PDA

View Full Version : Fracking: Sink Water Catches Fire



Gayle in MD
11-09-2010, 07:49 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJFj7a7MuNA&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U01EK76Sy4A

Another example of Republilcan policies, destroying the environment.

Thanks Bush.

pooltchr
11-09-2010, 08:21 AM
Your "firewater" video is quite impressive, although if you had done your research, you would know that government policies had nothing to do with this particular situation. It was, in fact, a case of old and deteriorating gas lines that were leaking.

I suppose in addition to banning oil exploration, you are now going to suggest that we get rid of natural gas?????

Steve

Gayle in MD
11-09-2010, 10:10 AM
New Yorkers taking a stand against Hydraulic Fracking.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7rO9UqJCmhw&feature=pyv&ad=5063798513&kw=fracking


Thanks Dick: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PRZ4LQSonXA


Good for New Yorkers, but it will impact water quality in Pennsylvania and Delaware. More Cancer causing chemicals, in our drinking water.

Thanks to Republican policies of deregulation.
/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/frown.gif
G.

pooltchr
11-09-2010, 10:29 AM
I'm so glad to see that the left refuses to use scare tactics to promote their agenda.

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

Steve

wolfdancer
11-09-2010, 12:49 PM
It just goes to show how much technology has evolved!!!
We used to put out fires with water....and now, using water only, we can start them.
Think of the energy savings....you will be able to heat your house, using tap water!!!

Gayle in MD
11-09-2010, 12:56 PM
Is there anything in nature that Republicans value? Anything at all, they won't either blow up, or muck up, to get another dollar in their pockets?

Then they whine about our children's futures, as is they give a damn about our children's futures.

Their long history of environmental destruction, is reason enough not to ever vote for one of them, unless he or she would run with a sated commitment, to go after their own, for all of the environmental damages they have ushered in for decades.

I honestly don't understand how people can vote for them. If their lips are moving, they're lying.



G.

wolfdancer
11-09-2010, 01:20 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If their lips are moving, they're lying. </div></div> /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif
I believe that nobody really wants to harm the environment, but for political expediency, they put any environmental concerns on the back burner.....(hopefully no where near the water)
Any long term pollution concerns, are not allowed to supersede their "drill baby, drill" platform.
If you want to keep up with the Jones, who would you prefer to vote for....the party that wants you to cut back on your energy usage, or the one that tells you to "use it, or lose it"

Deeman3
11-09-2010, 04:02 PM
Yes, even dyed in the wool conservatives don't like dirty water and it sounds like The Doors singing, Light my Water, Light my Water, might just not have the same zing! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

I have always said the owner of any industrial plant should be willing to live directly downstreem from the plant water discharge. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif That would consolidate positions pertty quickly.

LWW
11-09-2010, 06:10 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">New Yorkers taking a stand against Hydraulic Fracking.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7rO9UqJCmhw&feature=pyv&ad=5063798513&kw=fracking


Thanks Dick: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PRZ4LQSonXA


Good for New Yorkers, but it will impact water quality in Pennsylvania and Delaware. More Cancer causing chemicals, in our drinking water.

Thanks to Republican policies of deregulation.
/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/frown.gif
G. </div></div>

How are republicans responsible for environmental problems in a state that has been dominated politically by democrooks for over fifty years?

LWW

sack316
11-09-2010, 07:18 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">New Yorkers taking a stand against Hydraulic Fracking.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7rO9UqJCmhw&feature=pyv&ad=5063798513&kw=fracking


Thanks Dick: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PRZ4LQSonXA


Good for New Yorkers, but it will impact water quality in Pennsylvania and Delaware. More Cancer causing chemicals, in our drinking water.

Thanks to Republican policies of deregulation.
/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/frown.gif
G. </div></div>

How are republicans responsible for environmental problems in a state that has been dominated politically by democrooks for over fifty years?

LWW </div></div>

Because "Fracking" was exempted from regulation in the Energy Policy Act of 2005. (I haven't watched the videos in this thread yet, but saw the 'report' on Countdown the other night, and will assume the argument is the same here)

What is failed to be mentioned here is that many Democrats voted for this bill as well. Including <u><span style='font-size: 14pt'>Barack Obama, who voted in favor of it twice.</span></u>

Sack

Sev
11-09-2010, 07:22 PM
Oh oh!!! BO!!!!

Sev
11-09-2010, 07:24 PM
Pathetic.

sack316
11-09-2010, 07:24 PM
I know, right? Surely he'll be held accountable for this provision being in that bill as well.... right?.............right?

Sack

Gayle in MD
11-09-2010, 07:36 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">New Yorkers taking a stand against Hydraulic Fracking.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7rO9UqJCmhw&feature=pyv&ad=5063798513&kw=fracking


Thanks Dick: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PRZ4LQSonXA


Good for New Yorkers, but it will impact water quality in Pennsylvania and Delaware. More Cancer causing chemicals, in our drinking water.

Thanks to Republican policies of deregulation.
/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/frown.gif
G. </div></div>

How are republicans responsible for environmental problems in a state that has been dominated politically by democrooks for over fifty years?

LWW </div></div>

Because "Fracking" was exempted from regulation in the Energy Policy Act of 2005. (I haven't watched the videos in this thread yet, but saw the 'report' on Countdown the other night, and will assume the argument is the same here)

What is failed to be mentioned here is that many Democrats voted for this bill as well. Including <u><span style='font-size: 14pt'>Barack Obama, who voted in favor of it twice.</span></u>

Sack </div></div>

Sack,

Watch the Video's...

G.

Sev
11-09-2010, 07:39 PM
What Gayle? Your boy voted for it. Where is the outrage.

sack316
11-09-2010, 07:42 PM
I watched 'em now.

In regards to fracking (the subject title of this thread), those videos change nothing. It was still the Energy Policy Act of 2005 that exempted fracking from federal regulation. Obama still voted in favor of it twice.

Sack

sack316
11-09-2010, 08:06 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U01EK76Sy4A

</div></div>

Something just hit me about this video with the water catching fire! Fire means combustion! Ladies and gentlemen, I think we have found our first cheap and readily available alternative fuel source!

Sack

Gayle in MD
11-09-2010, 08:15 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I watched 'em now.

In regards to fracking (the subject title of this thread), those videos change nothing. It was still the Energy Policy Act of 2005 that exempted fracking from federal regulation. Obama still voted in favor of it twice.

Sack </div></div>



June 9, 2009 Press Release by Senator Robert P. Casey, Jr.

WASHINGTON, DC– U.S. Senator Bob Casey (D-PA) joined U.S. Reps. Diana DeGette (D-CO), Maurice Hinchey (D-NY) and Jared Polis (D-CO) today to introduce companion Senate and House bills, the FRAC Act -- Fracturing Responsibility and Awareness of Chemicals Act, amending the Safe Drinking Water Act. The legislation would repeal a Bush administration exemption provided for the oil and gas industry and would require them to disclose the chemicals they use in their hydraulic fracturing processes. Currently, the oil and gas industry is the only industry granted an exemption from complying with the Safe Drinking Water Act.

“Drilling for natural gas in the Marcellus Shale across much of Pennsylvania is part of our future,” said Senator Casey. “I believe that we have an obligation to develop that natural gas responsibly to safeguard the drinking water wells used by 3 million Pennsylvanians. We already have private wells contaminated by gas and fluids used in hydraulic fracturing. We need to make sure that this doesn’t become a state-wide problem over the next few decades as we extract natural gas.”

Hydraulic fracturing – also known as “fracking”, which is used in almost all oil and gas wells, is a process whereby fluids are injected at high pressure into underground rock formations to blast them open and increase the flow of fossil fuels. Fracking is used in areas of Pennsylvania where natural gas is being drilled from Marcellus Shale.

This injection of unknown and potentially toxic chemicals often occurs near drinking water wells. Three million Pennsylvanians are dependent on private wells for water. Troubling incidents have occurred around the country where people became ill after fracking operations began in their communities. Some chemicals that are known to have been used in fracking include diesel fuel, benzene, industrial solvents and other carcinogens and endocrine disrupters.

Regulating hydraulic fracturing under the Safe Drinking Water Act as done with the FRAC Act has been endorsed by 14 environmental organizations in Pennsylvania including: PennFuture; the Mountain Watershed Association and the Pennsylvania Forest Coaltion.

“When it comes to protecting the public’s health, it’s not unreasonable to require these companies to disclose the chemicals they are using in our communities – especially near our water sources,” said U.S. Rep. DeGette, Vice Chair of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. “Our bill simply closes an unconscionable Bush-Cheney loophole by requiring the oil and gas industry to follow the same rules as everyone else.”
<span style='font-size: 17pt'>
“It's time to fix an unfortunate chapter in the Bush administration's energy policy and close the 'Halliburton loophole' that has enabled energy companies to pump enormous amounts of toxins, such as benzene and toluene, into the ground that then jeopardize the quality of our drinking water,” U.S. Rep. Hinchey, Member of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior and the Environment and Member of the House Natural Resources Committee, said. “Our legislation says everyone deserves to have safe drinking water by ensuring that hydraulic fracturing is subject to the protections afforded by the Safe Drinking Water Act. The bill also lifts the veil of secrecy currently shrouding this industry practice.”</span>“Families, communities, and local governments are upset that the safety of their water has been compromised by a special interest exemption, and we join them in that frustration,” said U.S. Rep. Polis. “It is irresponsible to stand by while innocent people are getting sick because of an industry exemption that Dick Cheney snuck in to our nation’s energy policy. Many new sources of energy, including natural gas, will play an important role in our nation’s transition to cleaner fuels, but we must make sure this isn’t at the expense of public health. The problem is not natural gas or even hydraulic fracturing itself. The problem is that dangerous chemicals are being injected into the earth, polluting our water sources, without any oversight whatsoever.”



Full text of Senator Casey’s statement for the record follows.


Statement for the Record
Introduction of the Fracturing Responsibility and Awareness of Chemicals (FRAC) Act
June 9, 2009

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Fracturing Responsibility and Awareness of Chemicals (FRAC) Act along with my colleague, Senator Schumer, that protects drinking water and public health from the risks associated with an oil and gas extraction process called hydraulic fracturing. Specifically, our bill does two things. First, it repeals an exemption to the Safe Drinking Water Act that was granted to oil and gas companies four years ago. Second, it requires oil and gas companies to publicly disclose the chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing.

The regulation of hydraulic fracturing under the Safe Drinking Water Act is supported by 77 groups, including 14 groups from Pennsylvania.

The oil and gas industry uses hydraulic fracturing in 90 percent of wells. The process, which is also called “fracking,” involves injecting tens of thousands of gallons of water mixed with sand and chemical additives deep into the rock under extremely high pressure. The pressure breaks open the rock releasing trapped natural gas, which is then captured. Fracking often occurs near underground sources of drinking water. Unfortunately, a provision included in the 2005 Energy Policy Act exempted hydraulic fracturing from compliance with the Safe Drinking Water Act. The oil and gas industry is the only industry to have this exemption.

The Casey-Schumer legislation is extremely important to people living in Pennsylvania, especially those living in communities along a geological formation called the Marcellus Shale. The Marcellus is a geological formation covering 34 million acres extending from southern New York, through central and western Pennsylvania, into the eastern half of Ohio and across most of West Virginia. The deepest layer of the Marcellus formation – the Marcellus Shale – contains a significant amount of natural gas trapped in deep rock formations up to 9,000 feet below ground. Last year, a professor at Penn State estimated that there was 168 million cubic feet of natural gas in the Marcellus Shale. In the industry it’s what is known as a “Super Giant gas field.” It is enough natural gas to provide for the entire country for 7 years. This vast amount of natural gas combined with a more complete knowledge of the natural fractures in the Marcellus Shale through which the gas can be easily extracted, has led to what Pennsylvanians are calling a gas rush.

