Dafatone: Alright, alright.

Explain to me how companies that do fracking can claim the fracking solution is an "industry secret."

They're pumping that stuff into our water.

If we knew what was in it, we wouldn't let them pump it. Duh.

That is the most ridiculous thing I've heard all week, but then again it's still early.

/I can't believe there is no confirm button. Even in tests you take online for college classes have a confirm button. They're deciding on what happens to an entire state with not fail safe? I'm surprised this hasn't happened before.

Alright, alright.

Explain to me how companies that do fracking can claim the fracking solution is an "industry secret."

They're pumping that stuff into our water.

Rapmaster2000: Meh. Fracking for oil in NC sounds like a money losing plan. Fracking for gas just about everywhere is a money losing plan. There's too much supply in storage, too much capacity, and the costs of fracking production are way too high. Don't worry about it.

Until, you know...they actually do it anyway, and your drinking water can suddenly be used to strip paint.

LordJiro: Dafatone: Alright, alright.

Explain to me how companies that do fracking can claim the fracking solution is an "industry secret."

They're pumping that stuff into our water.

If we knew what was in it, we wouldn't let them pump it. Duh.

If Christ all-mighty came down from on high to tell the proles what was in the water and that it was bad for the earth and its inhabitants, all the republicans would have to do is call him a "liberal" and say his ideas were "job killing" and the mouth-breathers would fall all over themselves to string him up again.

Republicans do not care about anything or anyone other than their side "winning." Facts and costs be damned.

Jim_Callahan: Dafatone: Explain to me how companies that do fracking can claim the fracking solution is an "industry secret."

They're pumping that stuff into our water.

That's not actually how fracking works. The solution, which is mostly water, is pumped into the oil/gas reservoir to maintain pressure, or into oil shale to increase the release rate by opening microfractures. Sometimes additives are included to break down some of the more problematic organic compounds to make extraction easier as welll.

If your drinking water supply shares a reservoir with oil/natgas then it's, y'know, already pretty severely poisonous. Plus typically oil and drinking water come from pretty severely different geological strata, most drinkable aquifers are within a couple hundred feet of the surface and with oil you're talking thousands.

Obviously there are oversight and quality control issues to address, but no more so than with any other method of oil/gas extraction. Any contamination of the drinking water occurs the normal way, by someone stupidly letting something leak down from above-ground.

That's not actually how not actually how fracking works. Where there's fraking where once there was fine drinking well water. Suddenly there's bad well water, simply that. Too bad for NC. Guess I will never have to consider living there. Shame I do have some friends there. I suppose they'll be wanting bottle water for Christmas.

Satanic_Hamster: It's not because they're evil trying to poison you.

They're not trying to poison us, but they don't seem too concerned over the possibility of it happening.

Headso: Does that smell like bullshiat to anyone else?

That's just fracking fluid. Fact: Fracking fluid is a minimum 72% bullsh*t.



Jim_Callahan: Obviously there are oversight and quality control issues to address, but no more so than with any other method of oil/gas extraction.

Which is to say, there's essentially no oversight or quality control at all...
=Smidge=

Jim_Callahan: Dafatone: Explain to me how companies that do fracking can claim the fracking solution is an "industry secret."

They're pumping that stuff into our water.

That's not actually how fracking works. The solution, which is mostly water, is pumped into the oil/gas reservoir to maintain pressure, or into oil shale to increase the release rate by opening microfractures. Sometimes additives are included to break down some of the more problematic organic compounds to make extraction easier as welll.

If your drinking water supply shares a reservoir with oil/natgas then it's, y'know, already pretty severely poisonous. Plus typically oil and drinking water come from pretty severely different geological strata, most drinkable aquifers are within a couple hundred feet of the surface and with oil you're talking thousands.

Obviously there are oversight and quality control issues to address, but no more so than with any other method of oil/gas extraction. Any contamination of the drinking water occurs the normal way, by someone stupidly letting something leak down from above-ground.



Well if you say it's alright.......

How farking bad is it when "a show of hands" is a more accurate system of voting?

She should fall on her sword for making such a mistake.

ambassador_ahab: I'm not from NC, but it seems to me like there should be a difference between "changing your vote" (i.e actually changing your mind,) vs. "pressed the wrong button." Her intended vote didn't change...it was literally a mistake.

