I am not a big believer in conspiracy theories, but I do believe that big Middle Eastern oil despots are unenthusiastic about any fuel that could help free us from our addiction their product. That is why I was a bit suspicious when I found out that a Matt Damon movie that seemed aimed to discredit fracking for natural gas in America is funded by the United Arab Emirates . They never funded a major American movie before. Coincidence?

Largely because of abundant Americans natural gas, your home heating and electricity bills will be lower this year than they would have been. Largely because of abundant an inexpensive American natural gas, U.S. greenhouse gas emissions are dropping and are now down to 1994 levels. Thanks to abundant American natural gas, jobs are being created in the U.S. and there is hope of a manufacturing resurgence in areas such as petrochemicals, plastics and fertilizers that benefit from inexpensive American natural gas.

New studies indicate that the U.S. could be the world's biggest energy producer within ten years because of new energy exploration technologies such as fracking. We could pass the Russians and the Saudis. Do you think these guys are happy that their leverage against us will be reduced?

Matt Damon seems like a nice guy. I assume he believes in what he says and that the films he produces are meant to tell stories he believes are true. But how much does he know?

The term "useful idiots" is attributed to Lenin, the evil genius who founded the Soviet Union. Although there is some doubt about its precise provenance, the term referred to well-meaning people in non-communist countries who supported the totalitarian doctrine w/o really understanding what they were doing. Often they were blissfully unaware of where their support came from. I remember this from my Cold Warrior days. Back then, it was controversial that major European "peace" movements were financed by the Soviet Union. Now that many Soviet archives are available, we know that to be true. (Ditto for the Rosenbergs and Alger Hiss, although they knew they were in the Soviet camp.) Conspiracy theories are usually wrong, but sometimes there is something there.

I am sure that no good American wants to keep us as dependent on oil from the Middle East. Surely people who accused us of going to war for oil would want to make that scenario increasingly unlikely in the future. We would assume that having lots of easily available American fuel replacing coal in electricity generation, lowering greenhouse gas emission and saving ordinary Americans money on their energy bills would be considered a good thing by everybody with the possible exceptions of foreign despots who wish us harm. At least they would if they thought things through.

Maybe it is true that the United Arab Emirates are just trying to make money on a film with a good looking star and a story line that they know will resonate with people afraid of change. Maybe the fact that an abundant American energy source hurts their main revenue source has nothing to do with their support for this film that could slow American energy.

You can see that I am trying hard to find other reasons why an American might make such a film and that the United Arab Emirates would fund it. How well did I do? Can you think of better excuses?

Posted by Christine & John at December 20, 2012 7:21 PM
Comment #359221

Certainly a possibility, C&J. However, your statement that “They never funded a major American movie before” is debunked by the very article you cited. Further, the article states that the investor is not a part of the government but an independent commercial enterprise.

Do you know which sector of our economy spends the least on R&D? It is the energy sector. Surprise! So, yes, your suspicion has some merit.

Posted by: Rich at December 20, 2012 8:10 PM
Comment #359222


United Arab Emirates.

Put the shoe on the other foot. if Exxon funds a film about the problems of solar cells, do you think it is pure.

Posted by: C&J at December 20, 2012 8:14 PM
Comment #359223


The spokeswoman talks of aspirations. This is their first but U.S. movie.

In any case, fracking is producing lots of benefits, but I suppose if you want to have more co2, more dependence on Middle East despots & higher energy bills for Americans, you should oppose fracking.

Posted by: C&J at December 20, 2012 8:23 PM
Comment #359225


I don’t disagree with you. But, I thought that I was going nuts when your link now seems to be different from the link that I originally went to and quoted in my reply. Here is the link that I believe originally came up with your post:

Posted by: Rich at December 20, 2012 8:44 PM
Comment #359226

Here is the quote from what I believe was the originally link: “It’s also possible the UAE — which has financed at least a half-dozen Hollywood films —”

Posted by: Rich at December 20, 2012 8:48 PM
Comment #359230

“They never funded a major American movie before. Coincidence?”

Rich is right. Imagenation Abu Dhabi and Participant Media have been partnering on films as far back as May 2009 based in an agreement from September 2008. You can see their name in credits in movie posters similar to the way it appears at the end of the fracking movie trailer. Here are two:

* The Crazies

* The Help

* Fair Game

There’s more than these. They signed and agreement for about eighteen films in five years and that was four years ago. To call Damon a useful idiot as if he’s a pawn of UAE’s propaganda wing ignores the fact that often times these films are already written and shot before folks like Imagenation get involved. In fact that backs what Damon said in a video. He said the first time he knew about Imagenation was when he saw the rough cut.

