Slashdot Mirror
Exxon Mobile CEO Sues To Stop Fracking Near His Texas Ranch
Hugh Pickens DOT Com writes "Exxon Mobile's CEO Rex Tillerson's day job is to do all he can to protect and nurture the process of hydraulic fracturing—aka 'fracking'—so that his company can continue to rake in billions via the production and sale of natural gas. 'This type of dysfunctional regulation is holding back the American economic recovery, growth, and global competitiveness,' said Tillerson in 2012 of attempts to increase oversight of drilling operations. But now Rick Unger reports at Forbes that Tillerson has joined a lawsuit seeking to shut down a fracking project near his Texas ranch. Why? Because the 160 foot water tower being built next to Tillerson's house that will supply the water to the near-by fracking site, means the arrival of loud trucks, an ugly tower next door, and the general unpleasantness that will interfere with the quality of his life and the real estate value of his sizeable ranch. The water tower is being built by Cross Timbers Water Supply Corp., a nonprofit utility that has supplied water to the region for half a century. Cross Timbers says that it is required by state law to build enough capacity to serve growing demand. In 2011, Bartonville denied Cross Timbers a permit to build the water tower, saying the location was reserved for residences. The water company sued, arguing that it is exempt from municipal zoning because of its status as a public utility. In May 2012, a state district court judge agreed with Cross Timbers and compelled the town to issue a permit. The utility resumed construction as the town appealed the decision. Later that year, the Tillersons and their co-plaintiffs sued Cross Timbers, saying that the company had promised them it wouldn't build a tower near their properties. An Exxon spokesman said Tillerson declined to comment. The company 'has no involvement in the legal matter' and its directors weren't told of Mr. Tillerson's participation, the spokesman said."
Why is anyone surprised? This is like how Eric "Peeping Tom" Schmidt says people have no privacy and then complains about drones with cameras flying around his house. Don't you plebes know that the rich are our betters and deserve more rights? You're not a bunch of socialist retards are you?
only near poor people.
I have NO doubt that this water plant will be stopped because this guy and his neighbors have the power. Then they'll just it to a poorer neighborhood.
And the rich wonder they are resented.
Yay.
Just like the rich ecofreaks suing to stop wind farms off Martha's Vinyard. OK, those folks did have a legit concern that a Kennedy might fly or drive into one, but still...
I take it its not his company thats doing the fraking
We should also use his land as a nuclear waste repository.
How selfish of him to stand in the way of progress!
It's crap like this that makes thinking individuals question the integrity of 'enviro-kooks'. Why would you put a title claiming that this CEO is suing to stop fracking, when your own summary makes it clear it's about the proximity of a water tower to his property?
"Mobile"...Really? C'mon guys...
Exxon MOBIL
So there's a link, but it is a little disingenuous to say he's suing to stop fracking. His suit (linked from TFA) is about the water tower. He doesn't want a high-rise water tower across the street.
He's actually ok with a low-rise water tower that he can't really see from his ranch.
So, over-react much, headline writer?
He's not suing about fracking specifically, or any would-be-hypocrisy-laden dangers or damages associated with it. He's suing over a water tower and the traffic associated with it. There's a considerable difference.
Seriously?... Forbes throws up a headline like that and if you RTFA it's all about a freaking municipal water tower... only a single throw-away line about the tower providing water to a nearby drilling operation. That's quite a stretch... What a troll!
Yea, and if this guy loses, I wouldn't be surpirsed if we see in the biz press that, "Exxon Mobile is purchasing fracking companies in Texas. Plans on reducing fracking in some areas to save the environment."
And the purchase of the company to save HIS property will be done with shareholder money - money that belongs to all of us plebes with our expensive 401Ks (via the expensive crappy mutual funds we have to buy)
Still he can't beat "distressed babies" CEO of AOL.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
Hey next time you write an article its Exxon Mobile.... that totally discredits this article because the person is an idiot...
... till it happens to you!
Time to wake up and smell the Coffee + methane
"I love the smell of mehane in the morning"
It was posted to dailykos, where the liberals congregate and dominate. But still, this is a first person account of an earlier town hall meeting: http://www.dailykos.com/story/...
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
This is not about rich or poor. This is a plain old NIMBY issue. Whoever has the biggest opposition and the most time to spend arguing has a better chance of winning.
