Random Politics & Religion #00
Random Politics & Religion #00
This conversation is goin' places.
[+]
Altimaomega said: »
Bahamut.Milamber said: »
Altimaomega said: »
Odin.Jassik said: »
rexcipher said: »
Odin.Jassik said: »
the environmental risks of pumping billions of barrels of oil across the country outweigh the theoretical benefits.
No, I'm questioning the benefit of moving billions of barrels of oil in general as well as the permanence of it. If, at some point, we determine that transporting oil has become inadvisable, we can stop driving trucks, or stop loading traincars, good luck turning off a pipe. Also, who's going to pay for the deconstruction and cleanup when the pipeline is either no longer needed or unservicable?
I look at how many people flipped their lid when the government fined BP a pretty low amount of money for Deepwater Horizon and I'm scared to death of what long-term economic and environmental consequences we might be in for with Keystone. I lived and worked within eyeshot of the valdez pipelines and saw the leaks and strip of dead oily landscape around it. Most people don't have a clue what an oil pipeline looks like a few years after it's built. They don't have a clue what kind of chemicals are used to keep the oil flowing through it, either. Crude, especially oil sands, is the consistency of strawberry jam, imagine pumping strawberry jam 2,000 miles... Sections of pipe frequently need to be opened and serviced, plugs are sent through to clear out blockage, chemicals used to lubricate, etc. Every one of those service sections is a potential leak, and there is even an accepted amount of loss per mile of pipe.
It's a possible environmental disaster. I'd like to know what actual benefits it offers, because we know fully the possible consequences, but nobody seems to be able to quantify the benefits.
So basically what you are saying is..
We can send men to the moon.
Cruise around in mile long Air-craft Carriers and nuclear submarines.
Build buildings so tall you can see the curve of the earth.
Mastered the art of cooking bacon.
But we cannot build a pipeline that doesn't leak..
And also completely ignores the history of accidents and failures.
You won't get a pipeline that doesn't leak because it would be prohibitively expensive to build it. That, plus longevity of materials in corrosive environments, plus historic malfeaseance in adhering to maintenance schedules, all add up to problematic scenarios.
They was meant to be. As for your second paragraph, I was unaware no rules and regulations exist to prevent any of that to happen.
PS. You spelled malfeasance wrong. /sigh
Cerberus.Pleebo said: »
This conversation is goin' places.
No u
[+]
Phoenix.Xantavia said: »
Altimaomega said: »
Bahamut.Milamber said: »
Altimaomega said: »
Odin.Jassik said: »
rexcipher said: »
Odin.Jassik said: »
the environmental risks of pumping billions of barrels of oil across the country outweigh the theoretical benefits.
No, I'm questioning the benefit of moving billions of barrels of oil in general as well as the permanence of it. If, at some point, we determine that transporting oil has become inadvisable, we can stop driving trucks, or stop loading traincars, good luck turning off a pipe. Also, who's going to pay for the deconstruction and cleanup when the pipeline is either no longer needed or unservicable?
I look at how many people flipped their lid when the government fined BP a pretty low amount of money for Deepwater Horizon and I'm scared to death of what long-term economic and environmental consequences we might be in for with Keystone. I lived and worked within eyeshot of the valdez pipelines and saw the leaks and strip of dead oily landscape around it. Most people don't have a clue what an oil pipeline looks like a few years after it's built. They don't have a clue what kind of chemicals are used to keep the oil flowing through it, either. Crude, especially oil sands, is the consistency of strawberry jam, imagine pumping strawberry jam 2,000 miles... Sections of pipe frequently need to be opened and serviced, plugs are sent through to clear out blockage, chemicals used to lubricate, etc. Every one of those service sections is a potential leak, and there is even an accepted amount of loss per mile of pipe.
It's a possible environmental disaster. I'd like to know what actual benefits it offers, because we know fully the possible consequences, but nobody seems to be able to quantify the benefits.
So basically what you are saying is..
We can send men to the moon.
Cruise around in mile long Air-craft Carriers and nuclear submarines.
Build buildings so tall you can see the curve of the earth.