It’s not hard to imagine UAE might like the film as an agenda piece, but to call it propaganda knowing all that we know seems a bit of a stretch.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at December 20, 2012 10:16 PM
Comment #359239


I changed the link to the one that I posted on the reply. You are not going nuts, at least on this thing. What I originally did was base my comment on the one article but post the link to a different one. Sorry.


The film appears to be propaganda in the way that “Gasland” or “Inconvenient Truth.” That the United Arab Emirates funded it may be coincidental, but slowing American efforts to produce more domestic energy would certainly be in the interests of the oil sheiks.

Often when celebrities make films, it is to push their agendas. Unfortunately, rich celebrities don’t depend on inexpensive gas the way ordinary Americans do. They are much more willing to drive up the price of fuels. They also tend to be easily swayed to trendy causes.

The thing about a movie is that it can be written to create impressions, since the screenwriter gets to play both ends. The usual MO is that they have the main character play the person who is skeptical or even hostile to the main idea, but during the course of the film comes around to the idea that the film maker is pushing.

The classic case that liberals point to is John Wayne’s production of the “Green Berets”. Wayne did what liberals so often do. It featured the skeptical David Jansen, who after he sees true conditions in Vietnam comes to support the war. Watch that movie and then think about how cut Matt Damon is using the same “journey” idea. And wonder why the United Arab Emirates is investing.

Posted by: C&J at December 21, 2012 4:58 AM
Comment #359242


So is it propaganda? Maybe on the soft end of the definition where we say propaganda simply pushes a political agenda. Plenty of films push an agenda though. Art almost always has an agenda. I don’t know if I’d call the film art since I haven’t seen it, but you know what I mean.

I’d say we can each be excited about fracking for cheap, cleaner burning natural gas until we become one of the thousands of documented cases where our water is contaminated with chemicals that harm our biological processes or our maybe even when our house explodes.

This is exactly how people treat other forms of energy extraction. They say oh it’s clean, it’s fine, let’s open up more land for this. Then maybe we do. Then a select few folks get rich, a bunch of Americans get cheaper energy, and also a select few folks get poisoned. But you know what they say about omelets…

Posted by: Adam Ducker at December 21, 2012 8:10 AM
Comment #359244

Just how does fracking pollute drinking water when it is done a few thousand of feet below the deepest water wells? The average depth of a natural gas well is over a mile deep, 6,558 ft average. The deepest water wells are around 2,000 feet. The gas well shaft is in-cased in pipe and concrete to ensure that the gas doesn’t leak out.
So just how does the water get polluted? Do the chemicals leak up to the water? Or does the water gets pumped down through the chemicals before being pumped up to the surface?
Other than the lame argument of pollution, which is all but impossible, whats wrong with Americans having cheap energy? The fact that someone will make money from it? If there wasn’t a profit to be made no one would do it. Then we’d be cutting down y’alls precious trees to heat and cook. And someone would be making a profit from that.

Posted by: Ron Brown at December 21, 2012 10:47 AM
Comment #359245

Ron Brown:

If you read the article I cited above it talks a little about the different types of contamination. Several instances were careless handling of the chemicals around the sites and wasn’t because of the process itself. This is obviously something we can improve upon but it’s a problem when there’s a huge boom in development and not much time for early oversight. I would like to see folk’s opinion on this quote in particular from the article:

It is difficult to pinpoint the exact cause of each contamination, or measure its spread across the environment accurately, because the precise nature and concentrations of the chemicals used by industry are considered trade secrets. Not even the EPA knows exactly what’s in the drilling fluids. And that, EPA scientists say, makes it impossible to vouch for the safety of the drilling process or precisely track its effects.

The article is over four years old. I wonder how many documented cases there are now.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at December 21, 2012 11:39 AM
Comment #359248


Indeed, your article is four years old and many of the “documented” cases are now in dispute. The more we learn about fracking, the more we learn how to do it right and the more we learn it is among the safest forms of energy extraction. A more recent and balanced article is here -

It depends on what you want to trade. Natural gas fracking has reduced our CO2 emissions dramatically; it has already preempted the power of an OPEC-like gas cartel led by Russian and Iran; it has created jobs in the American heartland and may lead to a manufacturing Renaissance in old industrial areas in the East and Midwest. It has already lowered gas and electricity bills.