My area is all individual well water and no city water at all. We have several water towers around the fringes of our rural area. The people that do actually have city water that live in the new big housing developments did not want them in their back yard so they put them here. They have more people that live in a single cul-de-sac then we have in a 1 sq mile area. They were more organized than we were, we lost.
Getting off topic but same thing I see in my county.
It's actually kind of funny. We have 10-50 acre plots where I live and in between quite a few of them are water towers and huge multifield soccer fields. The people that use the soccer fields and the water from the tanks live from 3-15 miles away.
As for the soccer fields, I went to a few of the county meetings about those. That was not pushed by the residents of those areas, it was the developers. They did not want to use precious residential capable land they could build more houses on for recreation so they made a questionable deal with the county to buy rural agricultural land 10 miles away and put the fields here. This was NOT the original approved plan and the recreation areas were supposed to be integrated into the whole development. I'm sure the developers wallet was open during these negotiations because the counties reasoning for allowing it was not consistent.
Someone should buy this cunt a pizza and coke and tell him to shut the fuck up and stop being such a hypocrite.
blindly antisocialist = antisocial
First, the gun-grabber Dwayne Ferguson gets caught carrying a loaded weapon into an elementary school racking up felony charges which would have been a misdemeanor had he not pushed so hard to upgrade the laws in his state. Now we have a famous fracker who is now fighting his own industry trying to prevent it from happening close to his land. Now we just need some successful eminent domain victims in rich neighborhoods to have their homes destroyed and lands taken so NASCAR can build another loud-assed track.
The reality of all of this is none of these people will learn anything from their lessons. They believe this is how the world SHOULD and DOES work. Forget about tenets of civilization such as not doing to people that which you wouldn't want done to you. Those notions are for non-sociopaths. They believe everyone should simply get and take what they can. If they can get it, they deserve it. So what they will learn, if anything at all, is that "it's fair because it even happens to him" which will somehow empower and even entitle this fracking-arse-hole to continue at his job.
And the gun-grabber? Seems he's not giving up on his gun-grabbing even though he is victim on his own ridiculous law. Conviction under this law will result in his permanent ineligibility to ever carry a weapon again yet somehow I think it may not apply to him in the future. I'm betting after a symbolic punishment and a period of time long enough for his name to disappear from headlines, he will have his record expunged or even have a presidential pardon (Quite likely IMHO) to restore his second amendment "privileges."
(Yes, in quotes... it's a right which the government is NOT at liberty to remove. So says the constitution.)
How much do family data plans cost on Exxon Mobile? Is it related to the company Exxon Mobil?
Moreover, the reason for the tower (and its size) is that fracking requires water, which water towers provide.
More fracking, more towers needed.
I know some paid shills say the film "gasland" is full of lies, but then tell me
why some gas companies are trucking water to ppls homes because
reverse osmosis filtering won't take the toxic horrors out of the water.
The oil/gas companies have a history of lying and even paying countries
to kill their citizens.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Here in the US go back to Karen Silkwood, though there have been others
more recent that were less sloppy in their cover up.
google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"
Need I say more.
"Drill baby drill."
...
The reality of all of this is none of these people will learn anything from their lessons. They believe this is how the world SHOULD and DOES work. Forget about tenets of civilization such as not doing to people that which you wouldn't want done to you. Those notions are for non-sociopaths. They believe everyone should simply get and take what they can. If they can get it, they deserve it.
This is the type of "mental illness" passed down by the privileged to their children. There is no known cure yet!
Did I say it wrong or did you read it wrong? Where do I suggest harming the second amendment? I completely support the 2nd amendment to levels which some pro-second people might disagree. I think EVERYONE of adult age should be armed. If people choose not to be, that is their right but for people to go about cowering in fear at the very word "gun" should be a signal to just how cowardly the people of the US have become. Meanwhile gun-toting paramilitary police are out there wearing masks and no name-tags or anything to suggest legitimacy are doing amazingly horrible things with complete impunity.
We need some serious reversals and I think as long as we are teaching sex education to teach people how to use their body's hardware properly and safely, we should be doing the same for guns as well. When I was a child, that was just being phased out... I still have recollection of a JROTC shooting range within one of the schools I attended long ago. No one was horrified there were guns in school then. What has changed? Only the politics and the cultivation of public fear.