As I’ve mentioned, fracking involves injecting water mixed with chemicals. My major concern is that the chemicals added to the water to create fracking fluids are highly toxic. We’re talking about chemicals like formaldehyde, benzene, and toluene. These chemicals are injected right below underground drinking water. This is especially important to Pennsylvania because our state has the second highest number of private wells for drinking water in the nation, second only to Michigan. Three million Pennsylvanians are dependent on private wells to provide safe drinking water to their homes. So massive drilling to get to the natural gas in the Marcellus Shale is not required to comply with the Safe Drinking Water Act, but drilling is happening right next to drinking water supplies. You can see why Pennsylvanians are concerned about their future access to safe drinking water.

Now, the oil and gas industry would have you believe that there is no threat to drinking water from hydraulic fracturing. But the fact is we are already seeing cases in Pennsylvania, Colorado, Virginia, West Virginia, Alabama, Wyoming, Ohio, Arkansas, Utah, Texas, and New Mexico where residents have become ill or groundwater has become contaminated after hydraulic fracturing operations began in the area. This is not simply anecdotal evidence; scientists have found enough evidence to raise concerns as well. In a recent letter supporting our bill, 23 health professionals and scientists wrote the following:

“…Oil and gas operations are known to release substances into the environment that are known to be very hazardous to human health, including benzene, arsenic, mercury, hydrogen sulfide, and radioactive materials. The demonstrated health effects caused by these substances include cancers, central nervous system damage, skin and eye irritation, and lung diseases. For example, fluids used in the hydraulic fracturing process may contain toxic chemicals such as 2-butoxyethanol, formaldehyde, sodium hydroxide, glycol ethers, and naphthalene. For these reasons, we support regulation of hydraulic fracturing under the Safe Drinking Water Act and the disclosure of all chemical constituents in hydraulic fracturing fluids to public agencies, including the disclosure of constituent formulas in cases of medical need. Moreover, we support full regulation of stormwater runoff, which can pollute drinking water supplies, under the Clean Water Act.

There are growing reports of individuals living near oil and gas operations who suffer illnesses that are linked to these activities, yet there has been no systemic attempt to gather the necessary data, establish appropriate monitoring, analyze health exposure or assess risk related to any of these activities. This should be done, in addition to full Health Impact Assessments to inform future planning and policy efforts.”

In Dimock, Pennsylvania, we have a recent example of the risks involved with hydraulic fracturing. On New Year’s Day, Norma Fiorentino’s drinking water well exploded. It literally blew up. Stray methane leaked and migrated upward through the rock and into the aquifer as natural gas deposits were drilled nearby. An investigation by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania shows that a spark created when the pump in the well house turned on may have led to the explosion. The blast cracked in half the several-thousand-pound concrete slab at the drilling pad on Ms. Fiorentino’s property and tossed it aside. Fortunately, no one was hurt in the explosion. But throughout the town, several drinking water wells have exploded and nine wells have been found to contain so much natural gas that one homeowner was advised to open a window if he plans to take a bath. Tests of the well water show high amounts of aluminum and iron, which leads researchers to believe that drilling fluids are contaminating the water along with the gas. So this is a really concern. We are talking about serious implications if we don’t develop the Marcellus Shale carefully and responsibly.

I would point out that Pennsylvania has a long history of developing our natural resources to power the region and the nation. In fact, Pennsylvania is home to the Drake Well near Titusville, Pennsylvania, which celebrates its 150th anniversary this year. The Drake Well was the first commercial oil well in the United States and it launched the modern petroleum industry. In addition to oil, Western Pennsylvania has long produced natural gas. Pennsylvania has also mines coal which we use to provide electricity to many of our neighboring states. Pennsylvanians are proud of the contributions we have made to the growth of our nation. Contributions that were made because we developed our abundant natural resources. But we also bear the burden of some environmental legacies, most created in previous generations when we weren’t as concerned with responsible development. We have old natural gas wells that were not capped and leak methane into homes in Versailles, Pennsylvania. We have acid mine drainage that we spend millions of dollars every year to try and remediate. These examples are the lessons from which we need to learn.

Pennsylvania will develop the natural gas in the Marcellus Shale. We are doing it right now, and we will see more drilling over the next few years. But we must develop the Marcellus Shale using the best environmental practices to protect our communities and our state. That is why I am introducing the Fracturing Responsibility and Awareness of Chemicals (FRAC) Act. This legislation will ensure that hydraulic fracturing does not unnecessarily jeopardize our groundwater. There are affordable alternatives that oil and gas companies can use so that they are not risking contaminating drinking water wells with potentially hazardous chemicals.

I think Norma Fiorentino from Dimock, Pennsylvania summed it up best when she told a reporter, “You can’t buy a good well.”

So I urge all of my colleagues to support this legislation and ensure that our groundwater is protected as we responsibly develop our natural resources.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of my legislation be included in the record following my remarks.

Thank you.
http://www.marcellus-shale.us/The-FRAC-Act.htm

sack316
11-09-2010, 08:21 PM
I could be wrong, but couldn't the states regulate it themselves anyway? I know the act exempts it from Federal regulation, but what's to stop the states from taking action themselves?

I mean, I do hope they get some help from the Federal Government (and our President who voted FOR it twice) in regulating this method of extraction... but am I wrong in thinking the states could take action themselves in the mean time to protect themselves?

Sack

Gayle in MD
11-09-2010, 08:39 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I could be wrong, but couldn't the states regulate it themselves anyway? I know the act exempts it from Federal regulation, but what's to stop the states from taking action themselves?

I mean, I do hope they get some help from the Federal Government (and our President who voted FOR it twice) in regulating this method of extraction... but am I wrong in thinking the states could take action themselves in the mean time to protect themselves?

Sack </div></div>

Sack,
You can cut the Obama bashing. The Bush/cheney administration created the protections of secrecy, which allowed the covered up, and removed the Requirement for the energy companies who practied fracking, to reveal the truth about the chemicals they were using, as a result of the Bush/Cheney secret energy meetings.

The dangers of Fracking have only recently been uncovered, as states have done their own studies.

Most of the revelations of dangerous chemicals being used, and water pollution, have come about SINCE 2005.

There are various states, doing their own studies, now, and also suspending "Fracking" until studies are complete.

If you do some research, you will learn for yourself, that Cheney was instrumental in laying the groundwork for the coverup by the industry, which allowed them to deny access to discovery of exactly what chemicals were being used.

G.

sack316
11-09-2010, 08:49 PM
I'm not bashing him, just stating that he also voted in support of this bill twice.

Sack

Gayle in MD
11-09-2010, 08:59 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'm not bashing him, just stating that he also voted in support of this bill twice.

Sack
</div></div>

And I'm just adding that at the time he did so, the dangers of the practiice had been protected and kept secret, by the Cheney secret energy meetings.

G.

Deeman3
11-09-2010, 09:07 PM
Sack,

Then hebwill be roundly blasted by the left. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif It is al a matter of party, not votes!

Apparently, the only non helpless people in this was Bush and Cheney. Why do we bother to read this stuff?

Remember the difference in Bush rendition and Obama rendition? R or D

Gayle in MD
11-09-2010, 09:20 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Deeman3</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Sack,

Then hebwill be roundly blasted by the left. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif It is al a matter of party, not votes!

Apparently, the only non helpless people in this was Bush and Cheney. Why do we bother to read this stuff?

Remember the difference in Bush rendition and Obama rendition? R or D

</div></div>

If you're aiming that at me, you're wrong. You seem to be spending the bulk of your time recently, trying to prove me a hypocrite.

I would think you'd still be celebrating your victory, instead of wasting time bashing me non stop.

For the record, since you probably don't usualy thoroughly read my posts....

I am against secret rendition. I'm against torture. I'm against homophobic Gay Bashing and hate crimes. I'm against racism. I'm against war. I'm against those who are against a woman's right to control her own body, and I am against misogeny....

Is there any proof that the Obama administration engages in rendition?

If so, I'm against it.

G.

sack316
11-09-2010, 10:47 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

Is there any proof that the Obama administration engages in rendition?

If so, I'm against it.

G. </div></div>

Yes, quite a few articles about it around the net. NY Times and UK's Guardian seem to have a lot about it.

Sack

sack316
11-09-2010, 10:52 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'm not bashing him, just stating that he also voted in support of this bill twice.

Sack
</div></div>

And I'm just adding that at the time he did so, the dangers of the practiice had been protected and kept secret, by the Cheney secret energy meetings.

G. </div></div>

Well if I'm bashing him, then so was Hillary... as she made his votes on the bill an issue in the 2008 primary, if you'll recall.

Sack

Gayle in MD
11-09-2010, 11:22 PM
Let me ask you a question, Sack.
Which party is most likely to prevent this:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">As I’ve mentioned, fracking involves injecting water mixed with chemicals. My major concern is that the chemicals added to the water to create fracking fluids are highly toxic. We’re talking about chemicals like formaldehyde, benzene, and toluene. These chemicals are injected right below underground drinking water. This is especially important to Pennsylvania because our state has the second highest number of private wells for drinking water in the nation, second only to Michigan. Three million Pennsylvanians are dependent on private wells to provide safe drinking water to their homes. So massive drilling to get to the natural gas in the Marcellus Shale is not required to comply with the Safe Drinking Water Act, but drilling is happening right next to drinking water supplies. You can see why Pennsylvanians are concerned about their future access to safe drinking water.

Now, the oil and gas industry would have you believe that there is no threat to drinking water from hydraulic fracturing. But the fact is we are already seeing cases in Pennsylvania, Colorado, Virginia, West Virginia, Alabama, Wyoming, Ohio, Arkansas, Utah, Texas, and New Mexico where residents have become ill or groundwater has become contaminated after hydraulic fracturing operations began in the area. This is not simply anecdotal evidence; scientists have found enough evidence to raise concerns as well. In a recent letter supporting our bill, 23 health professionals and scientists wrote the following:

“…Oil and gas operations are known to release substances into the environment that are known to be very hazardous to human health, including benzene, arsenic, mercury, hydrogen sulfide, and radioactive materials. The demonstrated health effects caused by these substances include cancers, central nervous system damage, skin and eye irritation, and lung diseases. For example, fluids used in the hydraulic fracturing process may contain toxic chemicals such as 2-butoxyethanol, formaldehyde, sodium hydroxide, glycol ethers, and naphthalene. For these reasons, we support regulation of hydraulic fracturing under the Safe Drinking Water Act and the disclosure of all chemical constituents in hydraulic fracturing fluids to public agencies, including the disclosure of constituent formulas in cases of medical need. Moreover, we support full regulation of stormwater runoff, which can pollute drinking water supplies, under the Clean Water Act.

There are growing reports of individuals living near oil and gas operations who suffer illnesses that are linked to these activities, yet there has been no systemic attempt to gather the necessary data, establish appropriate monitoring, analyze health exposure or assess risk related to any of these activities. This should be done, in addition to full Health Impact Assessments to inform future planning and policy efforts.”

</div></div>

Be honest.

G.

Gayle in MD
11-10-2010, 02:40 AM
This was a loophole, by Cheney....shoved into the bill at the last minute.

Here is more on the whole issue....and there are a whole list of articles on Huff, including one about Cheney/Bush's own investments in certain coming fracking locations.
<span style='font-size: 14pt'>Americans should be able to drink what comes out of their taps without worrying that it will make them sick. So why would anyone insert a loophole into the Safe Drinking Water Act that subverts that basic right?

If you can't guess the answer, a quick history refresher should tip you off.

In 2005, Congress passed an Energy Act that included (thanks to meddling by former Halliburton CEO Dick Cheney) an exemption for hydraulic fracturing (fracking) from the protections of the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Clean Water Act, and the Clean Air Act. It's called the "Halliburton loophole" and it's a whopper.

Fracking, which I wrote about in August, involves injecting a pressurized mix of water, sand, and highly toxic chemicals directly into gas-rich shale formations. <span style='font-size: 14pt'>If you combine fracking with horizontal drilling (something that Halliburton pioneered shortly before getting its loophole), you can get exponentially more gas from shale formations, which means exponentially more profit. The U.S. has some very, very big shale formations so, even by Halliburton standards, we're talking about a lot of money.</span>Back in 2005, the industry argued that fracking was so safe and so harmless, that regulation simply wasn't necessary. It's hard to imagine they really believed it. Chemicals used in fracking fluid are known to cause everything from cancer to depression of the central nervous system. Moreover, the chemicals underneath the earth's surface that may be released due to gas drilling are also known to be harmful to human health and the environment. But just for the sake of argument, let's take a leap of faith and assume that the industry is correct and that gas drilling and fracking really don't pose a significant threat to anyone's water supply. If that's the case, then why doesn't the industry want to operate under the same rules as everyone else? Why are most companies refusing to reveal what's in the fluid, let alone agree to safeguards?