Balance that with the alleged damage to groundwater in limited local areas. Damage that cannot be properly documented because it is small.

Like ANY form of energy exploration and use, there are some costs. Natural gas extraction and use is among the most benign forms of energy. The fear mongers among us want to throw this away because of what they will not understand. We cannot let the trogs win this round, even if they are good looking and charismatic celebrities.

We should be on the side of American, not Russians, Iranians and Arab despots. We should be on the side of science not fear.

Posted by: C&J at December 21, 2012 12:15 PM
Comment #359251


My biggest concern is that we don’t know how bad it is. I don’t see how you can say it’s the safest when we’ve charged ahead with it for profit motive without considering people first. We’ll see. Hopefully the EPA report we’ll see in the next few years will support claims by the companies profiting from fracking.

Hopefully we can continue to develop completely clean sources of energy over the next few decades. Most of our oil comes from North America so hopefully as we reduce our demand we won’t have to choose between fracking and Arab despots to meet our energy demands no matter how things go in the fracking department.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at December 21, 2012 12:46 PM
Comment #359252

Reading Adam Ducker’s comments remind me of how much the left really hates America. His argument has contained many comments about people making money. Is he equally angry at the people who make millions off violent movies or violent video games? The movies and games that have been proven to have a physiological impact on the youth of America.

There is such hatred toward America for being successful. A nation which contains a middle class; something the rest of the world does not have. A nation where a common person, a person from the hills of WV, or the slums of the inner city, can go as far as their imagination will take them.

They hate America because America has used the world’s resources; we have pillaged the raw materials of the earth; we have no right to be successful; we have no right to foreign oil, and now we have no right to our own resources. It has nothing to do with the EPA, Global Warming, or clean air and water; it has to do with “we don’t have the right to be successful”.

Adam Ducker links to false data, and claims, “Hopefully the EPA report we’ll see in the next few years will support claims by the companies profiting from fracking…Hopefully we can continue to develop completely clean sources of energy over the next few decades.”

But he, like the rest of the American hating left does not hope this; they hope reports will prove things to be worse. America is evil; we have plundered the resources of the world, we have been successful, we have a form of government that the world envies, we have constitutional rights that no one anywhere in the world have. We are the envy of the world; but the left hates this. Every proposal, every democrat law, every spoken word by the left is a denigration of our life style and attempt to take our rights away. The Democrat Party is truly a party that would place the American people under Communism.

Posted by: george at December 21, 2012 1:20 PM
Comment #359253

I read the article. Whenever I see anything that quotes EPA I’m very suspicious. I reckon it’s because I don’t trust any bureaucracy. Specially one that was created for political purposes. I also know how the left over exaggerates everything they perceive as a problem in order to make things seem worse than they are.
In short I don’t believe a word of the report. Even if there is any truth in it, which is doubtful, a four year old report is inaccurate because it has nothing to do with what is happening now.
I believe that the only reason y’all oppose fracking is because someone makes a profit. And your mentioning folks profiting in all your comments is reenforcing my belief.
I’m not against renewable energy. I believe that there is a future in it. But I can’t say it’s gonna solve all our energy problems. At any rate until it becomes more viable we need to do something to get off foreign energy sources. We have the gas,oil and coal. Let’s use them.
We might never completely do away with fossil fuels. And we might. I can see a future of both being used together.

Posted by: Ron Brown at December 21, 2012 2:31 PM
Comment #359254

BTW, I installed a water turbine about 4 years ago at a spring on my place. It works great. I’ve never taken it off line except for routine maintenance. And I’ve only had to pay the electric company after Christmas since I’ve installed it. I reckon I need to cut back on the lights.

Posted by: Ron Brown at December 21, 2012 2:37 PM
Comment #359255

Ron Brown: “I believe that the only reason y’all oppose fracking is because someone makes a profit.”

How does that even make any sense?

Posted by: Adam Ducker at December 21, 2012 3:00 PM
Comment #359257


You are referring to the precautionary principle, that horrible unscientific idea that unless you can be 100% sure of something it should not be done. By that principal we would not have electricity.

Natural gas is the cleanest large scale fuel available, maybe besides nuclear, which the propagandists have already mostly stopped.

There is no completely clean source of energy, never has been never will be.

