves citizenship, voting rights, and due process of law.

The Democrats on the other hand were the Party of Jim Crow. It was Democrats who defended the rights of slave owners. It was the Republican President Dwight Eisenhower who championed the Civil Rights Act of 1957, but it was Democrats in the Senate who filibustered the bill.

You see, at the heart of liberalism is the idea that only a great and powerful big government can be the benefactor of social justice for all Americans. But the left is only concerned with one thing — control. And they disguise this control as charity. Programs such as welfare, food stamps, these programs aren't designed to lift black Americans out of poverty, they were always intended as a mechanism for politicians to control black the black community.

The idea that blacks, or anyone for that matter, need the the government to get ahead in life is despicable. And even more important, this idea is a failure. Our communities are just as poor as they've always been. Our schools continue to fail children. Our prisons are filled with young black men who should be at home being fathers. Our self-initiative and our self-reliance have been sacrificed in exchange for allegiance to our overseers who control us by making us dependent on them. Sometimes I wonder if the word freedom is tossed around so frequently in our society that it has become a cliché.

The idea of freedom is complex and it is all-encompassing. It's the idea that the economy must remain free of government persuasion. It's the idea that the press must operate without government intrusion. And it's the idea that the emails and phone records of Americans should remain free from government search and seizure. It's the idea that parents must be the decision makers in regards to their children's education — not some government bureaucrat.

But most importantly, it is the idea that the individual must be free to pursue his or her own happiness free from government dependence and free from government control. Because to be truly free is to be reliant on no one other than the author of our destiny. These are the ideas at the core of the Republican Party, and it is why I am a Republican.

So my brothers and sisters of the American community, please join with me today in abandoning the government plantation and the Party of disappointment. So that we may all echo the words of one Republican leader who famously said, 'free at last, free at last, thank God Almighty, we are free at last.'
Elbert Guillory: "Why I Am a Republican" - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_YQ8560E1w)

speechlesstx
Jun 18, 2013, 02:19 PM
Liberal myth exposed by Louisiana State Senator Elbert Guillory


Elbert Guillory: "Why I Am a Republican" - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_YQ8560E1w)

Well said. He'll be "lynched" by the left any moment now.

paraclete
Jun 18, 2013, 02:56 PM
He should at least have had the decency to be an independent until he stood as a republican

tomder55
Jun 19, 2013, 04:50 AM
Difficult to survive the electoral process here as an independent... it's possible ,but very difficult.

paraclete
Jun 19, 2013, 06:41 AM
Sure but we are not talking about an electoral process but an elected member who has decided he wants to change allegiences, so the right thing to do is resign and face the electorate

tomder55
Jun 19, 2013, 07:15 AM
Maybe so ,but they don't here . They eventually face the electorate if they even want to run for reelection . But I can't think of a single case when someone resigned after changing party affiliation. This move probably doesn't impact the balance of power in Louisiana . But I can think of 3 recent times when Senators switched and one had a major impact. (btw in 2 cases they switched to independents )

Jim Jeffords served as a 10 year Republic Senator from Vermont ;and then switched in 2001 as President Bush and the new Senate was beginning their term. The Dems seduced him to switch and caucus with the Dems ,giving them the majority in the Senate until the 2002 mid-term elections .(Before that there was a 50-50 tie with VP Cheny being the deciding vote if needed ) So Bush started his term with a divided Congress and the Dems holding the majority in the Senate .

Joe Lieberman switched to independent in 2006 after the Dems of Connecticut primaried him and ran someone else. He ran as an independent and won. But he still caucused with the Dems

Arlen Specter switched from Republic to Dem when it became clear the Republics were not going to run him for reelection (he was going to lose the Pat Toomey in the primary ). He announced he'd run as a Dem ;but lost to Joe Sestak in the Dem primary.

paraclete
Jun 19, 2013, 03:18 PM
Hi Tom they don't resign here either although they rarely switch party allegiance. They become independents. I can't remember a case of a Senator switching but then the way we elect them is different so they have to be deep in the party to be on the ticket. We have the odd case where the big red box has had a sitting Senator disendorced so she can put an indigenous candidate on the ticket. I expect she thinks this is affirmative action. I think it is just cronism. Just one more reason to get rid of this rotten government

talaniman
Jun 19, 2013, 03:45 PM
Vote them out if they are so bad. Unless you are like the republicans here who vote in the local loony's and wonder why they lose the national elections.

paraclete
Jun 19, 2013, 05:11 PM
We will get our chance in September, Tal, unless the Labor Party commits Hari Kari and changes leader, in that case an immediate no confidence vote should bring on an election maybe in August. I think everyone is saying what's the rush at this point unless it is to shorten this abismally long campaign period

speechlesstx
Jun 21, 2013, 07:12 AM
In the category of liberal myths, fracking is bad for the environment. Oh wait, that's science you say? Nah, that libs love science is another myth (see global warming, abortion, etc.) but let's be specific here.