This morning's news (in Raleigh) ran a clip of her being interviewed right after last night's vote. She said she was the legislator who lobbied hard to get the votes to keep the veto in place, but when it came her time to vote she hit the big green Yes button instead of the big red No button. She immediately realized she made a mistake and tried to get the attention of the Speaker, who ignored her and announced the veto was overturned. Since the vote was held near midnight, it wouldn't surprise me if she was just plain exhausted and made a stupid mental mistake.

They then interviewed the Speaker, who said "rules are rules; votes aren't allowed to be changed if they alter the outcome of a bill", which in this case it would. The whole time he had a big shiat eating grin on his face, too, as if he was thinking "this was just too good to be true, no way in hell will I let this get changed!".

/the state will now be fracked
//already fracked up enough thanks to these fracking Republicans

elections have consequences. In this case, people in NC elected a dummy and it had some serious consequences.

ambassador_ahab: I'm not from NC, but it seems to me like there should be a difference between "changing your vote" (i.e actually changing your mind,) vs. "pressed the wrong button." Her intended vote didn't change...it was literally a mistake.

She should have paid attention the first time.

For fark's sake.

bdub77
I posted my dislike of this on Facebook, and a "friend" of mine went off on a rant about Obamacare, SS, and the minimum wage, among other things, being horrible decisions. He also for the record thought that if the water does get poisoned i can tell him I told you so.

Unfriend.

House rules prohibiatchanging your vote if doing so would affect the outcome. (In other words, you can change your vote on a bill, but only if won't make any difference.)

That is a farking moronic rule. In a case where someone made a mistake and immediately announced that he/she made a mistake, there should be a way of correcting it. But the GOPers in NC won, so they don't give a flying fark how. They're assholes.

SVenus: "Halliburton Executive Drinks Fracking Fluid At Conference"

Yeah... a person drank something that they claimed was a fracking fluid that isn't being used.
It's in trials. It may get used. It may not. But it has *literally* nothing to do with the fluids that are being used as we speak.

/ to say nothing of the question of: what he actually drank, who he is, what he does, or why he hasn't been made available to reporters for follow-up questions
// nothing says 'standing beside your product' like an unrepeated stunt you refuse to talk about

Vlad_the_Inaner: Jim_Callahan: If your drinking water supply shares a reservoir with oil/natgas then it's, y'know, already pretty severely poisonous.

Because aquifers are uniformly distributed up and down the geologic column with no non-porous layers intervening.

Exactly. Now if you could please provide a map indicating which aquifers will be affected and which are guaranteed to be sealed off by non-porous layers, that would be much appreciated.

Thank you.

"Even more bizarrely, House rules prohibiatchanging your vote if doing so would affect the outcome. (In other words, you can change your vote on a bill, but only if won't make any difference.)"

American democracy: Kabuki theater in action.

Jim_Callahan: Dafatone: Explain to me how companies that do fracking can claim the fracking solution is an "industry secret."

They're pumping that stuff into our water.

That's not actually how fracking works. The solution, which is mostly water, is pumped into the oil/gas reservoir to maintain pressure, or into oil shale to increase the release rate by opening microfractures. Sometimes additives are included to break down some of the more problematic organic compounds to make extraction easier as welll.

If your drinking water supply shares a reservoir with oil/natgas then it's, y'know, already pretty severely poisonous. Plus typically oil and drinking water come from pretty severely different geological strata, most drinkable aquifers are within a couple hundred feet of the surface and with oil you're talking thousands.

Obviously there are oversight and quality control issues to address, but no more so than with any other method of oil/gas extraction. Any contamination of the drinking water occurs the normal way, by someone stupidly letting something leak down from above-ground.

Well, nat gas doesn't leak from above-ground storage into water. This "tap water on fire" stuff is ridiculous though. If you're drilling a water well where there's a natural gas, you DO sometimes get nat gas in the water, with our without drilling, with or without fracking. It's also easily removed by a piece of gas separator hardware at the wellhead, which the gas company will surely install for free in exchange for STFU. Solubility of methane in water at STP is only 20mg/kg, so it really doesn't want to be there. Which is why it separated out at the wellhead and makes gas bubbles in the pipes that can be ignited (methane-saturated water won't burn). Just put a separator on the wellhead and get on with your life!

There is no environmental risk associated with nat gas in the well water that I'm aware of. I assume a spring might be "contaminated" but it should just degas out on its own near the spring. AFAIK it's not gonna poison anything.