Re opposing profit - I think that is a leftist problem. Many environmental organizations were for natural gas before it started to be viable.

Posted by: C&J at December 21, 2012 3:15 PM
Comment #359258

Ron Brown: “I believe that the only reason y’all oppose fracking is because someone makes a profit.”

How does that even make any sense?

Well Golly Gee Adam, you keep mentioning it in all your comments. What am I supposed to think? If that ain’t the reason then why does it seem to unset you so much that someone would make a profit from fracking?

Posted by: Ron Brown at December 21, 2012 3:19 PM
Comment #359259

There is a pure hatred by the left for any company that makes a profit in America. The unions want to “stick it to the man”, the Democrats want to tax companies out of business…how can the left say they want to create jobs and at the same time, tax them out of business? Why does an entrepanure invest their time and money to create a business, if it’s not to make money? The pure hypocrisy of the left; they have no problem with tech companies making billions of dollars by creating video games that glorify murder and carnage. The loudest mouthed movie stars like Matt Damon who have so much to say about fracking, gun violence, etc. you name it…yet he has made his millions making movies like the Bourne series, where it’s one violent death after another. This is hypocrisy to the highest.

I have to agree with Ron Brown; if the left is opening their mouth…they are lying. Not one single thing the left says can be believed.

Posted by: george at December 21, 2012 3:56 PM
Comment #359260

Ron Brown:

That’s a complete distortion of what I’ve said and you know it.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at December 21, 2012 4:02 PM
Comment #359263

Let’s see…. pump millions of gallons of mixtures of noxious chemicals, water, and other chemical liquids into the Earth causing fractures to release natural gases into the crust, the atmosphere, and ground water…. what bad could come from that???

Look, I have a niece who works in this field. I understand the steps they take to minimize the risks and environmental damage, but one is either a liar, an ignoramus, or fool if they think there is not or will not be some serious human and environmental costs associated with these practices.

Pick your poison, but do not attribute motives to its opponents which they themselves do not claim. If you can assert motives to my opposition to the practice of cracking, then allow me to assert motives to your position. Fair?

Posted by: LibRick at December 21, 2012 5:50 PM
Comment #359264

I agree with C/J and we should celebrate how well we are doing in providing energy at lower cost and reducing carbon emissions. Let us applaud American independence and ingenuity.

Posted by: Royal Flush at December 21, 2012 5:58 PM
Comment #359266


You prefer coal, oil from the Middle East and gas from Russia? There are no dangers from this?

I know that you believe in the fair tale that we will just invent a nearly free, very clean and American fuel. When it comes, I will welcome it. Until then we have an inexpensive, very clean American fuel called natural gas.

I think your motives in opposing gas are ignorance and an unjustified believe that somehow we can make and deploy a miracle fuel, that nobody has come close to even envisioning despite strong incentives over a generation.

My motives are as I have stated. I think natural gas is the cleanest possible fuel that can satisfy our country’s energy needs. I am encouraged that it has already replaced coal and reduced particle pollution and CO2 emissions. I am glad that it preempted the move by Russia and Iran to create a gas cartel to rip us all off. And I look forward to the day when we can tell those Middle Eastern despots to shove their oil up their asses.

What other motives do you think I could have? In fact, my selfish motives would be against fracking. As a Republican, I understand that fracking helped Obama get elected and may give him credit he does not deserve for bringing back the economy. I own forest land and make money from biomass fuel. If natural gas comes on line, my fuel will lose value.

So my motive for supporting fracking is that I think it is best for our country. I assume you do too. I ask you to look at the balance of what we have today.

Do you think it is better to depend on coal, often mined by mountain top removal? Do you want to hand money and power to Russia and Iran? Do you want to not reduce CO2 emission?

You worry about groundwater in the gas producing regions. So do I. But I know that the areas producing methane are usually also coal producers. If we trade gas for coal, ground water is better off. I also know that in these areas there is naturally occurring methane seeps. Very often the water is NATURALLY compromised with methane. If we take out methane for our use, it may IMPROVE water quality.

We are striking balances. The equation includes the NATURAL base rate. Then adds in the NET effects of energy exploration and compare it to the situation if we did not do it. I cannot think of any way that this equation does not come out in favor of gas.

Posted by: C&J at December 21, 2012 6:51 PM
Comment #359267

I understand full well that I consume fossil fuels which are harmful to the environment and the future of our children. I am not opposed to natural gas per se, but I am… let’s call it ‘extremely concerned’ about the current practice of fracking. The difference between you and I on this issue is your adamant defense of the practice and my strong fear of its long term effects on humans. I’m with you on gas over coal on balance.