Come one guys, I know fracking is fun to hate on... but this one is just silly. The guy is suing to stop a water tower from being build near his house. He says nothing about stopping fracking. You don't even have to read the article, the summary sums that up nicely. Oh and fuck beta.
After all, his water is bottled especially in pure untouched mountain areas and shipped directly to his castle.
It's terrible when something you've so vehemently supported...Comes to fruition in your own back yard then it becomes unacceptable. Hypocrites one and all....
Guess it's ok as long as it's not in his own back yard.
Actually, any of the rights can be removed. The constitution is designed to change.
" Forget about tenets of civilization such as not doing to people that which you wouldn't want done to you. "
Hardly a tenet of civilization. In fact, the vast majority of civilized history was built on the backs of others.
Up to and including today,.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Who have delayed (maybe even stopped) wind farms from being constructed near their ocean front property.. Citing noise - damage to wildlife - the usual...
If water towers have nothing to do with that, why do they exist?
Answer: they are required to exist to supply water.
Therefore more demand, as from fracking, more water to be supplied.
PS the claims made against this include fracking and the noise of trucks supporting the fracking, so if you want to have a problem with including it, you need to talk to the CEO who signed up on a complaint that includes it.
Is the tower needed to proceed with the fracking?
If one were publicly supporting fracking (or anything, really) - but didn't want it done near my house - complaining about something peripherally related in order to block the fracking would probably "look" better.
I don't know why you brought white into it. Are you implying that if he had a flipped genetic marker for skin tone, suddenly he wouldn't be rich or wouldn't be a hypocrite despite otherwise identical (or nearly-identical) circumstances?
Did I say it wrong or did you read it wrong? Where do I suggest harming the second amendment? I completely support the 2nd amendment to levels which some pro-second people might disagree. I think EVERYONE of adult age should be armed. If people choose not to be, that is their right but for people to go about cowering in fear at the very word "gun" should be a signal to just how cowardly the people of the US have become. Meanwhile gun-toting paramilitary police are out there wearing masks and no name-tags or anything to suggest legitimacy are doing amazingly horrible things with complete impunity.
We need some serious reversals and I think as long as we are teaching sex education to teach people how to use their body's hardware properly and safely, we should be doing the same for guns as well. When I was a child, that was just being phased out... I still have recollection of a JROTC shooting range within one of the schools I attended long ago. No one was horrified there were guns in school then. What has changed? Only the politics and the cultivation of public fear.
No, I read it correctly and I believe the writers of the Constitution did not have *this* in mind when the 2nd was written. .. and by "this" I mean the current state of gun ownership in the US. The only way it would work would be for the people to have a lot of training. Hell, even a week of training, but really it would have to be ongoing, say annually. You want to live in a military state then? Ask yourself if you would want the 10% stupidest, most mentally unstable, most evil people fully armed. It would be a bloodbath, would it not? Oh wait, by everyone, do you mean everyone other than those I mentioned?
As for the paramilitary police, and the move toward a police state, I agree that is a problem, but arming the entire population is not the answer. Are we going to have Ukrainian style protests in the future then?
So no, guns are not part of our natural hardware. See also: automobiles, but we are already addicted to them.
Am I a gun grabber? Not quite, but there are large numbers of people whose guns deserve grabbing.
Are YOU legitimately (or illigitimately) retarded? I already explained what the water towers have to do with fracking. I never claimed they didn't exist or that he was wrong as to why they existed, only that his ponderment about what they have to do with fracking was idiotic.
But I guess that you'd prefer to pretend that this is somehow a plebian's fault, not the fault of One Of The Holy CEOs.
I slipped out of the old folks home, thought I would come back. Some things are the same - stories that are half-stories, the constant pandering to marginal political theories (on "both sides"), the public sniping... Big Oil (and the strange bedfellows it brings) may be an issue, but it continues to amaze me that the entire crowd here always thinks that the giant Sequoia in front of them is the entire forest. In 10 years we will have bigger problems, problems that are already manifested and clearly visible on the horizon. And the real irony? Everyone here in the tech industry is directly dependent on its very existence. Yet we continue to pander around to (whatever strikes the tech industry's fancy) instead of tackling the issues directly. Tech is no longer tech, it's a fashion show put on by a bunch of con artists hoping for a payday. I guess I'll be returning to my old folks home now...