Well water is OFTEN nasty stuff, BTW. In many areas, it's clean, but plenty of areas will get hard water, sulfur compounds, arsenic, etc, from the natural rock when you drill. Natural gas ain't nothing to worry about compared to that.

I hope you like flaming water because that's what you're getting

Add North Carolina to the list of states we need to flood off the map with Texas and Florida.

Meh. Fracking for oil in NC sounds like a money losing plan. Fracking for gas just about everywhere is a money losing plan. There's too much supply in storage, too much capacity, and the costs of fracking production are way too high. Don't worry about it.

Abe Vigoda's Ghost: Headso: Does that smell like bullshiat to anyone else?

Kind of my thought.

Considering she immediately said, "oh no! I pushed green!", and previously voted no on the original bill that was subsequently vetoed, no it doesn't sound like BS to me.

Dafatone: Alright, alright.

Explain to me how companies that do fracking can claim the fracking solution is an "industry secret."

They're pumping that stuff into our water.

They bribe people like this woman who "accidentally" pressed the wrong button?

Dafatone: Alright, alright.

Explain to me how companies that do fracking can claim the fracking solution is an "industry secret."

They're pumping that stuff into our water.

Been saying this all along. If it's safe, I want big oil execs to come down and drink a glass of water from a fracking zone in front of some cameras.

Does that smell like bullshiat to anyone else?

gblive: How's that again? You claim that cheap natural gas is going to revive U.S. manufacturing. You do realize that the bulk of low cost U.S. manufacturing is in places like the South. The cheapest form of electricity here is produced by coal. Even if natural gas fell to 25% of its current on-shore price - it still would be much cheaper to power manufacturing using electricity from the existing coal fired power plants.

You provide a rather strong argument to continue using coal here.

gblive: Bottom Line: Cheap natural gas is not going result in the repatriation of thousands of manufacturing jobs from China. What is driving manufacturing back to US. shores is higher shipping costs and the fact that many U.S. plants have re-tooled over the past 3 years with high tech equipment (a good investment) so they can manufacture here at lower cost while maintaining better control over quality.

Good thing the ships and planes sending Chinese goods to us aren't powered by coal, huh?

Modern technology lets us now pipe many things to where they are needed... oil, gas, and water. It would be simple to have the gas companies agree to pipe in and/or treat the existing water supply as part of the deal.

/having been involved in construction, we had to agree to providing sidewalks, parks, etc in order to be allowed to build large projects

Dr._Love: I love the industry schills who show up here to defend rampant despoiling of everything.

Observation: Hey this messes up the drinking water.
No, that's not fracking, it must be something else. (Dicto simpliciter)
Observation: Well the water was messed up after fracking.
Yeah but we'll drink the fluid we use, it's safe! (Non Sequitur)
Observation: The water is on f*cking FIRE!
Natural gas is nothing compared to the possibilities from rock drilling for the well itself. (Ad Absurdum)
Observation: We know this is f*cking up our environment!!
Well, banning it will destry what's left of the economy.(Naturalistic Fallacy)

[energeopolitics.files.wordpress.com image 640x201]

[www.greenpeace.org image 640x484]

Cock-nobblers!

/two years, Bill
//they took my eye

This is a great example of a ridiculous non-factual citeless post with a diagram with no source, no science. The "data" in the chart above makes no sense. 47% = 20, indicating that there are only 42 natural gas wells in the u.s.?

This is the first time in history that the US has a gigantic cost advantage on natural gas relative to the rest of the developed world. US NG is 3-4 times less expensive in the US than in Asia Pacific or Europe. We finally get some advantage on energy and a key feedstock to petrochemical which will bolster American manufacturing, and here idiots like he one above want to shelve NG exploration based on their liberal bias (libfor the sake of being lib) overriding their responsibility to actually learn about the NG production process and understanding that this will finally result in the repatriation of thousands of manufacturing jobs from China.

5 years ago I moved to the mountains of western NC to enjoy the landscape, great fly fishing streams and quiet solitude.

Go fark yourself, coont.

ambassador_ahab: it was literally a mistake

When you get paid to do it, it's not a mistake.

The Evil That Lies In The Hearts Of Men: I wonder how much $$$ it takes to have a legislator 'accidently' press the the wrong button on an issue like this.