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>The Halliburton Loophole perfectly represents the outsized arrogance of the big energy companies during a time when oil men were running the country. For the natural gas industry, a gold-rush mentality without common-sense safeguards to protect water quality and human health, has produced a litany of horror stories and safety violations -- not to mention a popular uprising of citizens whose water supplies have been poisoned. </span>Times truly have changed, however, since the days when Dick Cheney held his secret meetings with energy execs and a compliant Congress opened the Halliburton Loophole. A bill widely known as "the FRAC Act" has been introduced in both the House and Senate, and if Congress passes it, the Halliburton Loophole will close. The fossil-fuel lobby, so far at least, is vehemently opposed.

I just don't get that. Yes, we need to use natural gas as our country makes the transition from the dirtiest energy sources (coal and oil) to clean and renewable sources like wind and solar. And yes, if we want that gas, we will have to drill for it. But no, we can't compromise when it comes to protecting our drinking water. People shouldn't have to fear that their wells will be poisoned and communities will be destroyed. We need to close the Halliburton Loophole. </span>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-brune/why-dick-cheney-sticks-to_b_764024.html





Like many Americans, few New Yorkers know where their water and local food come from. The farmer's market? Somewhere up north? But Karl Rove knows the precise location of the next big play by gas and oil companies, (and their ally Halliburton.)

And it's in exactly the same place. Upstate New York.

As we approach the election, many city dwellers are unaware of the upstate battle that will impact their water supply. The majority have accepted that politicians' and elected officials' are taking care of it.

But the real question in this election is: Who's taking care to elect New York officials?

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>The answer is: Karl Rove, Liz Cheney, and their gas company allies pouring money into New York from outside the state. They've targeted an obscure upstate New York race with nearly a million dollars spent for TV ads, robocalls, and mail pieces opposing the incumbent, Congressman Maurice Hinchey (D-NY). Some constituents have also received Rove-style phone calls. In one, callers say they are conducting a push poll, and next play what Hinchey campaign manager Liam Fitzsimmons calls "a mashup," a recorded message by Bill Clinton, edited-to-mislead voters into thinking Clinton opposes the progressive Congressman, and "wants the listener to vote him out." In fact, Bill Clinton endorses Hinchey, and made a public show of support at a recent Binghamton rally.

<span style='font-size: 17pt'>Why is Rove singling out an incumbent so popular he's been unbeatable for the last eighteen years? Because Maurice Hinchey has a backbone. He introduced the Frack Act in Congress, which, if passed, would put energy companies back into compliance with the Clean Water Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, and other safety and health protections. The Halliburton Loophole, masterminded by Dick Cheney in the 2005 Energy Act, exempted them from all of those standard regulations. </span>This past weekend, the grass roots group Catskill Citizens for Safe Energy joined New York City activists to speak with city-dwellers shopping at the nearby Park Slope Food Coop. The most oft-repeated comment from Brooklynites was "Gas, money, water? What a mix! How come I never heard about this before?"</span>Here's a primer for newcomers.

Does this Gas Smell?

New York's gas reserves lie buried deep in the underground Marcellus Shale, an extensive rock formation covering much of upstate. Gas companies have leased mineral rights from broke upstate farmers. The companies use a highly controversial process called "fracking" to mine the gas. Overnight, fracking transforms farmlands and wilderness into industrial zones, causing air pollution, generating radioactive waste, and requiring heavy truck traffic to carry hazardous waste.

What Money?

Gas companies are accumulating large land parcels to sell to even bigger international companies, lured by the potential for billions in untaxed earnings -- if they succeed in persuading New York State politicians allow fracking to begin without taxing it. It was done in Pennsylvania, where the former Homeland Security Chief is a highly paid spokesperson for the industry. According to Marcellus Money, a project of Common Cause, legislators who received industry campaign contributions opposed a state tax on drilling. In other states, tax money is used to help cover costs of safety inspectors, and to train first responders to safely cope with accidents and explosions.

Whose Water?

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>Five million gallons (per well) of New York's water would be freely appropriated for each well. Fracking mixes over 500 toxic chemicals into that water and injects it underground with earthquake-like force to release the gas. Due to spills, leaks, explosions, unpredictable underground rock formations, road transport accidents, and faulty cement casings (made by Halliburton) fracking fluids have contaminated water supplies and agricultural products across the U.S. Fracking uses carcinogenic and neurotoxic chemicals, active at parts per trillion, according Dr. Theo Colborn, and other health experts. Senior geologists are concerned that New York's unique geology make upstate drilling an even higher risk to New York City's unfiltered water supply. However, companies are pressuring legislators to proceed prior to the completion of an EPA study to assess that. </span>New Yorkers Begin to Smell Gas

"If a kid tossed his bubble gum into our upstate water sources, the media would scream about a terrorist attack on New York. But here you have the same industries who brought us the Gulf, and we should trust them with our water?" said one Brooklyn resident interviewed by Sabrina Artel, host of the live radio program, Trailer Talk, of the Marcellus Shale Water Project. Artel drove her bright red mobile trailer down to Brooklyn to launch a public conversation with New Yorkers, including Brooklyn Congresswoman Yvette Clarke(D-NY). Artel offered a generous spread of upstate produce, including crisp Macoun apples, homemade pickles, artisanal cheese, and pumpkin cookies.

Congresswoman Clarke told Artel, "New Yorkers rely on pristine water from upstate. We need to preserve this for generations to come. It's something to fight for. We don't have the regulations in place to assure the safety of this process. We can't allow private industry to go unchecked for the sake of profits. We shouldn't rely on those who rush us through a rapid approval process that assures nothing but their bottom line. Our bottom line is our water. Making a mistake could jeopardize our water supply, which is an end to life as we know it.'
http://www.huffingtonpost.com

LWW
11-10-2010, 05:06 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">New Yorkers taking a stand against Hydraulic Fracking.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7rO9UqJCmhw&feature=pyv&ad=5063798513&kw=fracking


Thanks Dick: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PRZ4LQSonXA


Good for New Yorkers, but it will impact water quality in Pennsylvania and Delaware. More Cancer causing chemicals, in our drinking water.

Thanks to Republican policies of deregulation.
/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/frown.gif
G. </div></div>

How are republicans responsible for environmental problems in a state that has been dominated politically by democrooks for over fifty years?

LWW </div></div>

Because "Fracking" was exempted from regulation in the Energy Policy Act of 2005. (I haven't watched the videos in this thread yet, but saw the 'report' on Countdown the other night, and will assume the argument is the same here)

What is failed to be mentioned here is that many Democrats voted for this bill as well. Including <u><span style='font-size: 14pt'>Barack Obama, who voted in favor of it twice.</span></u>

Sack </div></div>

Does this mean Obama is a rethuglican?

LWW

LWW
11-10-2010, 05:23 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I watched 'em now.

In regards to fracking (the subject title of this thread), those videos change nothing. It was still the Energy Policy Act of 2005 that exempted fracking from federal regulation. Obama still voted in favor of it twice.

Sack </div></div>

Using the wonders of the internet it seems that 48 democrooks voted for the bill and only 5 against ... a whopping 90.57%!

OTOH republichickens voted 36-7 in favor of it ... or a more meager 83.72%.

And ... using truth instead of spoon fed party blather ... the D's 108.36% as likely to have voted for this in comparison with the R's.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Arkansas
Yea AR Lincoln, Blanche [D]
Yea AR Pryor, Mark [D]

California
Yea CA Boxer, Barbara [D]
Yea CA Feinstein, Dianne [D]

Colorado
Yea CO Salazar, Ken [D]

Delaware
Yea DE Biden, Joseph [D]
Yea DE Carper, Thomas [D]

Florida
Nay FL Martinez, Mel [R]
Nay FL Nelson, Bill [D]

Hawaii
Yea HI Akaka, Daniel [D]
Yea HI Inouye, Daniel [D]

Illinois
Yea IL Durbin, Richard [D]
<span style='font-size: 20pt'>Yea IL Obama, Barack [D]</span>

Indiana
Yea IN Bayh, Evan [D]

Iowa
Yea IA Harkin, Thomas [D]

Louisiana
Yea LA Landrieu, Mary [D]

Maryland
Yea MD Mikulski, Barbara [D]
Yea MD Sarbanes, Paul [D]

Massachusetts
Yea MA Kennedy, Edward [D]
Yea MA Kerry, John [D]

Michigan
Yea MI Levin, Carl [D]
Yea MI Stabenow, Debbie Ann [D]

Minnesota
Yea MN Dayton, Mark [D]

Montana
Yea MT Baucus, Max [D]

Nebraska
Yea NE Nelson, Ben [D]

Nevada
<span style='font-size: 14pt'>Yea NV Reid, Harry</span> [D]

New Hampshire
Nay NH Gregg, Judd [R]
Nay NH Sununu, John [R]

New Mexico
Yea NM Bingaman, Jeff [D]

New York
<span style='font-size: 14pt'>Yea NY Clinton, Hillary</span> [D]
Nay NY Schumer, Charles [D]

Pennsylvania
Yea PA Specter, Arlen [D]

South Dakota
Yea SD Johnson, Tim [D]

Vermont
Yea VT Jeffords, James [I]
Yea VT Leahy, Patrick [D]

Washington
Yea WA Cantwell, Maria [D]
Yea WA Murray, Patty [D]

West Virginia
<span style='font-size: 14pt'>Yea WV Byrd, Robert [D]
Yea WV Rockefeller, John [D]</span>

Wisconsin
Yea WI Kohl, Herbert [D]</div></div>

10 ...
9 ...
8 ...
7 ...
6 ...

OH DEAR! (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=s2005-158)

LWW &lt;--- Ducking for safety as leftist heads explode across this great land.

wolfdancer
11-10-2010, 11:59 PM
You mean like in " A Civil Action " ??

LWW
11-11-2010, 03:57 AM
<span style='font-family: Arial Black'><span style='font-size: 14pt'>I wonder why Gee isn't condemning Obama, Hillary, Biden, Byrd, Reid, Rockefeller, Schumer, Kerry, Kennedy, Feinstein, and Boxer for voting</span> <span style='font-size: 26pt'>IN FAVOR OF THIS FRACKING!!!!</span></span>

LWW

Gayle in MD
11-11-2010, 05:28 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wolfdancer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You mean like in " A Civil Action " ?? </div></div>

Did you hear that more highly toxic muck is again bubbling up out of the ground in that same location where Erin Brockavich fought the good fight, decades ago?



G.

LWW
11-11-2010, 05:39 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style='font-family: Arial Black'><span style='font-size: 14pt'>I wonder why Gee isn't condemning Obama, Hillary, Biden, Byrd, Reid, Rockefeller, Schumer, Kerry, Kennedy, Feinstein, and Boxer for voting</span> <span style='font-size: 26pt'>IN FAVOR OF THIS FRACKING!!!!</span></span>

LWW </div></div>

Sadly ... when given the chance to be fair and balanced, she gave them a pass.

LWW

Gayle in MD
11-11-2010, 05:42 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

Is there any proof that the Obama administration engages in rendition?

If so, I'm against it.

G. </div></div>

Yes, quite a few articles about it around the net. NY Times and UK's Guardian seem to have a lot about it.

Sack </div></div>

What I would be interested in knowing about more than any concerns about where dangerous people are being held, is how they are being treated.

If you can show me that in spite of the current president's promise, that prisoners are still being tortured, after he has stated that the United States has ended torture, no more torture, no way, no place, no how, then I would be very disappointed in him.

As we know, Bush got around the subject by saying, over and over, "The United Stated does not torture people."