You still owe me $2,000,000.00US for destroying my fishing grounds and livelihood in Prince William Sound. (X)OFF
I like how /. immediately rants against rich people and completely ignores that Cross Timbers are even allowed to build the water tower because a court decided public utilities are exempt from zoning....
This should be the story of the year IMHO
They've abused their positions to the point of rendering their way of doing business unsustainable.
They need to recalibrate before they will be able to gain any widespread support.
I completely support the 2nd amendment to levels which some pro-second people might disagree. I think EVERYONE of adult age should be armed.
Including James Holmes, Adam Lanza, Jared Loughner, and Eric Harris?
If people choose not to be, that is their right but for people to go about cowering in fear at the very word "gun" should be a signal to just how cowardly the people of the US have become.
Nice straw man, but from where I stand people are not "cowering in fear at the very word gun". Some of us have serious concerns about your solution that EVERYONE of adult age should be armed. Is that really what we as a society want? Turn our country into an armed camp, with a gun-toting yahoo on every street corner?
Meanwhile gun-toting paramilitary police are out there wearing masks and no name-tags or anything to suggest legitimacy are doing amazingly horrible things with complete impunity.
I agree with this but I don't think the solution is to add yet more guns to the equation.
When I was a child, that was just being phased out... I still have recollection of a JROTC shooting range within one of the schools I attended long ago. No one was horrified there were guns in school then. What has changed?
Columbine and Sandy Hook spring immediately to my mind. I am sure, if I had the time and inclination, I could come up with other examples.
It seems this guy could careless about the fracking operation it self. He's more concerned about the huge blight that a massive ugly ass water tower will bring. There's no reason (other than cost) the well owners can't just truck water in. Honestly I don't blame the guy, I wouldn't want this ugly ass water tower in my back yard either, however a well generating millions of dollars of gas for me to spend on more computers? No problem at all.
There ARE no poor neighborhoods near this house. Bartonville, TX is upper-middle class suburbia.
It's analogy time!
In creating the US as a nation, we are mountain climbers and we climbed to where we are today. And since we have arrived, we no longer need the tools we used in climbing the mountain so we just throw them away?
As for who teaches how to use guns? Well, those would be the same people who taught us to walk and eat with knives and forks. Do you imagine that parents are no longer responsible for teaching children? Sounds like a big part of the problem doesn't it.
You aren't reading the constitution correctly. For that matter you aren't even paying attention to the oath of office for most people in government office. That little bit about upholding the constitution against "enemies foreign and domestic" wasn't a slip of the lip or a grammatical error. It meant to recognize that enemies of the nation and its constitution exist everywhere. And who could be an enemy of the constitution who isn't domestic? (rhetorical)
But also, I recommend you understand the definitions of the words used in the language of the constitution from the days it was written. For example, the word militia means all people of military eligibility. And "well regulated" means practiced and trained.
The US was born "addicted" to firearms. It would be nice if we no longer needed guns, but as evidenced by the fact we insist our police carry them, it is clear we ALL need them and for exactly the same reason. People have not changed in nature for thousands upon thousands of years. So it stands to reason the tools we needed to get us here are still needed. Or, perhaps, do you imagine humanity has evolved beyond its nature?
He and every other property owner in the US has the right to the peaceable enjoyment of their property. That's all there is to it.
Glad you cited the villains of our day.
If more people had guns available, those people wouldn't exist as often and wouldn't be able to be a "mass killer" as the opportunity to qualify would likely be cut short in most instances.
But that said, if you do the mind experiment, a person who wanted to be a mass killer in an armed society would likely advance beyond mere firearms and move into massive explosives, chemical, radiological and biological weapons. You're mistaking the means as being the threat. It is and always has been the people.
And I'm sorry to break it to you... Sandy Hook is a fraud. Were you aware of the charities for Sandy Hook being set up two days prior to the incident? Also, the local air ambulance services were never called to the scene? Odd wouldn't you say? I know, I know, "conspiracy theory." It's pretty easy to see when things aren't quite right but the two details I cited are easily verifiable so I invite you to do so.
If the solution isn't more civilian guns, then is it more police???? Because part of the problem IS police and the other part is police not being able to respond within seconds. As they say, when seconds count, it's good to know that police are only minutes away.
... that it's extremely difficult to get permits in many "blue" states for solar/wind farms and dams.
small businesses like the all too preciously named Freedom Industries ??