Probably not that much; there are photos from the vote showing a New Hanover County Democrat, one that initially voted to stop the fracking bill, high-fiving her Republican counterpart after voting to overturn the Governor's veto. No, it was not the woman who pressed the wrong button, but had the New Hanover politician voted no (to stop the override), then the button-pushing mistake would have been irrelevant.

And so far as I know, there have been no states that have successfully avoided polluting the surrounding land around these fracking wells, or not created more of a mess with the used water. The NC bill specifically allows industry experts to "help" in creating the regulations the state will use to monitor the well drilling with, and also allows majority taking of property rights (basically if your neighbors allow fracking, you are forced to allow it also).

Why is it that no one ever accidentally presses the "Legalize Weed" button???

Satanic_Hamster: The contents are still released to the state/feds. You have to apply / get permission from the government to use a trade secrets label. Once you do, you think you're going to release the information to any jackass off the street?

Do the studies get shared with ther regulatory agencies involved or just the trade secrets panel? How aboutwith independenet researches for that whokle "Peer reviewed" science thing?

Of course trofits aregfar more imporatnt than the health and safety of a jackass off the street like your or your jackass kids.That goes without saying,.n Corporate profits is the highest of all possible priorities.

jigger: Philip Francis Queeg: jigger: Philip Francis Queeg: fredklein: Philip Francis Queeg: Ah yes, the opinion of some random 78 year old is proof positive of the complete safety of fracking. No further studies or investigation needed.

No one said that. On the contrary, her evidence that the water was flammable before the fracking started contradicts the implied claim that the fracking caused the flammability, and thus, more investigation needs to be done.

If her claim is false, that still doesn't prove fracking caused the flammability, and we're back to square one.
If her claim is true, that pretty much hands the anti-frackers a heaping cup of STFU.

She had no "evidence", just a claim.

So you're saying she's lying.

Nope. I'm saying she is irrelevant.

Are you saying that all her neighbors who think there is a problem are lying?

Oh, so they're relevant, but she's not.

People complained. The EPA went and checked out Dimock. They said, yeah, you've got methane in your water. Guess what. You live on top of a shiatload of methane. And then everyone went See? See? It's fracking. EPA was all like, we didn't say that.

Maybe of all the people in the town, you might want to listen to a woman pushing 80 who's lived there her whole life and knows that the water has had methane in it for as long as she can remember.

No, actually tests and studies are relevent. You know that whole "science" thing.

I love the industry schills who show up here to defend rampant despoiling of everything.

Observation: Hey this messes up the drinking water.
No, that's not fracking, it must be something else. (Dicto simpliciter)
Observation: Well the water was messed up after fracking.
Yeah but we'll drink the fluid we use, it's safe! (Non Sequitur)
Observation: The water is on f*cking FIRE!
Natural gas is nothing compared to the possibilities from rock drilling for the well itself. (Ad Absurdum)
Observation: We know this is f*cking up our environment!!
Well, banning it will destry what's left of the economy.(Naturalistic Fallacy)





Cock-nobblers!

/two years, Bill
//they took my eye

rtaylor92: Republicans Politicians do not care about anything or anyone other than their side "winning." Facts and costs be damned.

FTFY

patrick767: gblive
P.S. - this was not an "accidental" push of the button. This entire event was planned. This lady is getting large political campaign contributions from the Fracking industry.

Citation needed. Oh wait, you pulled that out of your ass.

Yep... sure did. But before eating my turd you should probably check the donation records from the Gas Industry to this Charlotte representative like the NC Political forum did today.... oh wait 27% of her funds in the past year are from the Gas Industry. Just part of the over 1 Million dollars in campaign contributions that the Fracking Industry provided to state politicians in North Carolina over the past 12 months.

jigger: Philip Francis Queeg: fredklein: Philip Francis Queeg: Ah yes, the opinion of some random 78 year old is proof positive of the complete safety of fracking. No further studies or investigation needed.

No one said that. On the contrary, her evidence that the water was flammable before the fracking started contradicts the implied claim that the fracking caused the flammability, and thus, more investigation needs to be done.

If her claim is false, that still doesn't prove fracking caused the flammability, and we're back to square one.
If her claim is true, that pretty much hands the anti-frackers a heaping cup of STFU.

She had no "evidence", just a claim.

So you're saying she's lying.