Of course, that was a huge lie, because waterboarding, IS torture, and he has finally admitted that he made that decision, to torture prisoners, which of course, also means that he committed treason.

Are you telling me that Obama, is doing the same thing that Bush did, just parsing words, to clooud the issue, because if he is, I surely want to know about it.

I thought I watched him sign an executive order, outlawing any and all forms of torture...and have also read that the Department Of Justice, has been working consistantly, to find safe places, and programs, in other countries, for prisoners, in their quest to accomplish the President's orders, to close GITMO, an on-going process, which must be done very carefully.

G.

Gayle in MD
11-11-2010, 05:47 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Let me ask you a question, Sack.
Which party is most likely to prevent this:

</div></div>


No Answer???

LWW
11-11-2010, 05:55 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

What I would be interested in knowing about more than any concerns about where dangerous people are being held, is how they are being treated.

If you can show me that in spite of the current president's promise, that prisoners are still being tortured, after he has stated that the United States has ended torture, no more torture, no way, no place, no how, then I would be very disappointed in him.

G.</div></div>

According to Amy Goodman's "DEMOCRACY NOW" it's gotten worse under dear leader:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Gitmo Prisoner: Torture Has Worsened Under Obama

A Guantanamo Bay prisoner has provided new details of torture under what he calls worsening conditions since President Obama’s election. Chadian national Mohammad al-Qaraani used his prison phone time intended for calling his lawyer to instead reach the Arabic satellite network Al Jazeera.

Mohammad al-Qaraani: "I refused to leave my cell, as they were not granting me my rights. I was only demanding my basic rights, like walking, meeting other inmates, and eating normal food. <span style='font-size: 11pt'>So a group of six soldiers wearing protective gear and helmets came to my cell. They were accompanied by a soldier carrying a camera and one with tear gas. They had a thick rubber or plastic baton. They beat me with it. They emptied out about two canisters of tear gas on me. After I stopped talking, and tears were flowing from my eyes, I could hardly see or breathe. They then beat me again to the ground. One of them held my head and beat it against the ground. I started screaming to his senior, 'See what he's doing! See what he’s doing!’ His senior started laughing and said, ’He’s doing his job.’ He broke one of my teeth."</span>

Qaraani was interviewed by the Al Jazeera journalist Sami al-Hajj, who was imprisoned at Guantanamo for over six years. Qaraani repeated claims made by other Guantanamo prisoners and their attorneys that the abuse has worsened since President Obama’s election.</div></div>

OH DEAR! (http://www.democracynow.org/2009/4/15/headlines)

Tell us how disappointed you are?

LWW

LWW
11-11-2010, 05:56 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Let me ask you a question, Sack.
Which party is most likely to prevent this:

</div></div>


No Answer??? </div></div>

Already shown in the vote count ... the democrooks were far more likely to vote for it, the R's far more likely to vote against it.

LWW

Deeman3
11-11-2010, 09:17 AM
The silence is painful...

Gayle in MD
11-11-2010, 09:41 AM
Deeman, I don't read his posts, so don't jump to conclusions.

Nothing he ever writes makes any sense, wins a point, or is an accurate response, hence, don't hold your breath, or jump to ridiculous coonclusions.

Thanks,
Gayle

sack316
11-11-2010, 10:36 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Let me ask you a question, Sack.
Which party is most likely to prevent this:

</div></div>


No Answer??? </div></div>

No answer is the answer. In other words, neither.

Sack

Deeman3
11-11-2010, 11:11 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Let me ask you a question, Sack.
Which party is most likely to prevent this:

</div></div>


No Answer??? </div></div>

No answer is the answer. In other words, neither.

Sack </div></div>

<span style="color: #FF0000"> Good answer! If both parties voted against it, what chance does it have now?</span>

Gayle in MD
11-11-2010, 11:17 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Let me ask you a question, Sack.
Which party is most likely to prevent this:

</div></div>


No Answer??? </div></div>

No answer is the answer. In other words, neither.

Sack </div></div>

I asked you to be honest, lol...

G.

Deeman3
11-11-2010, 11:19 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD [/quote</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

I asked you to be honest, lol...

G. </div></div>

<span style="color: #FF0000"> In my case, if they didn't have to vote on it, it would be......Democrats! Just being honest.</span>

No tree should go unhugged! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

Gayle in MD
11-11-2010, 11:33 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Deeman3</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD </div></div>

I asked you to be honest, lol...

G. [/quote</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

<span style="color: #FF0000"> In my case, if they didn't have to vote on it, it would be......Democrats! Just being honest.</span>

No tree should go unhugged! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif </div></div>

Yes, I agree, Democratics are always the greatest protectors of our environment, by and large.

Now in saying that, I hope some partisan from the right won't try to prove a point, by pointing to some exception to the rule, or pull up old quotes, which were spoken long before Saddam had lost his ability to threaten our security, here at home, which is the entire debating method, of the right. Everythiing taken totally out of context, the context of time, and the context of reality.

Democratics are the ones who fought to change it, the information was uncovered, and yes, Democratics would best protect our environment, you are absolutely correct....as long as they had access to the information, which they did not, at the time of the 05 vote.

When they voted on it, in 05, Cheney's secret energy meetings, had provided the offenders cover, to hide what chemicals were involved, known as the Cheney Oil Loophole.

Same thing with the Iraq War, Propaganda, created by Bush, was the Representatives main source of intel, since they do not ever see what the President sees, and they never dreamed, particularly after 9/11, with the whole country still in grief, and in chock, that Bush would lie the country into an un-necessary, illegal war, on cherry picked intelligence, just so that he could be a War President, and hence, insure another term.

Those who believed his lies, voted accordingly, because they did not think the President of the United States, could be so low, low enough to lie the country into an un-necessary war, just so that he could have a shot at becoming a War President....and settle his grudge over the bashing his father took for leaving Saddam in power, when he could have done the job right dwhen he had a golden opportunity, and the world behind him, during Desert Storm.

After that, Bill Clinton's Desert fox, removed those weapons, and by containing Saddam, the country had fallen into demise, their infrastructure, their WMD program, long gone, and Saddam, who was propped up by Republicans in the first place, was powerless, and hated by the world. Now, of course, Bush is more hated than anyone else in the world, except for Cheney, maybe....

Saddam was the last dictator in the world, who would have allowed any al Qaeda into his country. Al Qaeda, was our threat, and hence, Clinton acvised him, as many others advised him, for months, that he was making a mistake to focus on Saddam, and throw everything on Al Qaeda, into the drawer...eventually, dismantling the enntire Alex Agency.


When they called his Da Da a whimp, Bush neever got over it, and set about, rewriting history, and now he's doing it again, but thank heaven, this time, he doesn't have access to any bombs, to destroy any other countries, he's only doing it to get some more money out of the long suffering subjects of the national decline, which preceeded the exit of his regime, to assuage his supporters, who never will wake up, and twenty percent, of those same sheep who still deny all of the disastrous consequences of Bush, will go rusing out to buy more bullshit, as if thhey've been missing it for so long, they must have yet another fix....

Yes, he's coming back, but just briefly, coming for the last National Bush gouge, as all dirty pigs and ever hungry sharks, must do.

G.

wolfdancer
11-11-2010, 11:55 AM
Didn't hear about that...sounds like another health disaster in the making.
I have played golf in Fallon, Nv, where some friends live.
The Navy used to dump ammo there and they now also have clusters of leukemia, etc.
XXX (http://www.newsinferno.com/health-concerns/fallon-naval-air-station-a-suspect-in-nevada-leukemia-cluster/)
If you check the link out...also read the Chinese drywall report

sack316
11-11-2010, 01:48 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Let me ask you a question, Sack.
Which party is most likely to prevent this:

</div></div>


No Answer??? </div></div>

No answer is the answer. In other words, neither.

Sack </div></div>

I asked you to be honest, lol...

G. </div></div>

LOL, well I was being honest. In theory, and based on rhetoric I would be in agreement with you that Democrats would be most likely to be environmental protectors.

In practice, though, I'll stick with my "neither" answer. Coming to mind is the idea of carbon credits, as one example. Sounds like a good idea on paper, really. But in practice it is just letting the same offenders continue what they are doing, and just pay a little fee for doing so. The same actions are continued, environmentally speaking, with the only difference being someone else gets to make a little money off of it too. JMHO there.

Sack

Gayle in MD
11-11-2010, 01:55 PM
I would think it was a step in the right direction, as deterrant, to charge them, instead of subsidizing them, which is the Republican way...

Lets also not forget how Bush put former abusers of the envirobnemtn, in charge of regulating those who pollute it. Ken Lay chose all of the ennvironmental regulators....


G.

sack316
11-11-2010, 05:57 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I would think it was a step in the right direction, as deterrant, to charge them, instead of subsidizing them, which is the Republican way...

Lets also not forget how Bush put former abusers of the envirobnemtn, in charge of regulating those who pollute it. Ken Lay chose all of the ennvironmental regulators....


G. </div></div>

I'm not trying to make a case that republicans did wonders for our environment... so no need to cite examples of what Bush/repubs did.

The way to deter is to put a cease to things that are wrong to do. Not provide a loophole (even one that costs money to go through). The only thing the fine "deterrent" does is make the financial gurus of the companies adjust their cost of goods sold, and in the end the consumer pays the fine/charges.

For example, with the new energy bills, even Obama said our energy costs will rise. Who does it sound like is being punished? The companies? Or us?

Sack

LWW
11-11-2010, 06:00 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Deeman3</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The silence is painful... </div></div>

The silence is deafening.

LWW

wolfdancer
11-11-2010, 06:49 PM
why bother me with your wonderment? Ask Gayle yourself. I could care less about any freaking fracking....as long as my sink doesn't catch on fire...
http://i666.photobucket.com/albums/vv27/jmmath/th_What-me-worry-715605.jpg (http://s666.photobucket.com/albums/vv27/jmmath/?action=view&current=What-me-worry-715605.jpg)

Sev
11-11-2010, 07:00 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Deeman, I don't read his posts, so don't jump to conclusions.

Nothing he ever writes makes any sense, wins a point, or is an accurate response, hence, don't hold your breath, or jump to ridiculous coonclusions.

Thanks,
Gayle </div></div>

Jesus. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

Gayle in MD
11-11-2010, 09:22 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I would think it was a step in the right direction, as deterrant, to charge them, instead of subsidizing them, which is the Republican way...

Lets also not forget how Bush put former abusers of the envirobnemtn, in charge of regulating those who pollute it. Ken Lay chose all of the ennvironmental regulators....


G. </div></div>

I'm not trying to make a case that republicans did wonders for our environment... so no need to cite examples of what Bush/repubs did.

The way to deter is to put a cease to things that are wrong to do. Not provide a loophole (even one that costs money to go through). The only thing the fine "deterrent" does is make the financial gurus of the companies adjust their cost of goods sold, and in the end the consumer pays the fine/charges.

For example, with the new energy bills, even Obama said our energy costs will rise. Who does it sound like is being punished? The companies? Or us?

Sack </div></div>

As I stated, a fine, brings change far faster the subsidizing them as they pollute.


Higher consumer costs, also lead to more public outcry, and demand, for clean fuels, more public use of renewables, and more private sector R & D for cleaner, renewable fuel.

If they pass on the cost of fines, to the consumer, better yet.

IMHO, the health of our planet, it's trees and rivers, oceans and animals, the wellness of the people, (not to mention removing the devastations of wars) all such protections of our world, hang on going after the polluters, pressuring consumers, and politicians, toward demanding clean fuels, and more high tech conservation.

Hence, I will never vote for a Repupblican. NEVER!
And, this is the reason why we have yet to completely tally up all of the damages of the Bush Administration, including all of the people he killed, the worst of which, may not show up for generations yet to come, who will no doubt, pay a price for his lack of honor.

G.

sack316
11-11-2010, 10:56 PM
I respect your opinion and viewpoint here... and no doubt I see the validity in events that have led you to this stance.

And fact is, the <u>reputation</u> of Democrats, as a whole, tend to be more anti-industry and environmentally conscious. Just as the <u>reputation</u> of republicans tends to largely be in support of big corporations who are generally responsible for a lot of polluting.