It would be easier to have meaningful dialogue on this issue if neither side resorted to name calling. I understand the frustration many on the right must be feeling at this point in history. Perhaps the extreme stances, such as calling all liberals anti-capitalists or our president a “socialist” or 47% of the citizens of the US leeches, are not working for you. After all, once I’ve been declared an evil devil by the voices on the right here, how can you have discourse with me (or any other liberal)? By definition I’ve had my positions and arguments declared as being against everything the right considers good.

Conservatives like George will be the downfall of the right. Read the polls. The downfall is already happening.

Posted by: LibRick at December 21, 2012 7:34 PM
Comment #359269
We should be on the side of American, not Russians, Iranians and Arab despots. We should be on the side of science not fear.

Tell that to the American corporations that send jobs overseas C&J not to Americans who care enough about the next generation to challenge science, with science. The EPA has noted many different chemicals that are cancer causing being used in the fracking process. The rush to cheap gas at the expense of the water left behind isn’t “being on the side of America” it is destroying America from within. Water is a scarce and precious resource C&J not to be ruined by cancer causing chemicals by those who wave the flag in our faces as if they were patriotic not greedy for cheap gas.

I have to agree with Ron Brown; if the left is opening their mouth…they are lying. Not one single thing the left says can be believed.

The first thing a cult does is tell you every one is lying to you. You sir have been indoctrinated into the cult of conservatism, unable to think or reason for yourself. Your feckless blathering are worn out extremist talking points given to you by movement leaders to repeat because you aren’t intelligent enough to comment on the issue at hand. You do this well but it is no reason to be proud of yourself.

Posted by: j2t2 at December 21, 2012 8:35 PM
Comment #359271

This is one crazy argument. I would assume that all would agree that natural gas should be exploited fully if it can done safely. I also assume that everybody agrees that companies extracting natural gas should make a profit on their investments.

The issue is whether it can be done safely. There have been some significant environmental problems at some sites. Concern is reasonable. There are no national federal standards and oversight of fracking. The companies have been exempted from national standards. Regulations is a state function with varying standards and monitoring.

In response to this situation, the EPA is conducting a national study of fracking practices and safety. It will be finalized in 2014. At that time, we will have a pretty good picture of the issues. Hopefully, we will be in a position to develop national standards, monitoring systems, etc. at that time.

Is that approach unreasonable? Jeez, wasn’t it Ronald Reagan that said “trust but verify.” I suggest that is the best approach. Trust the companies to do the right thing but put in place monitoring capabilities and appropriate national standards for operation.

Posted by: Rich at December 21, 2012 8:53 PM
Comment #359272


“The right” - President Obama has come down in favor of natural gas. The science supports it as better than the alternatives available.

Opponents have the vague precautionary principle, which means they throw away real gains for imaginary fears.

Let me make this as clear as possible. Natural gas is the best fuel for the environment. There is nothing we have available that can rival it.

Those who claim to think that global warming is the world’s most urgent problem cannot oppose the expanded use of natural gas. It is the ONLY available fuel that can - and already is - reducing our CO2 emissions.

I am perplexed as to how anyone who cares about the environment can oppose natural gas. I understand the need to be careful and to keep on improving. We are doing those things. But - to repeat - we are told that reducing CO2 is the most urgent thing in the world. We have a technology that is reducing CO2 faster than anybody thought possible a few years ago.


We are using science. The science is coming in showing that fracking is generally saver than other available alternatives. It is the most ecologically sound large scale alternative we currently have available.

Re water - I hate it when people refer to water as a scarce resource. It depends on where. Where I currently live, water is not a scarce resource. The “problem” with water is moving it and purifying it. It NEVER runs out on a world scale. We have essentially the same amount of water today as we did a billion years ago, and we will have the same amount a billion years from now as we do today. All water has been through billions of animals, part of sewage, mixed with chemicals etc.

Water is always and everywhere a local resource. Conserving water in one place does little or nothing to increase the supply elsewhere. Water has the characteristics of a both a stable and a renewable resource. But it is NOT like oil or coal. There will never be a time of “peak water”.

The human population of the United States, despite our economic and population growth, uses LESS water than we did in 1980. We actually know how to manage water resources and we are learning more every day. Indeed, we will be better able to manage almost every resource in the future than we are today, but we have to live today too, so we have to use what we have today.