Mastered the art of cooking bacon.
But we cannot build a pipeline that doesn't leak..
And also completely ignores the history of accidents and failures.
You won't get a pipeline that doesn't leak because it would be prohibitively expensive to build it. That, plus longevity of materials in corrosive environments, plus historic malfeaseance in adhering to maintenance schedules, all add up to problematic scenarios.
They was meant to be. As for your second paragraph, I was unaware no rules and regulations exist to prevent any of that to happen.
PS. You spelled malfeasance wrong. /sigh
Close, moderation is key. A lot of rules and regulations need to be scaled back or abolished. Because they hurt small business owners more than large companies. I'm not gonna say that a rule or regulation shouldn't exist that prohibits this pipeline leaking like a sieve. But as it stand now it isn't even being built because nobody wants to compromise. All in all I don't give a flying *** if it gets built. It just makes me sick that these people spout ***that makes no sense. "can't turn off a pipeline" for example. Just plain stupid.
The EPA, FDA, USDA, ABCDEFG. Have way to much power and all need to be reined in.
Altimaomega said: »
The EPA, FDA, USDA, ABCDEFG. Have way to much power and all need to be reined in.
[+]
Odin.Jassik said: »
Keystone has been pretty controversial since day 1, but nobody seems to be able to quantify exactly what, if any, long term benefits it will have for Americans. Aside from it's construction, which will give some short-term economic boosts, how much actual commerce will it bring besides the refineries that would already be poised to expand with domestic oil production growth?
I think, until those things can be quantified beyond "it'll being some jobs", the environmental risks of pumping billions of barrels of oil across the country outweigh the theoretical benefits.
I think, until those things can be quantified beyond "it'll being some jobs", the environmental risks of pumping billions of barrels of oil across the country outweigh the theoretical benefits.
So two pages later, and still no one has offered any positives? Not surprising.
[+]
I see no reason to invest money/time into approving more oil.
When we could just give more money to solar companies to improve the technology (and do so) and then watch the market shift and them go bankrupt, and then watch people *** about it for years.
When we could just give more money to solar companies to improve the technology (and do so) and then watch the market shift and them go bankrupt, and then watch people *** about it for years.
Shiva.Viciousss said: »
Odin.Jassik said: »
Keystone has been pretty controversial since day 1, but nobody seems to be able to quantify exactly what, if any, long term benefits it will have for Americans. Aside from it's construction, which will give some short-term economic boosts, how much actual commerce will it bring besides the refineries that would already be poised to expand with domestic oil production growth?
I think, until those things can be quantified beyond "it'll being some jobs", the environmental risks of pumping billions of barrels of oil across the country outweigh the theoretical benefits.
I think, until those things can be quantified beyond "it'll being some jobs", the environmental risks of pumping billions of barrels of oil across the country outweigh the theoretical benefits.
So two pages later, and still no one has offered any positives? Not surprising.
Honestly, that's basically the same ratio of positive reasons I've seen out of any advocates of the pipeline expansion. They all just cite the original TransCanada proposal or some conservative blog that drones on and on about jobs and cheap gas without addressing the facts that it will neither create a lot of jobs or affect fuel prices.
I'm not even personally against the pipeline expansion, I don't even really care about the answer to my question, I asked it to point out that nobody seems to have one.
[+]
But dey took r jerbs.
Rav, go farm me 3 umbral marrows so I have an urge to get on the game.
Odin.Jassik said: »
Pretty much, which is why I was wondering why "subjective" was Jet's response to an obviously subjective post in a forum full of the same.
Bahamut.Ravael said: »
Odin.Jassik said: »
Pretty much, which is why I was wondering why "subjective" was Jet's response to an obviously subjective post in a forum full of the same.
Probably just because it was stated as fact, not opinion. I'm pretty conscientious about using "in my opinion" or "I believe" rather than stating opinion as fact, but that's just me.
[+]
Jetackuu said: »
Rav, go farm me 3 umbral marrows so I have an urge to get on the game.
Sure, I'll go solo some... gobbie boxes. Gimme a few years to get 'em.