The US was born "addicted" to firearms. It would be nice if we no longer needed guns, but as evidenced by the fact we insist our police carry them, it is clear we ALL need them and for exactly the same reason.
Yes, I know the argument. The police are only minutes away when help is needed in seconds. .. or whatever. I live in a reasonably safe area, in that I feel safe walking at night even in the sketchier parts of town. I may be unusal in that regard, but that's just me.
I am more afraid of owning a gun and the danger it would pose in my home than not having one. My sense is that gun owners and advocates are really the ones living in fear. I would also feel less safe confronting an armed assailant if I were armed. I cannot count on outshooting an opponent. Anyway, back to work..
"You want us to militarize the entire population apparently."
No. I want everyone to have a fighting chance if they so choose to fight back. It's a natural law, a god-given law if you will, not one bestowed upon us by government. You, apparently, would prefer that some people remain helpless. And even if *ALL* weapons were removed, some people will be weaker than others either individually or in numbers. Do you suggest that smaller individuals or smaller groups remain helpless?
"Yes, I know the argument. The police are only minutes away when help is needed in seconds. .. or whatever. I live in a reasonably safe area, in that I feel safe walking at night even in the sketchier parts of town. I may be unusal in that regard, but that's just me. "
Are you insane? You actually want to apply standards which work for YOUR situation to everyone?
"I am more afraid of owning a gun ..."
And the truth comes out. And I get it. You're a coward; a sheep. I'll bet you will be confused to know that there are people who grow up in other countries who feel the same way about automobiles. There are. Many in Japan have that very same sentiment about driving a car.
But here's a clue for you. Gun fights aren't like you see in the movies. Accuracy is important, but not as important as being first. And to be first, you have to be aware and prepared. Skill takes a back seat to being first. And the best clue is the fact you conveniently ignore: places with more guns in the US have less violence. Places with more gun restrictions have more. If you think it's wrong, then please explain Chicago.
I understand the notion of being a sheep. I do. Every Christian is a member of a flock, watched over by our lord shepard. It's kind of programed into us. And we want to believe if we are good people, bad things are "less likely" to happen to us. To that, I invite you to look into the violent crime rate of businesses which are "gun free" as compared to immediate neighbors which do not prohibit guns. You will begin to see why Denny's is selected over others when criminals select victims.
Sheep are livestock. Understand it and never forget it.
We should start taking our contaminated water and dumping it in the swimming pools of the 1%.
I want to see them explain why this is bad for them.
One day I feel I'm ahead of the wheel / the next it's rolling over me / I can get back on / I can get back on
I feel uncomfortable when nobody complains about labeling someone a prick/dick.
When we calls someone a shit, we literally want to treat them as fecal waste. So, what does it mean when we call someone a cunt? Society demands we treat someone with a vagina far better than someone with a penis, yet using a female pejorative is far worse than using a male one. Similarly, what do I, a heterosexual male, intend to do to someone I call a prick/dick?
"You want us to militarize the entire population apparently."
No. I want everyone to have a fighting chance if they so choose to fight back.
Fight back against whom? Who is attacking you? Dude, you're going to kill the fuckin' UPS guy! True story: it was well after dark one evening, maybe 8PM. The UPS guy pulls up and we heard him shouting "UPS! UPS!" and he had a thick accent so we didn't know at first what he was saying. If I had been armed he could've been shot.
But anyway, I think gun owners have a right to their guns, but they should be way more heavily regulated by the (evil) govt. There should be regular training requirements and restrictions on ammo (same as for buying Sudafed, for example), national database registration, you know, all that stuff.
It's a natural law, a god-given law if you will, not one bestowed upon us by government. You, apparently, would prefer that some people remain helpless. And even if *ALL* weapons were removed, some people will be weaker than others either individually or in numbers. Do you suggest that smaller individuals or smaller groups remain helpless?
Why are you so fearful? Where do you live? People absolutely have a right to defend themselves, but guns are really a lousy way of doing that.
Are you insane? You actually want to apply standards which work for YOUR situation to everyone?
I never said that at all. I did say:
"I am more afraid of owning a gun ..."
And the truth comes out. And I get it. You're a coward; a sheep. I'll bet you will be confused to know that there are people who grow up in other countries who feel the same way about automobiles. There are.