I am very interested in conserving our water resources and I have made an effort to understand them. Fracking in dry regions may indeed tax the local water resources, although unless they “mine” it non-replenishing ground sources, it will replenish itself. There are no consistent water shortages in the area of the Marcellus shale.

It seems to bother you and your friends that gas is cheap. Why is that? Is it not a good thing?

I repeat - gas energy exploration is not w/o risks or costs. But compared to the real world alternatives, it is the most ecologically benign option we have within the next decade. If you reject it, you make our environment dirtier and strengthen bad guys like the Russians and Iranians.

I also repeat that I have no dog in the fracking fight. In fact, I believe that fracking helps Obama by making his economic mistakes less harmful. Inexpensive gas also harms my personal finances, as we grow biofuels that suffer from the competition. However, I am more interested in the environment and I love my country more than I hold to partisan or pecuniary goals.

Posted by: C&J at December 21, 2012 9:09 PM
Comment #359276

j2t2, I don’t belong to any cult and I don’t listen to anyones talking points. I simply listen and what I hear is BS lies from Obama and the democrats. The media is in bed with the democrats and nothing…NOTHING…the left says can be believed. Everything is a crisis and everything is bullshit. The simple fact is the left hates America and the American dream. Let’s take the fiscal cliff for example; Obama once again plasters his face all over the media saying the same old tripe. The truth is, he don’t want to advoid the cliff; he wants America to go over the cliff. It means everyone will be paying more taxes and he don’t give a shit about how many jobs will be lost or how many companies will go belly up. If the democrats cared about jobs and employment, they would’nt have rammed obamacare down the throats of Americans. Medicare and SS is breaking destroying our economy and all the dems did was create a monster bigger than Medicare and SS combined. These people are evil and if you support their communist agenda, thenyou are evil too.

Posted by: george at December 21, 2012 11:49 PM
Comment #359278

Here is the fruitcake that will become our next SOS, just wait till he starts dealing in the UN:

“Kerry reaches deep into the bag of global warming hysterics to uncork this piece, saying that the fate of the nation hinges upon the passing of some sort of climate change legislation.”

Read more:

“New York governor Andrew Cuomo says the state of New York is serious about gun confiscation. The Democrat and former Secretary of Housing and Urban Development told an Albany radio station he plans to propose a package of draconian legislation during his State of the State address next month…

Cuomo indicated the state will likely force some kind of permit process on owners of semi-automatic “assault weapons.” In addition to generating revenue and expanding the size and reach of government, the effort will allow the state to confiscate the weapons of citizens who do not comply.”

“Confiscation could be an option. Mandatory sale to the state could be an option.”

We are being led by diots.

Posted by: george at December 22, 2012 12:12 AM
Comment #359279

Well, there’s one spokesman from the right. Trouble with statements like George just made is that, although the right wants to pretend he is an outlier, statements such as George’s are not singular. The sentiments he expresses are not disavowed and in most cases accepted as truth by the right. Keep it up. The American people are listening… and they are seeing the real right. Turns out they don’t like it.

Posted by: LibRick at December 22, 2012 12:17 AM
Comment #359281

George BS you are part of the cult, they have you fooled. You have spouted nothing but talking points of the extremist right wing. You want SS and medicare to pay for the unfunded wars started by conservatives during the 108th Congress for ideological reasons. Conservatives “reformed” medicare without paying for it for years while cutting taxes yet you try to spout this ignorance, Really!

PPACA wasn’t rammed it was debated and worked on for months, the Patriot Act was rammed as it was passed in days, led by conservatives in a “crisis mode” George where were you, where was the outrage? You spout ridiculous discredited rhetoric about jobs and employment but your ideology is what has failed us George, but keep listening to your movement leaders and blather whatever they tell you to blather. I guess it is appropriate seeings as the title of this thread is Propaganda. But make no mistake you are part of the cult of stupidity repeating whatever Faux and Rush tell you to repeat.

Posted by: j2t2 at December 22, 2012 1:25 AM
Comment #359284

Why is everyone that disagrees with you a brainwashed member of a cult?
Can’t anyone that doesn’t agree with you think on their own without being told what to say?
Do you really hate folks that disagree with you so bad that you can’t believe that they just might have their own ideas?
What happened to make you so bitter?
What made you so intolerant of other folks opinions?
I remember when I was here before that you was able to debate issues without calling those that disagree with you brainwashed cult members.