Nope. I'm saying she is irrelevant.

Are you saying that all her neighbors who think there is a problem are lying?

patrick767: bdub77
I posted my dislike of this on Facebook, and a "friend" of mine went off on a rant about Obamacare, SS, and the minimum wage, among other things, being horrible decisions. He also for the record thought that if the water does get poisoned i can tell him I told you so.

Unfriend.

House rules prohibiatchanging your vote if doing so would affect the outcome. (In other words, you can change your vote on a bill, but only if won't make any difference.)

That is a farking moronic rule. In a case where someone made a mistake and immediately announced that he/she made a mistake, there should be a way of correcting it. But the GOPers in NC won, so they don't give a flying fark how. They're assholes.

I'm going to guess that she files a lawsuit very soon, saying she substantively (actual substance of the decision as opposed to the form) voted no. If she can get a court to say that the electronic system is only a mean of recording the vote and not actually determinative of what her vote was, fracking is banned. And I would bet on an injunction preventing the law from going into effect until that question can be resolved.

And yeah, we have a pretty crappy legislature. The republicans are utter dirtbags, and have basically unchecked power. Cocksucking pieces of crap. Our Democrats aren't too bad, they're just corrupt.

GORDON: When someone in politics changes to a liberal mindset, Like Chief Justice Roberts, then that is "enlightened."

When some democrat casts a so-called "accidental" vote in favor of so-called conservative cause, then that is "evil."

Got it.

Ummm.........no. If this was truly a mistake, then I would think that there would be something in place to make sure that this type of error can be corrected. However, the politician sounds like she needs a serious vacation. If I were a Republican and got my way through this type of method, I would feel kinda slimy. And if I were the politician who casts the vote mistakenly, I would feel like an idiot.

Dafatone: Alright, alright.

Explain to me how companies that do fracking can claim the fracking solution is an "industry secret."

They're pumping that stuff into our water.

Because frack you, that's why!

salvador.hardin: tenpoundsofcheese: why do people take a politicians word?

she was a deciding vote. She may have wanted this but knew that her party didn't, so she votes yes and then says "oopsie". She gets the best of both worlds. Vote she wants, constituents and party happy that she did purposely disagree, gets several victim points and gets to blame the system.

win all around for her.

Are you some sort of moron? She's going to be a national laughing stock. She's going to be the butt of the joke in every late night monologue this week. Cynicism and paranoia are diseases that sour overactive minds. Its rare to see them wielded so bluntly and with such lazy speculation.

no, she is going to play the victim card - it was in the article - I was so tired, (working so hard for the voters of course) and those meanies wouldn't let me change my vote.

what is easier to believe, that an experienced person would screw up on a simple task on an important vote or that she is another politician who is in the pockets of some big company.

The other issue that could be causing contamination issues is poor cementing. With so many wells going up so quickly there is severe time pressure to move to the next job. If the wells are not being sealed tightly, the fluid and petroleum products could be getting into the ground water via that. Fracking is a powerful tool that has been a game changer in regards to natural gas production. That doesn't mean it doesn't need to be looked into, but issues that are popping up where it has been used concerning water quality need to be addressed. Fracking fluids, while certainly entitled to intellectual property protection, shoudl be examined by the EPA to ensure safety.. Fracking should not be excluded from the Clean Water Act provisions.

We need this technology and it should be able to be done safely with minimal effects. Cheap, plentiful natural gas from domestic sources gives us more energy independence in a cleaner manner than relying on our coal deposits. We can't overlook the problems, but abandoning the technology because of some flaws can have significant consequences in terms of foreign policy as well as greenhouse gas emissions.

Carney said she turned her light on, but Speaker Thom Tillis would not recognize her, so she went to the front to speak to him.

That's because Speaker Thom Tillis is an asshole.

As soon as the vote was cast, House Minority Leader Paul Stam used a procedural move called a "clincher" to ensure the veto override could not be reconsidered.

House Minority Leader Paul Stam is an even bigger asshole.

So assholes from both parties chose to lock in the veto override knowing that it only won because of a mistake. Nice state congress you've got there, NC.

Next she can accidentally push buttons to legalize sodomy, murder, nudity, and hunting on Sundays.

P.S. - this was not an "accidental" push of the button. This entire event was planned. This lady is getting large political campaign contributions from the Fracking industry.