EPA Won't Finalize Wyo. Fracking-Pollution Study (http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/apnewsbreak-epa-confirm-frack-pollution-tie-19450433#.UcRYK9jHbWh)

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has dropped plans to have outside experts review its theory that hydraulic fracturing may have played a role in groundwater pollution in Wyoming, and the agency no longer plans to write a final report on its research that led to the controversial finding a year and a half ago.

Instead, the EPA announced Thursday that state officials will lead further investigation into pollution in the Pavilion area in central Wyoming, including ways to make sure people there have clean drinking water.

"We think this is the most pragmatic, quickest way to help the residents of Pavillion. We're going to work hand in hand with the state to make sure this investigation moves forward," said EPA spokesman Tom Reynolds in Washington, D.C.

Industry officials who have been doubtful about the EPA's findings since they were announced praised the change as confirmation of their view that the science wasn't sound.

"EPA has to do a better job, because another fatally flawed water study could have a big impact on how the nation develops its massive energy resources," Erik Milito, from the Washington, D.C.-based American Petroleum Institute, said in a news release.

EPA officials insisted they're not backing away from their draft report on Pavilion. They said they reserve the right to resume the study and an assessment by independent experts, known as a peer review, at any point.

Even so, EPA efforts to find potential pathways for pollutants from deeper areas where gas is extracted to shallower areas tapped by domestic water wells have been inconclusive.

So what we have here is the EPA, not one to shy away from pursuing predetermined outcomes in spite of the science is refusing to let someone check their research and give us a final answer on it.

Now why would they not want to give us a definitive answer on such an important issue? And don't tell me you really believe that they're just deferring to the state on this.

tomder55
Jun 21, 2013, 08:13 AM
The EPA has been making law by fiat... as an example ,the emperor makes it very clear that he doesn't think he needs any legislation at all to act on carbon taxes since SCOTUS has given him the go ahead to act unilaterally ,by affirming that bs that carbon dioxide is a pollutant.

speechlesstx
Jun 21, 2013, 09:37 AM
The EPA has been making law by fiat... as an example ,the emperor makes it very clear that he doesn't think he needs any legislation at all to act on carbon taxes since SCOTUS has given him the go ahead to act unilaterally ,by affirming that bs that carbon dioxide is a pollutant.

Funny you should mention that. In light of the continuing revelations that the "settled science" isn't settled at all and the alarmists are in near panic (http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2013/06/climate-change) over the potential damage to their agenda, Obama said in Berlin that climate change is the “global threat of our time”... while the most transparent administration ever tried to pull a fast one on us at home.


GOP senators slam ‘significant change’ to carbon costs

Senate Republicans say they are “troubled” by the Obama administration's move to increase the economic benefits of carbon regulations and fear the new formula will be used to justify climate change rules.

The administration quietly raised the figure for the "social cost" of carbon — which assigns a monetary value to health, property and other damage associated with carbon pollution — in May to $36 per ton of carbon dioxide emitted, up from $22. Officials cited new information on extreme weather and rising sea-levels as among the reasons for the change.

GOP members of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee said the increase should have been debated thoroughly in public before being implemented.

“This is a significant change to an already highly controversial estimate, and as such requires transparency, open debate, and an adherence to well-understood and previously agreed-upon rules,” the GOP senators, led by committee ranking member David Vitter (R-La.), wrote in a letter to the Energy Department, White House Office of Management and Budget and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

The GOP senators requested responses on the process behind revising the social cost of carbon by July 2.

The updated cost estimate, in essence, increases the benefits of potential carbon regulations, and comes as President Obama is ready to undertake more ambitious climate measures.