Posted by: Ron Brown at December 22, 2012 1:55 AM
Comment #359286
Why is everyone that disagrees with you a brainwashed member of a cult?

Not everyone Ron just the trolls who insist upon talking the crap spouted by the far right media. The guys who are off topic and spout the vague generalities about us lefties, the misinformation half truths and outright lies the extremist are noted for Ron.

Do you really hate folks that disagree with you so bad that you can’t believe that they just might have their own ideas?

I just don’t tolerate fools well Ron. I have no hate nor do I think they should get a free pass for blathering nonsense.

What happened to make you so bitter?

Not bitter Ron, just tired of the crap these trolls spout. Tired of the same old nonsense that comes without thought from these guys.

What made you so intolerant of other folks opinions?

I’m not as intolerant as they are Ron. I just call them on their nonsense.

I remember when I was here before that you was able to debate issues without calling those that disagree with you brainwashed cult members.

Ron, George wasn’t debating, he was trolling. Perhaps that is the difference.

Posted by: j2t2 at December 22, 2012 2:09 AM
Comment #359287

Anyway Merry Christmas j2. I’m off to Dallas to spend Christmas with my baby sister. See ya when I get back.


Posted by: Ron Brown at December 22, 2012 2:19 AM
Comment #359296

LaPierre would rather develop a huge “thought police” bureaucracy and blame government for the actions of the individual.
Posted by: j2t2 at December 22, 2012 1:55 AM

I really don’t know how you can use both crazies and guns to blame for needless death but choose to ignore the mentally ill. Didn’t you read the headline…

“FBI Gun Background Check Database Missing Millions Of Records On Mentally Ill”

As I wrote above…”Many questions, some answers, no consensus.”

Posted by: Royal Flush at December 22, 2012 4:22 PM
Comment #359298

Sorry, the post above was meant for another topic.

Posted by: Royal Flush at December 22, 2012 4:45 PM
Comment #359345

Well, if the folks you’re talking about actually had those intentions, then they should have invested through one or two cut-outs, rather than publicly expose their connections so the rabid right could kneecap the propaganda.

As for whether fracking is a problem for drinking water? That’s not a closed issue, nor should it be treated as one. There are a certain group of powerful people who would rather not go through the difficulty and expense of either improving the process to avoid pollutions hazards, or foregoing it if that’s not possible. The trouble is, they can’t be certain about what the science will actually say about the effects or the problem, so instead they will insist on having things a certain way.

So, if I had to say, I’d say, if the conspiracy theory is right, all that means is that we have one propaganda pit against another. That’s not what we need. What we need is the empirical evidence, and good conclusions drawn from that, regardless of whose ox gets gored. And why? Because fracked wells will produced only for thirty years, and we will need to drink the water indefinitely into the future. Which resource would it be wise to prioritize?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at December 23, 2012 11:14 PM
Comment #359374


Of the thousands of cases studied of contaminated water, there have been about twenty actual cases, explained by mistakes or bad practices that were corrected.

If you demand zero mistakes, you stop … everything. There is no human system that produces perfect results.

I am a practical person. I have several goals. I want a clean environment; I want low cost fuel for Americans; I want to free us from dependence on Middle Eastern oil. ALL these goals are best served by the natural gas revolution.

Re water pollution - We can prevent and clean up. We are talking about a form of energy production that is not perfect, but that is better for the environment than available alternatives.

As more science comes in, it is supporting fracking. What is being used against science is emotion and fear.

You claim to understand statistics. I just explained something in a post up top re probabilities. In a sufficiently large number of cases, you will find some mistakes and even what look like patterns. The science is on the side of fracking. The legal and regulatory environment is evolving. On the other side, we have fear, innuendo and statistical anomalies.

I welcome empirical evidence clearly stated. It keeps getting better and better for people like me who want cleaner environment, lower energy prices and less dependence on oil despots. I dislike the manipulative propaganda of movies like the one above.

But if you prefer higher CO2 emissions; strengthened hands for leaders of places like Iran or Russia, and higher energy prices for Americans, I will let you advocate for that and, BTW, against most Obama policies.

Posted by: C&J at December 24, 2012 10:31 AM
Comment #359703

More proof that fracking is safer than alternatives.

Posted by: C&J at January 1, 2013 7:54 PM
Post a comment