Philip Francis Queeg: Ah yes, the opinion of some random 78 year old is proof positive of the complete safety of fracking. No further studies or investigation needed.

No one said that. On the contrary, her evidence that the water was flammable before the fracking started contradicts the implied claim that the fracking caused the flammability, and thus, more investigation needs to be done.

If her claim is false, that still doesn't prove fracking caused the flammability, and we're back to square one.
If her claim is true, that pretty much hands the anti-frackers a heaping cup of STFU.

error 303: "Am I the only one who thinks this provision makes perfect sense? "

I think it's a reasonable rule too.
But there should be an "are you sure?"-style prompt, to prevent actual mistakes.

That said, it strikes me as pretty unlikely that they *don't* already have such a prompt.
Almost as unlikely as a state legislator 'accidentally' hitting the wrong button.

jigger: ModernPrimitive01: Well if you say it's alright.......

Link

"The people in Dimock had enough of the misinformation about the water in this area. There is no environmental wasteland. The water is fine." - Martha (78). She has lived in Dimock PA all her life and is a co-founder of the grassroots group "Enough Already". The group has fought claims that Dimock's water was polluted by drilling. Martha says methane has always naturally occurred in their water in the area. - "The truth is that the methane has always been in the water."

Ah yes, the opinion of some random 78 year old is proof positive of the complete safety of fracking. No further studies or investigation needed.

Now, what's her opinion on the existence of the Higgs Bsosn?

BGates: rohar: BGates: Karac: my desire to not be able to use my sink as a gas stove,

Fraking does not cause your water to catch on fire. Drilling a water well through coal does. Coal contains vast amounts of methane, in fact a large industry is based upon coal bed methane extraction.

You're intentionally ignoring other causes in certain areas. I'm sure that's good for your agenda, but not so good for the truthiness.

Like where? All of the reports I have ever heard of are shown to not be caused by fraking.

How about the Wyoming coal gas fields where the water table is dangerously close to the target of fracking? We're talking mere meters here and maybe not even that much.

Again, there's nothing specifically wrong with fracking. It's a tool like a hammer. There's nothing wrong with a hammer when used to build a house. When used to brain someone's mom, not so much.

Either way, it's not the damned hammer's fault, but it has to be used properly.

error 303: Kibbler: "Even more bizarrely, House rules prohibiatchanging your vote if doing so would affect the outcome. (In other words, you can change your vote on a bill, but only if won't make any difference.)"

American democracy: Kabuki theater in action.

Am I the only one who thinks this provision makes perfect sense? Say a Democrat wanted to vote for a controversial conservative position that was likely to fail to benefit themselves in a tight election in a close district. They decide to vote against their party but then realize that their vote was the deciding vote and want to switch it back.

I can think of a number of scenarios wher congress critters would try to have it both ways and allowing re-voting would be abused. This makes total sense to me.

I think the provision makes sense, but should be used in conjunction with an immediate "please confirm your Yes/No vote" function.

zarberg: Been saying this all along. If it's safe, I want big oil execs to come down and drink a glass of water from a fracking zone in front of some cameras.have all their drinking water bottled at and delivered from a fracking zone.

ftfy

Satanic_Hamster: And they don't want to release publicly the exact contents for a very good reason. It's not because they're evil trying to poison you. It's that they have a LOT of competitors who are evil who would gladly rip them off. The additive business is a very competitive field and there's a lot of companies trying to get a larger market share.

Because protecting profits is more important than the safety of our drinking water.

Jim_Callahan: That's not actually how fracking works. The solution, which is mostly water, is pumped into the oil/gas reservoir to maintain pressure, or into oil shale to increase the release rate by opening microfractures.

Oh, well, if it's mostly water, then it's obviously harmless.


/could you possibly be any slimier?

"Even more bizarrely, House rules prohibiatchanging your vote if doing so would affect the outcome."

God damn is America corrupt!

Who farking cares. Let the farking Republitards cheer this as a victory. All I ask is that the citizens of this state are required to sign waivers of federal assistance of any kind when their water can be used to light the grill.

Not fair, you ask? Then move the fark out and leave the state to the mouthbreathers. I'm tired of this shiat.

As a matter of fact, force them to secede from the Union so they ain't eligible for anything.

Pincy: So even the crappiest software usually has a "Are you really sure you want to do that?" warning before you do something that could potentially be bad. Are there no safeguards like this in the voting process?

zarberg: jaybeezey: Didn't some Halliburton flack drink some fracking fluid earlier this year?