But another fact is that these are just generalizations. There will be crossovers from either end of the political spectrum. There will be a democrat whose representative economy may depend on some 'evil' polluter for jobs in his or her district. There will be a republican who fights for a cleaner district if his/her people are getting sick. There are no absolutes just because a (D) or an (R) reside besides someone's name.

Which is why I must admit I am fairly disappointed you would say something like "Hence, I will never vote for a Repupblican. NEVER!" Never is a pretty strong word. Next election, if a (D) that has supported some big corp that is a known environmental offender is running against an (R) who has happened to work pretty hard for eco-concerns... I personally don't believe you would cut off your nose to spite your face in such an instance and stick with the (D) just because. I think you are better than that.

Sack

Gayle in MD
11-11-2010, 11:28 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I respect your opinion and viewpoint here... and no doubt I see the validity in events that have led you to this stance.

And fact is, the <u>reputation</u> of Democrats, as a whole, tend to be more anti-industry and environmentally conscious. Just as the <u>reputation</u> of republicans tends to largely be in support of big corporations who are generally responsible for a lot of polluting.

But another fact is that these are just generalizations. There will be crossovers from either end of the political spectrum. There will be a democrat whose representative economy may depend on some 'evil' polluter for jobs in his or her district. There will be a republican who fights for a cleaner district if his/her people are getting sick. There are no absolutes just because a (D) or an (R) reside besides someone's name.

Which is why I must admit I am fairly disappointed you would say something like "Hence, I will never vote for a Repupblican. NEVER!" Never is a pretty strong word. Next election, if a (D) that has supported some big corp that is a known environmental offender is running against an (R) who has happened to work pretty hard for eco-concerns... I personally don't believe you would cut off your nose to spite your face in such an instance and stick with the (D) just because. I think you are better than that.

Sack </div></div>

Your exampled scenario, will never happen, Sack. There was a time when I could vote for a Republican, but those kinds of statesmen, no longer exist, in the Republican Party, and when they do exist, they quickly leave, and get completely out of politics.

I can only tell you one thing about my feelings toward Republicans.

I was there the day they treated the 9/11 survivors of the victim's, like dirt, in order to protect Bush, and try to deny them their right to have an investigation about how such a horror could have happened, given there had been warnings, for eight months, in advance of the attack.

I will NEVER get over that day if I live to be one hundred years old, but there have been many other days, just like that one, days when I was there, and the result, was always the same. I had to use every bit of control I possess, to remain quiet, and seated, my outrage at Republican hypocracy, dishonor, and lack of character, just as pronouced, as that day.

I won't to go into the specifics of every single investigation, ALL of which, I record, or watch, or attend, and particularly those which concern our soldiers and Veterans.

When I say I will never vote for a Republicans, that is because they do not represent my values, ever. In fact, Republicans represent the antithesis of my values.

Please watch this video, because it tells the story of my determination to never, ever vote for a Republicann, far better than anything that I could write.

I have a lot of good friends who work on the Hill, in the Congress, with the Capital Police, with the Archetect's office, and I pretty much have any and every opportunity to be present when investigations are under way.

Although many are now dwindling, as we are all aging, and many are retiring, their kids in many cases, have taken their place, so I'm very lucky, to have the opportunity to be present, and see with my opwn eyes, how republicans conduct themselves, both on camera, and away from the cameras.

The following, is par for the course.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joshua-kors/ video-of-torture-hearing_b_781993.html

If you can find the time, do some studies about how the Republicans plan to reduce aid for our Veterans, and for the elderly, and the poor, the ill, and the many children in our country, who are, as Republicans prefer to say, "Food challenged".... in their quest to keep in place, the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, along with all of the loopholes, for polluters, for out-sourcing fascist, IMO, who don't give a damn about anything but their own greed, and who are usually also among the wealthiest among us.

If you do all of that, and you feel my assertion is not warranted, then I can't do anything else to make you understand my repulsion, and disgust, with all things Republican.

I grew up in the forties and fifties, and I well remember what a fine country we had, before we had Ronald Reagan...it has declined, continuously, since that time, mostly, under Republican control, and Republican Administrations, whose economic, foreign, and domestic policies, have destroyed the country I knew.

Republican policies caused this economic mess we have, and Republicans have not learned a damn thing, from their own failures, not even about the insanity of spending billions upon billions to kill innocent people, on the other saide of the world. They are WAR MONGERING pawns, of the Military Industrial Complex, and evey oher desgtructive and corrupted organization in our country.

Every year that I observe their lack of honor, their totally corrupted character, gross hypocracy, and lack of empathy, makes my commitment stronger.

Along with that, We've had thrity years of Trickle down, and I have watched the destruction, throughout, and now watch, with anxiety, the power of RW propaganda, which completely distracts the more uninformed voters in this country away from the reality of what Republican policies have done to my country. It is appalling.

With pride, I repeat, I will NEVER vote for a Republican. If there was a good man or woman, who had honor and integrity, running in the Republican Party, I wouldn't waste my vote on him/her, because I know, such a person, will never stay. He, or she, will resign, and leave politics, forever.

G.

LWW
11-12-2010, 11:27 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

What I would be interested in knowing about more than any concerns about where dangerous people are being held, is how they are being treated.

If you can show me that in spite of the current president's promise, that prisoners are still being tortured, after he has stated that the United States has ended torture, no more torture, no way, no place, no how, then I would be very disappointed in him.

G.</div></div>

According to Amy Goodman's "DEMOCRACY NOW" it's gotten worse under dear leader:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Gitmo Prisoner: Torture Has Worsened Under Obama

A Guantanamo Bay prisoner has provided new details of torture under what he calls worsening conditions since President Obama’s election. Chadian national Mohammad al-Qaraani used his prison phone time intended for calling his lawyer to instead reach the Arabic satellite network Al Jazeera.

Mohammad al-Qaraani: "I refused to leave my cell, as they were not granting me my rights. I was only demanding my basic rights, like walking, meeting other inmates, and eating normal food. <span style='font-size: 11pt'>So a group of six soldiers wearing protective gear and helmets came to my cell. They were accompanied by a soldier carrying a camera and one with tear gas. They had a thick rubber or plastic baton. They beat me with it. They emptied out about two canisters of tear gas on me. After I stopped talking, and tears were flowing from my eyes, I could hardly see or breathe. They then beat me again to the ground. One of them held my head and beat it against the ground. I started screaming to his senior, 'See what he's doing! See what he’s doing!’ His senior started laughing and said, ’He’s doing his job.’ He broke one of my teeth."</span>

Qaraani was interviewed by the Al Jazeera journalist Sami al-Hajj, who was imprisoned at Guantanamo for over six years. Qaraani repeated claims made by other Guantanamo prisoners and their attorneys that the abuse has worsened since President Obama’s election.</div></div>

OH DEAR! (http://www.democracynow.org/2009/4/15/headlines)

Tell us how disappointed you are?

LWW
</div></div>

What ... no answer?

LWW

Chopstick
11-12-2010, 12:17 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJFj7a7MuNA&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U01EK76Sy4A

Another example of Republilcan policies, destroying the environment.

Thanks Bush. </div></div>

<span style="color: #000099">Just a few quick questions:

1) Do you know what fracking is?
2) Do you know how fracking works?
3) Do you know what is good or bad with fracking?
4) Did you read the fracking bill?
5) Do you know what Bush did or did not regulate or deregulate? (Hint: If you did not read the bill, the answer is no.)

If you cannot answer these questions, you have nothing to complain about.</span>

wolfdancer
11-12-2010, 12:36 PM
"off with her head" then.
Are you now claiming that one has to actually know about what they are commenting on so expertly?
This could really disrupt the board, greatly reducing the number of "authoritative" posts.
In Gayle's defense...she really doesn't have to study petroleum engineering, to know that "somthing is rotten in Denmark", when yer sink is on fire.
As an old ad for a WNY brand beer...Genesee...once proclaimed:
"It's the water...and a lot more" (the reference was to the pristine waters of the Genesee River)

Gayle in MD
11-12-2010, 02:26 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Chopstick</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJFj7a7MuNA&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U01EK76Sy4A

Another example of Republilcan policies, destroying the environment.

Thanks Bush. </div></div>

<span style="color: #000099">Just a few quick questions:

1) Do you know what fracking is?
2) Do you know how fracking works?
3) Do you know what is good or bad with fracking?
4) Did you read the fracking bill?
5) Do you know what Bush did or did not regulate or deregulate? (Hint: If you did not read the bill, the answer is no.)

If you cannot answer these questions, you have nothing to complain about.</span> </div></div>


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <span style='font-size: 20pt'> “It's time to fix an unfortunate chapter in the Bush administration's energy policy and close the 'Halliburton loophole' that has enabled energy companies to pump enormous amounts of toxins, such as benzene and toluene, into the ground that then jeopardize the quality of our drinking water,” U.S. Rep. Hinchey, Member of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior and the Environment and Member of the House Natural Resources Committee, said. “Our legislation says everyone deserves to have safe drinking water by ensuring that hydraulic fracturing is subject to the protections afforded by the Safe Drinking Water Act. The bill also lifts the veil of secrecy currently shrouding this industry practice.”“Families, communities, and local governments are upset that the safety of their water has been compromised by a special interest exemption, and we join them in that frustration,” said U.S. Rep. Polis. <span style='font-size: 26pt'>“It is irresponsible to stand by while innocent people are getting sick because of an industry exemption that Dick Cheney snuck in to our nation’s energy policy.</span> Many new sources of energy, including natural gas, will play an important role in our nation’s transition to cleaner fuels, but we must make sure this isn’t at the expense of public health. The problem is not natural gas or even hydraulic fracturing itself. The problem is that dangerous chemicals are being injected into the earth, polluting our water sources, without any oversight whatsoever.”



</span> </div></div>

I know exactly what it is, and the answer is yes, to all.

Any other questions, you can send to my attorney, wolfdancer, LOL.

Here is a question for you.

Did you even bother to read my original thread post?

If so, then why would you write this in the first place?

Gayle in MD
11-12-2010, 03:09 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">New Yorkers taking a stand against Hydraulic Fracking.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7rO9UqJCmhw&feature=pyv&ad=5063798513&kw=fracking


Thanks Dick: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PRZ4LQSonXA


Good for New Yorkers, but it will impact water quality in Pennsylvania and Delaware. More Cancer causing chemicals, in our drinking water.

Thanks to Republican policies of deregulation.
/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/frown.gif
G. </div></div>

How are republicans responsible for environmental problems in a state that has been dominated politically by democrooks for over fifty years?

LWW </div></div>

Because "Fracking" was exempted from regulation in the Energy Policy Act of 2005. (I haven't watched the videos in this thread yet, but saw the 'report' on Countdown the other night, and will assume the argument is the same here)

What is failed to be mentioned here is that many Democrats voted for this bill as well. Including <u><span style='font-size: 14pt'>Barack Obama, who voted in favor of it twice.</span></u>

Sack </div></div>


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <span style='font-size: 17pt'>“It's time to fix an unfortunate chapter in the Bush administration's energy policy and close the 'Halliburton loophole' that has enabled energy companies to pump enormous amounts of toxins, such as benzene and toluene, into the ground that then jeopardize the quality of our drinking water,” U.S. Rep. Hinchey, Member of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior and the Environment and Member of the House Natural Resources Committee, said. “Our legislation says everyone deserves to have safe drinking water by ensuring that hydraulic fracturing is subject to the protections afforded by the Safe Drinking Water Act. The bill also lifts the veil of secrecy currently shrouding this industry practice.”“Families, communities, and local governments are upset that the safety of their water has been compromised by a special interest exemption, and we join them in that frustration,” said U.S. Rep. Polis. <span style='font-size: 20pt'>“It is irresponsible to stand by while innocent people are getting sick because of an industry exemption that Dick Cheney snuck in to our nation’s energy policy. </span>Many new sources of energy, including natural gas, will play an important role in our nation’s transition to cleaner fuels, but we must make sure this isn’t at the expense of public health. The problem is not natural gas or even hydraulic fracturing itself. The problem is that dangerous chemicals are being injected into the earth, polluting our water sources, without any oversight whatsoever.”