Odin.Jassik said: »
Bahamut.Ravael said: »
Odin.Jassik said: »
Pretty much, which is why I was wondering why "subjective" was Jet's response to an obviously subjective post in a forum full of the same.
Probably just because it was stated as fact, not opinion. I'm pretty conscientious about using "in my opinion" or "I believe" rather than stating opinion as fact, but that's just me.
I used to be. P&R has driven that out of me to some extent, unfortunately
Bahamut.Ravael said: »
Odin.Jassik said: »
Bahamut.Ravael said: »
Odin.Jassik said: »
Pretty much, which is why I was wondering why "subjective" was Jet's response to an obviously subjective post in a forum full of the same.
Probably just because it was stated as fact, not opinion. I'm pretty conscientious about using "in my opinion" or "I believe" rather than stating opinion as fact, but that's just me.
I used to be. P&R has driven that out of me to some extent, unfortunately
Not sure if this has anything to do with politics or religion, but it's a nice little story about love.
AP Exclusive: Charles Manson gets marriage license
Quote:
Mass murderer Charles Manson plans to marry a 26-year-old woman who left her Midwestern home and spent the past nine years trying to help exonerate him.
Afton Elaine Burton, the raven-haired bride-to-be, said she loves the man convicted in the notorious murders of seven people, including pregnant actress Sharon Tate.
No date has been set, but a wedding coordinator has been assigned by the prison to handle the nuptials, and the couple has until early February to get married before they would have to reapply.
The Kings County marriage license, viewed Monday by The Associated Press, was issued Nov. 7 for the 80-year-old Manson and Burton, who lives in Corcoran — the site of the prison — and maintains several websites advocating his innocence.
Burton, who goes by the name "Star," told the AP that she and Manson will be married next month.
"Y'all can know that it's true," she said. "It's going to happen."
"I love him," she added. "I'm with him. There's all kinds of things."
However, as a life prisoner with no parole date, Manson is not entitled to family visits, a euphemism for conjugal visits.
So why would Burton marry him under those conditions?
She said she is interested in working on his case, and marrying him would allow her to get information not available to nonrelatives.
"There's certain things next of kin can do," she said without elaborating.
Afton Elaine Burton, the raven-haired bride-to-be, said she loves the man convicted in the notorious murders of seven people, including pregnant actress Sharon Tate.
No date has been set, but a wedding coordinator has been assigned by the prison to handle the nuptials, and the couple has until early February to get married before they would have to reapply.
The Kings County marriage license, viewed Monday by The Associated Press, was issued Nov. 7 for the 80-year-old Manson and Burton, who lives in Corcoran — the site of the prison — and maintains several websites advocating his innocence.
Burton, who goes by the name "Star," told the AP that she and Manson will be married next month.
"Y'all can know that it's true," she said. "It's going to happen."
"I love him," she added. "I'm with him. There's all kinds of things."
However, as a life prisoner with no parole date, Manson is not entitled to family visits, a euphemism for conjugal visits.
So why would Burton marry him under those conditions?
She said she is interested in working on his case, and marrying him would allow her to get information not available to nonrelatives.
"There's certain things next of kin can do," she said without elaborating.
Well, she's obviously a loon, but so is he. I hope they're very happy together in his 6x9...
Would they even be allowed to touch each other? The couple times I've been to county jails to visit people, you talk to them on video phone, they don't even bring them out of the cell block like in the movies.
Would they even be allowed to touch each other? The couple times I've been to county jails to visit people, you talk to them on video phone, they don't even bring them out of the cell block like in the movies.
[+]
Might be different in state prisons?
Idk only thing I ever dealt with was county correction facilities, aka jail, and you were only able to talk through them via a phone and see them through a thick glass wall. The entrance for the inmates was within the cell block.
Idk only thing I ever dealt with was county correction facilities, aka jail, and you were only able to talk through them via a phone and see them through a thick glass wall. The entrance for the inmates was within the cell block.
Was it love at first sight?
All FFXI content and images © 2002-2024 SQUARE ENIX CO., LTD. FINAL
FANTASY is a registered trademark of Square Enix Co., Ltd.