Read more: GOP senators slam (http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/306645-gop-senators-slam-significant-change-to-social-cost-of-carbon#ixzz2WrxHvytw)


By hook or by crook...

talaniman
Jun 21, 2013, 09:43 AM
In the category of liberal myths, fracking is bad for the environment. Oh wait, that's science you say? Nah, that libs love science is another myth (see global warming, abortion, etc.) but let's be specific here.



So what we have here is the EPA, not one to shy away from pursuing predetermined outcomes in spite of the science is refusing to let someone check their research and give us a final answer on it.

Now why would they not want to give us a definitive answer on such an important issue? And don't tell me you really believe that they're just deferring to the state on this.

Its consistent with other investigations into contaminated water and land in other states, and a good example is in Michigan where they had a pipe rupture that has contaminated land and water and entire neighborhoods and the states attorney has ordered an independent review into not only the rupture but the clean up efforts all paid for by the oil company.

Local authorities and governments have a vested interest in keeping a close watch on things as the frakking issue has more glitches in more areas than have previously been reported in other place like Ohio, Pennsylvania, and New York.

And hurry and build that pipeline to Texas, and HOPE they don't mess up like the Canadians did. The science and technology is far from perfected and safe as it should be.

tomder55
Jun 21, 2013, 09:58 AM
Bottom line is that energy from fracking and the continued development of methane hydrate.. the world's largest and cleanest source of hydrocarbon energy will make us energy independent for the next century . Maybe by then the greenies can work out the many kinks in the development of those renewables .

talaniman
Jun 21, 2013, 10:13 AM
I think better casing technology should be a priority. Those oil pipe line buried in the earth disturbs me more than a bit also.

speechlesstx
Jun 22, 2013, 04:58 AM
Speaking of energy, the senate has joined the house in a bipartisan effort to repeal the renewable fuel standards act, hopefully putting an end to the mythical benefits of ethanol.

tomder55
Jun 22, 2013, 05:18 AM
About time ! That was a no brainer !

speechlesstx
Jul 19, 2013, 09:14 AM
After abandoning a previous study, mentioned here earlier, preliminary results from another federal study are in...


Study finds fracking chemicals didn't pollute water: AP (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57594498/study-finds-fracking-chemicals-didnt-pollute-water-ap/)

A landmark federal study on hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, shows no evidence that chemicals from the natural gas drilling process moved up to contaminate drinking water aquifers at a western Pennsylvania drilling site, the Department of Energy told The Associated Press.

After a year of monitoring, the researchers found that the chemical-laced fluids used to free gas trapped deep below the surface stayed thousands of feet below the shallower areas that supply drinking water, geologist Richard Hammack said.

Although the results are preliminary -- the study is still ongoing -- they are a boost to a natural gas industry that has fought complaints from environmental groups and property owners who call fracking dangerous.

So, try as they may study after study keeps vindicating the producers. We have massive stockpiles of clean natural gas, whose increased use has a direct connection to lower carbon emissions and your water isn't going to become a flame thrower in spite of some jerk's film hoax. What are waiting for?

NeedKarma
Jul 19, 2013, 09:19 AM
What are waiting for?Don't know. Seems like a no-brainer.

talaniman
Jul 19, 2013, 10:00 AM
Fracking depends on the extractors having safeguards in place to solve the problems of casing and transmission lines failures, and leaks in aquifers that contaminate rural drinking water. For the EPA's part, they are exchanging litigations in court for agreements to test, evaluate, and remedy the situation. That's a good move so far.

You can pursue new energy sources safely, and responsibly. Lets not forget the lessons of big oil, and Exxon Valdez, and the BP gulf spill.

tomder55
Jul 19, 2013, 10:38 AM
Lets not forget the lessons of big oil, and Exxon Valdez, and the BP gulf spill.
Shiite happens even with regulations in place ?


[I]"If I had a city it would look like Detroit"
(Emperor Zero)

speechlesstx
Jul 19, 2013, 11:02 AM
shiite happens even with regulations in place ?


[I]"If I had a city it would look like Detroit"
(Emperor Zero)

I knew Zero and Detroit had something in common.

Detroit goes bankrupt, largest municipal filing in U.S. history (http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/2013/07/18/a8db3f0e-efe6-11e2-bed3-b9b6fe264871_story.html?clsrd)

talaniman
Jul 19, 2013, 11:19 AM
Lose more than half your population and see where YOUR city goes. Detroit is the tip off the iceberg for financially strapped cities.