</span> </div></div>

wolfdancer
11-12-2010, 03:11 PM
While Chop may be a big fan of fracking
it is not without many environmental and health risks. And they won't just affect tree hugging liberals....
XXX (http://gaslandthemovie.com/whats-fracking)
From the site:
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What is the Halliburton Loophole?
In 2005, the Bush/ Cheney Energy Bill exempted natural gas drilling from the Safe Drinking Water Act. It exempts companies from disclosing the chemicals used during hydraulic fracturing. Essentially, the provision took the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) off the job. It is now commonly referred to as the Halliburton Loophole. </div></div>
Like we should be concerned really about volatile organic compounds (VOCs) such as benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylene...in our drinking water?
not when there is $$$ to be made....

Gayle in MD
11-12-2010, 03:16 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Deeman3</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The silence is painful... </div></div>

<span style='font-size: 17pt'>“It's time to fix an unfortunate chapter in the Bush administration's energy policy and close the 'Halliburton loophole' that has enabled energy companies to pump enormous amounts of toxins, such as benzene and toluene, into the ground that then jeopardize the quality of our drinking water,” U.S. Rep. Hinchey, Member of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior and the Environment and Member of the House Natural Resources Committee, said. “Our legislation says everyone deserves to have safe drinking water by ensuring that hydraulic fracturing is subject to the protections afforded by the Safe Drinking Water Act. The bill also lifts the veil of secrecy currently shrouding this industry practice.”“Families, communities, and local governments are upset that the safety of their water has been compromised by a special interest exemption, and we join them in that frustration,” said U.S. Rep. Polis. <span style='font-size: 20pt'>“It is irresponsible to stand by while innocent people are getting sick because of an industry exemption that Dick Cheney snuck in to our nation’s energy policy.</span> Many new sources of energy, including natural gas, will play an important role in our nation’s transition to cleaner fuels, but we must make sure this isn’t at the expense of public health. The problem is not natural gas or even hydraulic fracturing itself. The problem is that dangerous chemicals are being injected into the earth, polluting our water sources, without any oversight whatsoever.”



</span>

Do you understand the word, "Snuck"? No one knew what Cheney did, when tney voted.

They all thought the Clean Water Act, had precedence over any sort of pollution coming from the practics.

The Industry, was taken to court, before the people coud find out what was in the Fracking water.

People were becoming ill...

Wake Up!
G.

sack316
11-12-2010, 03:34 PM
Just out of curiosity, how does one sneak something into a bill? Like, did he sneak in some language about this hours or minutes before the vote, to where there was no time to read this and nobody knew it was in there? Or was in in the bill, per his request (which is indisputable) and it just so happens nobody paid attention?

I'm trying to read up on it some now, but just figured if you happened to know it would save me some time.

Sack

LWW
11-13-2010, 02:58 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Just out of curiosity, how does one sneak something into a bill?

Sack </div></div>

Now you are disrupting the fantasy.

LWW

Gayle in MD
11-13-2010, 10:44 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Just out of curiosity, how does one sneak something into a bill? Like, did he sneak in some language about this hours or minutes before the vote, to where there was no time to read this and nobody knew it was in there? Or was in in the bill, per his request (which is indisputable) and it just so happens nobody paid attention?

I'm trying to read up on it some now, but just figured if you happened to know it would save me some time.

Sack </div></div>

Sack,
They did it the same way the Bush Administration did everything else they got away with. They used their pals, same greedy corporate fascist pigs they used for all of their war and pollutions crimes, at the top of the agencies that were responsible for oversight of environmental issues.

Why the hell do you think that Republicans stated goals right now, are to do away with the EPA???

They put former oil executives, and lobbyists, in charge of running the EPA.

I'm sure you've read about the man who put these people together for Cheney, right, Enron's Ken Lay, who flew Bush's entourage around throughout his first campaign.

I can't elieve that I have to give you information, or defend my assertion that the Bush/Cheney/Halliburton/orporate fascist pigs, and their favored, GOP, Grand Oil Party, isn't right at the cusp of every environmental, and crooked no bid deal, no oversight deal, on the books, but if you want to learn how they pulled it off, it's simple, their oil industry pawns, were put in charge at the EPA, and every other Government oversight agency..

It took whislteblowers, to expose what was going on. Just as it took whistleblowers to expose their other treasonist acts, like lying this country into a war for oil, and lying about Saddam's WMD.

Here is a list for your research.

http://www.earthworksaction.org/halliburton.cfm


https://secure.nrdconline.org/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=1308

http://healthjournalistblog.com/gasland-...urton-loophole/ (http://healthjournalistblog.com/gasland-will-new-york-be-the-next-casualty-of-the-halliburton-loophole/)

http://healthjournalistblog.com/gasland-...urton-loophole/ (http://healthjournalistblog.com/gasland-will-new-york-be-the-next-casualty-of-the-halliburton-loophole/)

http://archive.democrats.com/preview.cfm?term=Halliburton

G.

sack316
11-13-2010, 11:38 AM
Thanks for the info, although I am aware of these things you listed. My question is more literal, as in how physically does one sneak something into a bill, unannounced to those who vote on it?

Sack

Deeman3
11-13-2010, 12:07 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Thanks for the info, although I am aware of these things you listed. My question is more literal, as in how physically does one sneak something into a bill, unannounced to those who vote on it?

Sack </div></div>

<span style="color: #FF0000">Sack,

Perhaps they make it over 2000 pages and hold the vote late at night before a single member of the oppostion has a chance to read it then mock them for even wanting to know the content before they vote,saying, "They will see what is in the bill after it is passed!"

Perhaps like that! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif </span>

Gayle in MD
11-13-2010, 12:08 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Thanks for the info, although I am aware of these things you listed. My question is more literal, as in how physically does one sneak something into a bill, unannounced to those who vote on it?

Sack </div></div>

Generally it is done at the last moment....

Sometimes it is through just what these articles suggest, by having others in place, to skew the results.

As I have written here before, it is not rational to list those who thought Saddam had WMD's, when the administration created it's own intelligence, and presented it to the Congress as fact.

That is exactly how this Halliburton Loophole, was created. they had oil friendloy people running the oversight agencies, who either deep siced, or outright lied about the dangers involved.

If you want to do the research, of the entire run up of how it all went down, the links should tell the story....

It all began with Bush appointing Cheney as his energy CZAR, and Cheney's secret meetings, with the Oil Industry, which he managed to keep secret, using the same information blocking excuse they used for eveything else, National Security....

G.

Gayle in MD
11-13-2010, 12:42 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Thanks for the info, although I am aware of these things you listed. My question is more literal, as in how physically does one sneak something into a bill, unannounced to those who vote on it?

Sack </div></div>

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/cheney/chapters/chapter_1/

Above is the famous Washington post series, exposing Cheneys methods...if you'd like to research it.



More:

Leaving No Tracks
By Jo Becker and Barton Gellman
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, June 27, 2007; Page A01

Sue Ellen Wooldridge, the 19th-ranking Interior Department official, arrived at her desk in Room 6140 a few months after Inauguration Day 2001. A phone message awaited her.

"This is Dick Cheney," said the man on her voice mail, Wooldridge recalled in an interview. "I understand you are the person handling this Klamath situation. Please call me at -- hmm, I guess I don't know my own number. I'm over at the White House."



Enlarge Photo
The vice president has intervened in many cases to undercut long-standing environmental rules for the benefit of business. Here, Cheney is photographed during an August 2004 family vacation in Moose, Wyoming. Getty Images
More photos &gt;&gt;
Wooldridge wrote off the message as a prank. It was not. Cheney had reached far down the chain of command, on so unexpected a point of vice presidential concern, because he had spotted a political threat arriving on Wooldridge's desk.

In Oregon, a battleground state that the Bush-Cheney ticket had lost by less than half of 1 percent, drought-stricken farmers and ranchers were about to be cut off from the irrigation water that kept their cropland and pastures green. Federal biologists said the Endangered Species Act left the government no choice: The survival of two imperiled species of fish was at stake.

Law and science seemed to be on the side of the fish. Then the vice president stepped in.

First Cheney looked for a way around the law, aides said. Next he set in motion a process to challenge the science protecting the fish, according to a former Oregon congressman who lobbied for the farmers.

Because of Cheney's intervention, the government reversed itself and let the water flow in time to save the 2002 growing season, declaring that there was no threat to the fish. What followed was the largest fish kill the West had ever seen, with tens of thousands of salmon rotting on the banks of the Klamath River.

Characteristically, Cheney left no tracks.

The Klamath case is one of many in which the vice president took on a decisive role to undercut long-standing environmental regulations for the benefit of business.

By combining unwavering ideological positions -- such as the priority of economic interests over protected fish -- with a deep practical knowledge of the federal bureaucracy, Cheney has made an indelible mark on the administration's approach to everything from air and water quality to the preservation of national parks and forests.

It was Cheney's insistence on easing air pollution controls, not the personal reasons she cited at the time, that led Christine Todd Whitman to resign as administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, she said in an interview that provides the most detailed account so far of her departure.

The vice president also pushed to make Nevada's Yucca Mountain the nation's repository for nuclear and radioactive waste, aides said, a victory for the nuclear power industry over those with long-standing safety concerns. And his office was a powerful force behind the White House's decision to rewrite a Clinton-era land-protection measure that put nearly a third of the national forests off limits to logging, mining and most development, former Cheney staff members said.

Cheney's pro-business drive to ease regulations, however, has often set the administration on a collision course with the judicial branch.

The administration, for example, is appealing the order of a federal judge who reinstated the forest protections after she ruled that officials didn't adequately study the environmental consequences of giving states more development authority.

And in April, the Supreme Court rejected two other policies closely associated with Cheney. It rebuffed the effort, ongoing since Whitman's resignation, to loosen some rules under the Clean Air Act. The court also rebuked the administration for not regulating greenhouse gases associated with global warming, issuing its ruling less than two months after Cheney declared that "conflicting viewpoints" remain about the extent of the human contribution to the problem.

In the latter case, Cheney made his environmental views clear in public. But with some notable exceptions, he generally has preferred to operate with stealth, aided by loyalists who owe him for their careers.

When the vice president got wind of a petition to list the cutthroat trout in Yellowstone National Park as a protected species, his office turned to one of his former congressional aides.

The aide, Paul Hoffman, landed his job as deputy assistant interior secretary for fish and wildlife after Cheney recommended him. In an interview, Hoffman said the vice president knew that listing the cutthroat trout would harm the recreational fishing industry in his home state of Wyoming and that he "followed the issue closely." In 2001 and again in 2006, Hoffman's agency declined to list the trout as threatened.

Hoffman also was well positioned to help his former boss with what Cheney aides said was one of the vice president's pet peeves: the Clinton-era ban on snowmobiling in national parks. "He impressed upon us that so many people enjoyed snowmobiling in the Tetons," former Cheney aide Ron Christie said.

With Cheney's encouragement, the administration lifted the ban in 2002, and Hoffman followed up in 2005 by writing a proposal to fundamentally change the way national parks are managed. That plan, which would have emphasized recreational use over conservation, attracted so much opposition from park managers and the public that the Interior Department withdrew it. Still, the Bush administration continues to press for expanded snowmobile access, despite numerous studies showing that the vehicles harm the parks' environment and polls showing majority support for the ban.

Hoffman, now in another job at the Interior Department, said Cheney never told him what to do on either issue -- he didn't have to.

"His genius," Hoffman said, is that "he builds networks and puts the right people in the right places, and then trusts them to make well-informed decisions that comport with his overall vision."

'Political Ramifications'

Robert F. Smith had grown desperate by the time he turned to the vice president for help.



Enlarge Photo
Bush and Cheney, who lost Oregon by less than half of 1 percent in 2000, couldn't afford to anger thousands of Republican farmers and ranchers in the state during the 2002 midterm elections. Above, in 2001 a sign stands in a field near Klamath Falls, Oregon. Aurora/Getty Images
The former Republican congressman from Oregon represented farmers in the Klamath basin who had relied on a government-operated complex of dams and canals built almost a century ago along the Oregon-California border to irrigate nearly a quarter-million acres of arid land.