Well I'll be, he did.

The problem usually isn't the solution used for fracking. It's forcing that solution into an oil /gas reserve to increase the volume extracted. This pressure added also fractures (hence the name "frack") the rock strata to add additional oil and gas to the volume. At the same time, it fractures the rock between oil and water reserves. this gets oil and gas in our water supply that the companies doing don't take responsibility for. If you've got a well, which is very likely in the rural areas that is drilled in, You don't have the filtration that the city systems do. And you get firewater with no one but the oil company to complain to.

bdub77: I posted my dislike of this on Facebook, and a "friend" of mine went off on a rant about Obamacare, SS, and the minimum wage, among other things, being horrible decisions. He also for the record thought that if the water does get poisoned i can tell him I told you so.

Hey, asshole, this isn't about saying I told you so.

But seriously state of NC, go fark yourself.

It's this kind of right-wing lunacy that makes me shamed to be on that side of the aisle.

Just clip a pic from one of the many, many studies where the local drinking water was flammable due to the aftereffects of hydraulic fracking.



The freaking water is on fire, how much worse does water need to be before you realize it's not healthy for you?

Kibbler: "Even more bizarrely, House rules prohibiatchanging your vote if doing so would affect the outcome. (In other words, you can change your vote on a bill, but only if won't make any difference.)"

American democracy: Kabuki theater in action.

Am I the only one who thinks this provision makes perfect sense? Say a Democrat wanted to vote for a controversial conservative position that was likely to fail to benefit themselves in a tight election in a close district. They decide to vote against their party but then realize that their vote was the deciding vote and want to switch it back.

I can think of a number of scenarios wher congress critters would try to have it both ways and allowing re-voting would be abused. This makes total sense to me.

Satanic_Hamster: And they don't want to release publicly the exact contents for a very good reason. It's not because they're evil trying to poison you. It's that they have a LOT of competitors who are evil who would gladly rip them off. The additive business is a very competitive field and there's a lot of companies trying to get a larger market share.

Oh, well, if there are corporate profits involved, obviously any concerns about the safety of the public must be swept aside.

It ain't the wrong button that got pushed. It took a majority vote to veto that fracking law. That means it had already passed by a 1/3rd vote, then the veto was passed by a 1/2 vote, so there are at least half of those guys who think fracking is a good thing. HALF of North Carolina's leadership thinks it's OK to pollute the water supply.

/we're all gonna die, you know that
//We're gonna pollute ourselves outta existence.
///Unless the gate in Timbuktu actually works...

So even the crappiest software usually has a "Are you really sure you want to do that?" warning before you do something that could potentially be bad. Are there no safeguards like this in the voting process?

GORDON: When someone in politics changes to a liberal mindset, Like Chief Justice Roberts, then that is "enlightened."

When some democrat casts a so-called "accidental" vote in favor of so-called conservative cause, then that is "evil."

Got it.

Well, since almost every Conservative cause is aimed at hurting the majority of the people so that a few can profit then yes, you basically nailed it.

Be nice if more politicians accidently did the right thing.

And I"m sure it was a complete accident, too, and not tens of thousands in bribes campaign contributions received.

If she had been home raising babies and baking pies, this would not have happened.

What_Would_Jimi_Do: how do you hit the wrong button?

You don't. being dumb is better than being an evil side switching lord.
Really old trick

Well, she's a Democrat. What were you expecting? Intelligence? Silly wabbit, intelligence aint for Democrats.

How the hell do you manage that? Literal monkeys could be trained to hit the right button. Monkeys. In top hats and soon-to-be-poop-laden suits.

Check from the drillers is in the mail!!!

vernonFL: You've got to be fracking kidding me.


FTFY, peeve

how do you hit the wrong button?

Bitterrooter: Welcome to North Carolina, where at least some of our politicians are not indicted (yet).

This is similar to a couple of years ago when they used a legislator's absence to sneak a gambling bill through the legislature.

John Edwards is a product of this environment.

That's an old, old, old parliamentary trick.

When someone in politics changes to a liberal mindset, Like Chief Justice Roberts, then that is "enlightened."

When some democrat casts a so-called "accidental" vote in favor of so-called conservative cause, then that is "evil."

Got it.

So say we all...