NeedKarma
Jul 19, 2013, 11:24 AM
Detroit isn't alone. The U.S. cities that have gone bankrupt, in one map (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/07/18/detroit-isnt-alone-the-u-s-cities-that-have-gone-bankrupt-in-one-map/)

Lotsa cities in blue states... most are in <gasp> Texas!

talaniman
Jul 19, 2013, 11:34 AM
Zoom out on the map and get a clearer picture of the locations.

speechlesstx
Jul 19, 2013, 11:59 AM
Detroit isn’t alone. The U.S. cities that have gone bankrupt, in one map (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/07/18/detroit-isnt-alone-the-u-s-cities-that-have-gone-bankrupt-in-one-map/)

Lotsa cities in blue states...most are in <gasp> Texas!

Not much on geography or math, eh?

Texas is not a blue state and two filings is not "most". One was Grimes county which I know nothing about and the other was Hardeman County Hospital in Quanah. I have an aunt there among the 2,642 residents. Hard to maintain a hospital in an area as sparse as Hardeman county.

speechlesstx
Aug 5, 2013, 02:30 PM
So, the "gun show loophole" didn't take root so it's on to plan B, with another myth... the "internet loophole."


New study finds vast online marketplace for guns without background checks
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/new-study-finds-vast-online-marketplace-for-guns-without-background-checks/2013/08/05/19809198-fd73-11e2-9711-3708310f6f4d_story.html?hpid=z2)
By Philip Rucker, Updated: Monday, August 5, 6:00 AM E-mail the writer

The marketplace for firearms on the Internet, where buyers are not required to undergo background checks, is so vast that advocates for stricter regulations now consider online sales a greater threat than the gun show loophole.

A new study by Third Way , a centrist think tank with close ties to the Obama administration, found that thousands of guns, including so-called assault weapons, are for sale online and that many prospective buyers were shopping online specifically to avoid background checks.

There is no "internet loophole."

Ace (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ace_of_Spades_HQ) sums it up (http://ace.mu.nu/archives/342254.php#342254)...


Oh, my aching head. If you buy from an FFL or out-of-state seller over the Internet, you have to undergo a background check. If you buy from an in-state private seller, you don't. How f'ing hard is this?

OK you lefty squeal and repealers, over to you.

NeedKarma
Aug 6, 2013, 03:58 AM
I can see why you like "Ace". His posts are right up your alley. I see many of your talking points there.

speechlesstx
Aug 6, 2013, 06:48 AM
I can see why you like "Ace". His posts are right up your alley. I see many of your talking points there.

Yeah, I love Ace, he doesn't take any crap either but I've cited him what, twice? Here's the thing is he right or wrong?

talaniman
Aug 6, 2013, 07:00 AM
He is half right because law abiding citizens will obey the law and abide by rules and procedures. Sadly many do not and they are the very ones who cause the rest of us problems. It's complex and tough to balance freedom, rights, and safety. No doubt.

speechlesstx
Aug 6, 2013, 07:03 AM
He is half right because law abiding citizens will obey the law and abide by rules and procedures. Sadly many do not and they are the very ones who cause the rest of us problems. It's complex and tough to balance freedom, rights, and safety. No doubt.

The issue is the truth. There is no "internet loophole."

excon
Aug 6, 2013, 07:12 AM
Hello again, Steve:

The issue is the truth. There is no "internet loophole.I'm not going to look, but were you denying that there's a gun SHOW loophole? If you were, then there's probably an internet loophole big enough to drive a truck through..

Excon

speechlesstx
Aug 6, 2013, 07:56 AM
There is no gun show loophole, in state private transactions are generally LEGAL.

talaniman
Aug 6, 2013, 08:41 AM
Are you ignoring the dishonest criminal element of our society that exploits and MAKES loopholes? Generally legal??

Crazy people don't care about generally legal!

excon
Aug 6, 2013, 08:58 AM
Hello again, tal:

We must remember, that right wingers LOVE their guns so much, and HATE background checks so much, that they're willing to let the criminal element get as MANY GUNS as they WANT... And THEY WANT PLENTY!