In April 2001, with the region gripped by the worst drought in memory, the spigot was shut off.

Studies by the federal government's scientists concluded unequivocally that diverting water would harm two federally protected species of fish, violating the Endangered Species Act of 1973. The Bureau of Reclamation was forced to declare that farmers must go without in order to maintain higher water levels so that two types of suckerfish in Upper Klamath Lake and the coho salmon that spawn in the Klamath River could survive the dry spell.

Farmers and their families, furious and fearing for their livelihoods, formed a symbolic 10,000-person bucket brigade. Then they took saws and blowtorches to dam gates, clashing with U.S. marshals as water streamed into the canals that fed their withering fields, before the government stopped the flow again.

What they didn't know was that the vice president was already on the case.

Smith had served with Cheney on the House Interior Committee in the 1980s, and the former congressman said he turned to the vice president because he knew him as a man of the West who didn't take kindly to federal bureaucrats meddling with private use of public land. "He saw, as every other person did, what a ridiculous disaster shutting off the water was," Smith said.

Cheney recognized, even before the shut-off and long before others at the White House, that what "at first blush didn't seem like a big deal" had "a lot of political ramifications," said Dylan Glenn, a former aide to President Bush.

Bush and Cheney couldn't afford to anger thousands of solidly Republican farmers and ranchers during the midterm elections and beyond. The case also was rapidly becoming a test for conservatives nationwide of the administration's commitment to fixing what they saw as an imbalance between conservation and economics.

"What does the law say?" Christie, the former aide, recalled the vice president asking. "Isn't there some way around it?"

Next, Cheney called Wooldridge, who was then deputy chief of staff to Interior Secretary Gale A. Norton and the woman handling the Klamath situation.

Aides praise Cheney's habit of reaching down to officials who are best informed on a subject he is tackling. But the effect of his calls often leads those mid-level officials scrambling to do what they presume to be his bidding.

That's what happened when a mortified Wooldridge finally returned the vice president's call, after receiving a tart follow-up inquiry from one of his aides. Cheney, she said, "was coming from the perspective that the farmers had to be able to farm -- that was his concern. The fact that the vice president was interested meant that everyone paid attention."

Cheney made sure that attention did not wander. He had Wooldridge brief his staff weekly and, Smith said, he also called the interior secretary directly.

"For months and months, at almost every briefing it was 'Sir, here's where we stand on the Klamath basin,'" recalled Christie, who is now a lobbyist. "His hands-on involvement, it's safe to say, elevated the issue."

'Let the Water Flow'

There was, as it happened, an established exemption to the Endangered Species Act.

A rarely invoked panel of seven Cabinet officials, known informally as the "God Squad," is empowered by the statute to determine that economic hardship outweighs the benefit of protecting threatened wildlife. But after discussing the option with Smith, Cheney rejected that course. He had another idea, one that would not put the administration on record as advocating the extinction of endangered or threatened species.

The thing to do, Cheney told Smith, was to get science on the side of the farmers. And the way to do that was to ask the National Academy of Sciences to scrutinize the work of the federal biologists who wanted to protect the fish.

Smith said he told Cheney that he thought that was a roll of the dice. Academy panels are independently appointed, receive no payment and must reach a conclusion that can withstand peer review.

"It worried me that these are individuals who are unreachable," Smith said of the academy members. But Cheney was firm, expressing no such concerns about the result. "He felt we had to match the science."

Smith also wasn't sure that the Klamath case -- "a small place in a small corner of the country" -- would meet the science academy's rigorous internal process for deciding what to study. Cheney took care of that. "He called them and said, 'Please look at this, it's important,'" Smith said. "Everyone just went flying at it."

William Kearney, a spokesman for the National Academies, said he was unaware of any direct contact from Cheney on the matter. The official request came from the Interior Department, he said.

It was Norton who announced the review, and it was Bush and his political adviser Karl Rove who traveled to Oregon in February 2002 to assure farmers that they had the administration's support. A month later, Cheney got what he wanted when the science academy delivered a preliminary report finding "no substantial scientific foundation" to justify withholding water from the farmers.

There was not enough clear evidence that proposed higher lake levels would benefit suckerfish, the report found. And it hypothesized that the practice of releasing warm lake water into the river during spawning season might do more harm than good to the coho, which thrive in lower temperatures. [Read the report.]

Norton flew to Klamath Falls in March to open the head gate as farmers chanted "Let the water flow!" And seizing on the report's draft findings, the Bureau of Reclamation immediately submitted a new decade-long plan to give the farmers their full share of water.

When the lead biologist for the National Marine Fisheries Service team critiqued the science academy's report in a draft opinion objecting to the plan, the critique was edited out by superiors and his objections were overruled, he said. The biologist, Michael Kelly, who has since quit the federal agency, said in a whistle-blower claim that it was clear to him that "someone at a higher level" had ordered his agency to endorse the proposal regardless of the consequences to the fish.



Enlarge Photo
An estimated 77,000 salmon washed up on the banks of the Klamath River. Last year, the government declared a "commercial fishery failure" on the West Coast. Above, dead salmon line the banks of the Klamath River in Sept. 2002. AP
Months later, the first of an estimated 77,000 dead salmon began washing up on the banks of the warm, slow-moving river. Not only were threatened coho dying -- so were chinook salmon, the staple of commercial fishing in Oregon and Northern California. State and federal biologists soon concluded that the diversion of water to farms was at least partly responsible.

Fishermen filed lawsuits and courts ruled that the new irrigation plan violated the Endangered Species Act. Echoing Kelly's objections, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit observed that the 10-year plan wouldn't provide enough water for the fish until year nine. By then, the 2005 opinion said, "all the water in the world" could not save the fish, "for there will be none to protect." In March 2006, a federal judge prohibited the government from diverting water for agricultural use whenever water levels dropped beneath a certain point.

Last summer, the federal government declared a "commercial fishery failure" on the West Coast after several years of poor chinook returns virtually shut down the industry, opening the way for Congress to approve more than $60 million in disaster aid to help fishermen recover their losses. That came on top of the $15 million that the government has paid Klamath farmers since 2002 not to farm, in order to reduce demand.

The science academy panel, in its final report, acknowledged that its draft report was "controversial," but it stood by its conclusions. Instead of focusing on the irrigation spigot, it recommended broad and expensive changes to improve fish habitat. [Read the final report]

"The farmers were grateful for our decision, but we made the decision based on the scientific outcome," said the panel chairman, William Lewis, a biologist at the University of Colorado at Boulder. "It just so happened the outcome favored the farmers."

But J.B. Ruhl, another member of the panel and a Florida State University law professor who specializes in endangered species cases, said the Bureau of Reclamation went "too far," making judgments that were not backed up by the academy's draft report. "The approach they took was inviting criticism," Ruhl said, "and I didn't think it was supported by our recommendations."

'More Pro-Industry'

Whitman, then head of the EPA, was on vacation with her family in Colorado when her cellphone rang. The vice president was on the line, and he was clearly irked.

Why was the agency dragging its feet on easing pollution rules for aging power and oil refinery plants?, Cheney wanted to know. An industry that had contributed heavily to the Bush-Cheney campaign was clamoring for change, and the vice president told Whitman that she "hadn't moved it fast enough," she recalled.

Whitman protested, warning Cheney that the administration had to proceed cautiously. It was August 2001, just seven months into the first term. We need to "document this according to the books," she said she told him, "so we don't look like we are ramrodding something through. Because it's going to court."

But the vice president's main concern was getting it done fast, she said, and "doing it in a way that didn't hamper industry."



Enlarge Photo
Cheney's insistence on easing air pollution controls led Christine Todd Whitman, shown with Secretary of State Colin Powell and Cheney aide Lewis "Scooter" Libby, to resign as EPA administrator. Getty Images
At issue was a provision of the Clean Air Act known as the New Source Review, which requires older plants that belch millions of tons of smog and soot each year to install modern pollution controls when they are refurbished in a way that increases emissions.

Industry officials complained to the White House that even when they had merely performed routine maintenance and repairs, the Clinton administration hit them with violations and multimillion-dollar lawsuits. Cheney's energy task force ordered the EPA to reconsider the rule.

Whitman had already gone several rounds with the vice president over the issue.

She and Cheney first got to know each other in one of the Nixon administration's anti-poverty agencies, working under Donald H. Rumsfeld. When Cheney offered her the job in the Bush administration, the former New Jersey governor marveled at how far both had come. But as with Treasury Secretary Paul H. O'Neill, another longtime friend who owed his Cabinet post to Cheney, Whitman's differences with the vice president would lead to her departure.

Sitting through Cheney's task force meetings, Whitman had been stunned by what she viewed as an unquestioned belief that EPA's regulations were primarily to blame for keeping companies from building new power plants. "I was upset, mad, offended that there seemed to be so much head-nodding around the table," she said.

Whitman said she had to fight "tooth and nail" to prevent Cheney's task force from handing over the job of reforming the New Source Review to the Energy Department, a battle she said she won only after appealing to White House Chief of Staff Andrew H. Card Jr. This was an environmental issue with major implications for air quality and health, she believed, and it shouldn't be driven by a task force primarily concerned with increasing production.

Whitman agreed that the exception for routine maintenance and repair needed to be clarified, but not in a way that undercut the ongoing Clinton-era lawsuits -- many of which had merit, she said.

Cheney listened to her arguments, and as usual didn't say much. Whitman said she also met with the president to "explain my concerns" and to offer an alternative.

She wanted to work a political trade with industry -- eliminating the New Source Review in return for support of Bush's 2002 "Clear Skies" initiative, which outlined a market-based approach to reducing emissions over time. But Clear Skies went nowhere. "There was never any follow-up," Whitman said, and moreover, there was no reason for industry to embrace even a modest pollution control initiative when the vice president was pushing to change the rules for nothing.

She decided to go back to Bush one last time. It was a crapshoot -- the EPA administrator had already been rolled by Cheney when the president reversed himself on a campaign promise to limit carbon dioxide emissions linked to global warming -- so she came armed with a political argument.

Whitman said she plunked down two sets of folders filled with news clips. This one, she said, pointing to a stack about 2-1/2 inches thick, contained articles, mostly negative, about the administration's controversial proposal to suspend tough new standards governing arsenic in drinking water. And this one, she said as she pointed to a pile four or five times as thick, are the articles about the rules on aging power plants and refineries -- and the administration hadn't even done anything yet.

"If you think arsenic was bad," she recalled telling Bush, "look at what has already been written about this."

But Whitman left the meeting with the feeling that "the decision had already been made." Cheney had a clear mandate from the president on all things energy-related, she said, and while she could take her case directly to Bush, "you leave and the vice president's still there. So together, they would then shape policy."

What happened next was "a perfect example" of that, she said.

The EPA sent rule revisions to White House officials. The read-back was that they weren't happy and "wanted something that would be more pro-industry," she said.

The end result, which she said was written at the direction of the White House and announced in August 2003, vastly broadened the definition of routine maintenance. It allowed some of the nation's dirtiest plants to make major modifications without installing costly new pollution controls.

By that time, Whitman had already announced her resignation, saying she wanted to spend more time with her family. But the real reason, she said, was the new rule.

"I just couldn't sign it," she said. "The president has a right to have an administrator who could defend it, and I just couldn't."

A federal appeals court has since found that the rule change violated the Clean Air Act. In their ruling, the judges said that the administration had redefined the law in a way that could be valid "only in a Humpty-Dumpty world."

Staff researcher Julie Tate contributed to this report.



http://voices.washingtonpost.com/cheney/chapters/leaving_no_tracks/





issues subpoena to Halliburton on gas drilling

By MATTHEW DALY
The Associated Press
Tuesday, November 9, 2010; 5:41 PM


WASHINGTON -- The Environmental Protection Agency subpoenaed energy giant Halliburton Tuesday, seeking a description of the chemical components used in a drilling technique called hydraulic fracturing.

The EPA said it issued the subpoena after Texas-based Halliburton refused to voluntarily disclose the chemicals used in the controversial drilling practice, also known as "fracking." Halliburton was the only one of nine major energy companies that refused the EPA's request.

The agency said the information is important to its study of fracking, in which crews inject millions of gallons of water, mixed with sand and chemicals underground to force open channels in sand and rock formations so oil and natural gas will flow.

The EPA is studying whether the practice affects drinking water and the public health.

A Halliburton spokeswoman said the company was disappointed by the EPA's action.

"Halliburton welcomes any federal court's examination of our good-faith efforts with the EPA to date," said spokeswoman Teresa Wong.

The subpoena is the latest bad news for Halliburton, which has been under fire for its role in the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Investigators for a presidential panel say the company pumped faulty cement into the well that later blew out, killing 11 people and spewing more than 200 million gallons of crude oil.

The company also has faced renewed criticism over a provision in the 2005 energy law that prevents the EPA from regulating fracking. The exemption is commonly called the "Halliburton loophole," in reference to the company's pioneering role in fracking. An energy task force convened by former Vice President Dick Cheney, a onetime Halliburton CEO, had urged the EPA exemption.

Wong said the EPA's request, made in September, was overly broad and could require the company to prepare about 50,000 spreadsheets.

"We have met with the agency and had several additional discussions with EPA personnel in order to help narrow the focus of their unreasonable demands so that we could provide the agency what it needs to complete its study of hydraulic fracturing," Wong said. Halliburton turned over nearly 5,000 pages of documents last week, she said.

Drilling companies have largely sought to protect their chemical formulas, calling them proprietary. Environmentalists are concerned that the chemicals, some of them carcinogens, will taint underground water supplies.

A 2009 report prepared for the Energy Department said sand and chemicals typically account for less than 2 percent of fracturing fluids, with water making up 98 to 99.5 percent.

The EPA is taking a new look at fracking as gas drillers swarm to the lucrative Marcellus Shale beneath Pennsylvania, New York, West Virginia and Ohio and blast into other shale formations around the country.

Fracking is exempt from federal regulation. The process is touted as the key to unlocking huge reserves of clean-burning natural gas.

Supporters say the practice is safe, noting that it is done thousands of feet below ground, much deeper than most water sources. They also point out that authorities have yet to link fracking to contaminated drinking water.

The EPA said in March it will study potential human health and water quality threats from fracking. Initial results are expected in 2012.

The EPA said eight other national and regional drilling companies either fully complied with its Sept. 9 request or made unconditional commitments to provide information soon. The other companies are BJ Services Co.; Complete Production Services; Key Energy Services; Patterson-UTI; RPC, Inc.; Schlumberger; Superior Well Services Inc.; and Weatherford. All but RPC and Superior are based in Houston. RPC is based in Atlanta and Superior in Indiana, Pa.


http://voices.washingtonpost.com/cheney/

Gayle in MD
11-13-2010, 12:47 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Deeman3</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Thanks for the info, although I am aware of these things you listed. My question is more literal, as in how physically does one sneak something into a bill, unannounced to those who vote on it?

Sack </div></div>

<span style="color: #FF0000">Sack,

Perhaps they make it over 2000 pages and hold the vote late at night before a single member of the oppostion has a chance to read it then mock them for even wanting to know the content before they vote,saying, "They will see what is in the bill after it is passed!"

Perhaps like that! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif </span> </div></div>

Perhaps, but at least it was for an honorable cause, helping the sick, who have no health iinsurance, and who have been dropped, or seen their HC costs, go through the roof, completely overlooked for eight years, by the Bush Administration...

Unlike Bush and Cheney, who only represented the wealthy polluters, for eight years. the Military Industrial complex, for eight years.

The stinking Oil Industry, and their pollution, for eight years.

The corrupt pharmaceutical industry, for eight years.

Hey, I really don't know where you find the B***s, to be critical of what is going on now, when you voted twice for treasonists, but I dont know one thing, this country fell apart, during the Bush Administration, of lies and treason, and you defended them, even when they brok the Geneva Convenstions, and when the country was heading down the pit to the brink of a depression, YOU didn't even bother to vote in the last presidential election.



G.

wolfdancer
11-13-2010, 01:07 PM
hmmm, don't they have a name for "sneaking" sumthin into a bill, in order for the originator, to get it passed? Earmarks, maybe?
Our Senators,Congressmen (and wimmen)are too smart?...to let someone "sneak" one in, but they may be forced to approve the addition of something distasteful ...in order to get some necessary legislation endorsed.

Gayle in MD
11-13-2010, 01:23 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wolfdancer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">hmmm, don't they have a name for "sneaking" sumthin into a bill, in order for the originator, to get it passed? Earmarks, maybe?
Our Senators,Congressmen (and wimmen)are too smart?...to let someone "sneak" one in, but they may be forced to approve the addition of something distasteful ...in order to get some necessary legislation endorsed. </div></div>

Well, as I said, if they're being lied to by the directors of oversight agencies, who were put into place by Dick Cheney, in order to have control over that agency's reports, hoow can anyone seek to make an issue over who did or didn't vote for or against them.

It's the same argument they use to excuse the Bush Administration, for lying to the Congree, in the run up to the war, they even post old opinions, from years before, 9/11, and try to use them as a way to point out Democratics, who years before 9/11 ever happened, and years before Clinton destroyed all of Saddam's weapons factories, and ability to get anything from anywhere, and try to suggest that those views, were at all pertinent to decisions made years later....what a crock.

They do the same thing about Clinton's decisions about Phil Graham's mess, when Bush's regime, totally changed the regulations, and made them the Graham Act ON STEROIDS...nothing like the original legislation was inteended to be, when Clinton signed it.

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

If the regulators, were all put in place by Cheney, and the EPA, was being overseen by people from the oil industry, wTF do they expect was going on?

The woman from EPA resigned, voer Cheney's corruption of the entire agency.

Every article I have ever read about this subject, and also every documentary, and every reference, statedd, Cheney snuck in the Halliburton Loophole. It is a very well know, well research, event.

Now if Sck needs an exact description of how Cheney did it, he can look it up for himself....I've already studied the issue, but I've also read sever hundred books, about the Bush Administration, how am I supposed to recall, exactly on what date, on what time, in exactly what way, that cheney pulled it off...

Screw it, it's public knowledge, what Cheney did to the regulatory agencies...he corrupterd them, all of them, and now, republicans want to do away with the EPA entirely, those repuslive, disgusting, P'sOS!

G.

wolfdancer
11-13-2010, 01:36 PM
Who was in charge:
"President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney are scheduled to testify before the 9/11 commission. I guess right now they're finalizing the seating arrangements. Should Bush sit on Cheney's right knee or his left knee?" —Jay Leno
"Did you see President Bush land on the aircraft carrier? President Bush told reporters on the carrier after he landed that the pilot actually let him fly the plane for a little bit. In a related story, Dick Cheney said that he once let President Bush run the country for a few minutes." —Conan O'Brien
"You probably all heard about President Bush's nickname for Vladamir Putin, Pootie-Poot. See, he likes to give nicknames to everybody. He calls his dad '41', because he was the 41st president, and he calls Dick Cheney 'Boss.'" —Jay Leno
XXX (http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/jokes/blbushjoke77.htm)

In GW's defense...Cheney was pulling the strings:
http://0.tqn.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/b/8/cheney_puppetmaster.jpg
?? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CcD2iexGqZQ)

Gayle in MD
11-15-2010, 10:20 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wolfdancer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Who was in charge:
"President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney are scheduled to testify before the 9/11 commission. I guess right now they're finalizing the seating arrangements. Should Bush sit on Cheney's right knee or his left knee?" —Jay Leno
"Did you see President Bush land on the aircraft carrier? President Bush told reporters on the carrier after he landed that the pilot actually let him fly the plane for a little bit. In a related story, Dick Cheney said that he once let President Bush run the country for a few minutes." —Conan O'Brien
"You probably all heard about President Bush's nickname for Vladamir Putin, Pootie-Poot. See, he likes to give nicknames to everybody. He calls his dad '41', because he was the 41st president, and he calls Dick Cheney 'Boss.'" —Jay Leno
XXX (http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/jokes/blbushjoke77.htm)

In GW's defense...Cheney was pulling the strings:
http://0.tqn.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/b/8/cheney_puppetmaster.jpg
?? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CcD2iexGqZQ)

</div></div>
I find them both, repulsive, just as repulsive as a few on here who deny all of the damages to America, due to Bush, cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, all of them deserved to be hung for treason.

G.

Stretch
11-15-2010, 10:36 AM
They did more to screw over America than Al-Qaeda and Iraq put together. It's a symbiotic relationship. St.

Gayle in MD
11-15-2010, 12:28 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Stretch</div><div class="ubbcode-body">They did more to screw over America than Al-Qaeda and Iraq put together. It's a symbiotic relationship. St. </div></div>

Absolutely!!!

And also more to destroy the economy, than the people who signed low doc mortgages.

The right does not want to link the rising prices for everything, which all Middle Class Americans had to deal with, throughout the Bush Administration, such as higher medical costs, pharmacueticals, health insurances, all among them, and all protected in one way or other, by Bush.... among them, the costs of energy, which impacts costs of everything, including education for their college kids.

The result, was that many good people, who had worked their asses off, their entire lilfe, had their jobs outsourced, or became ill, and got dumped by their health insurance, or needed to borrow to get kids through college, borrowed money on their homes, which were quickly going up in value, which then began to lose value, at a rapid rate, once people began to be privy to what was actually going on behind the scenes, in secret, by the financial markets, Bankers, mortgage companies, hedge funders, and all of their crooked, EXOTIC, hidden goings on... .

Now, borrowing money on one's home, has never before been seen as an irresponsible thing to do, and particularly in order to put one's children through college, or get medical help, when one could die witout it, but Bush and the Republicans never addressed the rising costs which were left competely unaddressed.

Without the complete irresponsiblity and shuffling around, out of greed, that went on on Wall Street, none of this could have happened.

If you destablize the Middle East, does the price of oil go through the roof?

Is aonyone stupid enough to believe that we would have been in Iraq, or the Middle East, either time, if they didn't have some of the richest oil in the world????

How many other cruel dictators are there around the world, where we could have gone in the interest of human rights?

When people blame those who bought up properties, they could not afford, they should realize that that kind of buying was done in the investment category, land development corporations, home builders, fat cats, buying up five and six homes, mostly by the upper income levels, home builders, speculators, investors, and the wealthy, not the ravaged Middle Class...

It was the corrupted shadow market, predatory lenders, who sold bad paper, and bet that it would fail...corrupted Ratings corporations and agencies, banks which did not hold enough money, to cover their own bets, irrationall confusing mortgage instruments, which caused the meltdown..not the decling Middle Class, and not Fannie and Freddie, more like Greenspan's unreasonably low interest rates, in the interest of Bush's ownership society.

G.

LWW
11-15-2010, 02:13 PM
So ... did we ever figure out why the democrooks voted for fracking at such a mammoth rate?

LWW

Chopstick
11-17-2010, 06:08 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Chopstick</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJFj7a7MuNA&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U01EK76Sy4A

Another example of Republilcan policies, destroying the environment.

Thanks Bush. </div></div>

<span style="color: #000099">Just a few quick questions:

1) Do you know what fracking is?
2) Do you know how fracking works?
3) Do you know what is good or bad with fracking?
4) Did you read the fracking bill?
5) Do you know what Bush did or did not regulate or deregulate? (Hint: If you did not read the bill, the answer is no.)

If you cannot answer these questions, you have nothing to complain about.</span> </div></div>



I know exactly what it is, and the answer is yes, to all.

Any other questions, you can send to my attorney, wolfdancer, LOL.

Here is a question for you.

Did you even bother to read my original thread post?

If so, then why would you write this in the first place? </div></div>


<span style="color: #000099">So, you read the bill. Good. Then maybe you can direct me to the section on offshore oil platforms, as your previous rant indicated. </span>

LWW
11-17-2010, 06:36 AM
You are holding the bar way too high my friend.

LWW