Why right wingers twist themselves into knots to support them, is a mystery for all time.

excon

NeedKarma
Aug 6, 2013, 09:19 AM
I don't understand: what's preventing people from frequenting buy/sell firearms websites/forums and exchanging guns for money?

speechlesstx
Aug 6, 2013, 09:29 AM
Are you ignoring the dishonest criminal element of our society that exploits and MAKES loopholes? Generally legal??

Crazy people don't care about generally legal!
Today 09:56 AM

Crazy criminals don't care about legality at all.

You aren't going after the "dishonest criminal element", you're trying to make it harder for honest citizens to exercise their constitutional rights and the anti-gun zealots are lying about it (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/new-study-finds-vast-online-marketplace-for-guns-without-background-checks/2013/08/05/19809198-fd73-11e2-9711-3708310f6f4d_story.html) with Obama as the liar-in-chief (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/obamas-continued-use-of-the-claim-that-40-percent-of-gun-sales-lack-background-checks/2013/04/01/002e06ce-9b0f-11e2-a941-a19bce7af755_blog.html). You've fear mongered about a mythical "gun show loophole" for years and now your side is squealing about a mythical "internet loophole".


We must remember, that right wingers LOVE their guns so much, and HATE background checks so much, that they're willing to let the criminal element get as MANY GUNS as they WANT... And THEY WANT PLENTY!

Why right wingers twist themselves into knots to support them, is a mystery for all time.

You wingers love killing babies so much you can't even support an abortion ban after 20 weeks or clean, regulated clinics for the poor women you send there. Talk about getting twisted into knots...

If you want to have an honest discussion let's have an honest discussion, but stop making sh*t up to try and scare people into thinking you can just go to eBay and buy bazookas all day without a background check.

excon
Aug 6, 2013, 10:17 AM
Hello again, Steve:

There's no voter fraud, except the cops that cheated HERE (http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20130805/NEWS/308050019/Officers-used-police-station-addresses-for-voting).. Trap laws are passed for the health of women, and you believe exconvicts like ME would rather shop in the hood for a gun..

Want to hear another one? Bwa, ha ha ha ha...

excon

speechlesstx
Aug 6, 2013, 11:08 AM
A "loophole" is an ambiguity or omission that allows you to legally evade the law. There are no "loopholes" in the law, only in your mind. But go ahead, show us how easy it is for you to buy a bazooka on the internet.

Tuttyd
Aug 6, 2013, 03:34 PM
Yeah, I love Ace, he doesn't take any crap either but I've cited him what, twice? Here's the thing is he right or wrong?

Probably right the second time. I pointed pout where he was wrong the first time.

speechlesstx
Aug 6, 2013, 05:18 PM
So there is no Internet loophole.

NeedKarma
Aug 7, 2013, 03:25 AM
Ah, so it's just a game of semantics then.

Tuttyd
Aug 7, 2013, 03:36 AM
So there is no Internet loophole.


Are you responding to my comment about Ace? The only reason I ask this is because your comment comes after my post.

speechlesstx
Aug 7, 2013, 05:39 AM
Ah, so it's just a game of semantics then.

It's a matter of facts.

talaniman
Aug 7, 2013, 06:00 AM
Its extremism. And profound distrust of anything they cannot control.

speechlesstx
Aug 7, 2013, 06:24 AM
Its extremism. And profound distrust of anything they cannot control.

You are absolutely right. You can't control gun owners so in your extremism you try and scare the country about mythical "gun show loopholes" and "internet loopholes," and throwing out numbers from before the Brady Act (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/obamas-continued-use-of-the-claim-that-40-percent-of-gun-sales-lack-background-checks/2013/04/01/002e06ce-9b0f-11e2-a941-a19bce7af755_blog.html) from a survey of a whopping 251 people to prove your point.

Yes sir, that's extremism and a profound distrust of anything you can't control. It also applies to most of your other views.

talaniman
Aug 7, 2013, 07:03 AM
LOL, while you ignore the killing of the innocent.

speechlesstx
Aug 7, 2013, 07:21 AM
LOL, while you ignore the killing of the innocent.

SMH, there's only one side (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/3520681-post441.html) in all of these debates that ignores killing the innocent and it isn't from the right.



I don't give a rat's arse what you do, but I'll fight for the right to life for babies, the most innocent, helpless human life, to my dying breath. I'm not one bit ashamed of that. I'd be ashamed to support infanticide as you do.