I don't put myself in the coward category, but whatever..
Many in Japan have that very same sentiment about driving a car.
OK, Japan is a good model for gun ownership as well.
But here's a clue for you. Gun fights aren't like you see in the movies. Accuracy is important, but not as important as being first. And to be first, you have to be aware and prepared. Skill takes a back seat to being first. And the best clue is the fact you conveniently ignore: places with more guns in the US have less violence. Places with more gun restrictions have more. If you think it's wrong, then please explain Chicago.
There was a story the other day about a guy who accidentally shot an infant. He apparently fired a shot during a domestic argument, like a warning shot. You cannot tell me this guy deserves to own a gun. There are far too many stupid/angry/drunk people who do not have any business having a gun. I used to live near Chicago. If you live in the hood, OK, you may want to carry. I never would. Here, take my wallet please.
I understand the notion of being a sheep. I do. Every Christian is a member of a flock, watched over by our lord shepard. It's kind of programed into us. And we want to believe if we are good people, bad things are "less likely" to happen to us. To that, I invite you to look into the violent crime rate of businesses which are "gun free" as compared to immediate neighbors which do not prohibit guns. You will begin to see why Denny's is selected over others when criminals select victims.
Sheep are livestock. Understand it and never forget it.
You must get mugged a lot, yes? I was held up at gunpoint once. Anyway, gotta go..
All hail the new king of hypocrites!
Original AC back again....
If more people had guns available, those people wouldn't exist as often and wouldn't be able to be a "mass killer" as the opportunity to qualify would likely be cut short in most instances.
Ah, quite the internet tough guy, aren't you? Frankly, none of you internet tough guy gunslingers impress me at all.
You're mistaking the means as being the threat. It is and always has been the people.
That is true enough as far as it goes. I just don't think that we should so readily put the means of mass destruction into the hands of people until we have reasonable assurances that they aren't mentally unstable. Wouldn't you rather that we were just a bit more selective in who we give a gun to, rather than giving EVERYONE the means to mete out instant justice on a whim?
And I'm sorry to break it to you... Sandy Hook is a fraud. [internet conspiracy theory elided]
Look, just because some guy shilling for the NRA wrote a blog about it on the interwebs doesn't make it true.
If the solution isn't more civilian guns, then is it more police???? Because part of the problem IS police and the other part is police not being able to respond within seconds. As they say, when seconds count, it's good to know that police are only minutes away.
Actually, I would like to see a bit more police out patrolling because, yes, it IS frustrating when seconds count and the police are only minutes away. That said, many situations can be better handled by keeping a calm, cool head rather than escalating using a deadly weapon. You see, being brave does not require having a gun in your hands.
I'll bet you will be confused to know that there are people who grow up in other countries who feel the same way about automobiles. There are. Many in Japan have that very same sentiment about driving a car.
This is just plain utter bullshit. The reason many people in Japan do not own automobiles is because the public tansportation infrastructure is so much better than that in the USA. Also, in many places in Japan finding a place to park that car can be a challenge. It has nothing to do with fear of driving.
But here's a clue for you. Gun fights aren't like you see in the movies. Accuracy is important, but not as important as being first. And to be first, you have to be aware and prepared. Skill takes a back seat to being first.
OK, Mr Greased Lightning, but the rest of us want you to pay attention to proper aim before you pull the trigger so that we don't end up as collateral damage when you decide to do your shoot out at the OK Corral thing.
I understand the notion of being a sheep. I do. Every Christian is a member of a flock, watched over by our lord shepard. It's kind of programed into us. And we want to believe if we are good people, bad things are "less likely" to happen to us. To that, I invite you to look into the violent crime rate of businesses which are "gun free" as compared to immediate neighbors which do not prohibit guns.
And I would invite you to look into a mirror and ask yourself what you are so afraid of. I find it ironic in the extreme that you would deign to call others cowards all the while that you are clutching a gun to your chest, ready to blow away any bad guys that might pop out of the shadows at you.
asshole
When your town's residents are complaining about housing costs, just build an airport or similar next to high rise, high value buildings. That does wonders. I'm still playing the original btw (reimplemented as "micropolis") because I can't run much gaming in linux.
I think EVERYONE of adult age should be armed.
Then you get idiots like Curtis Reeves and Michael Dunn walking around armed.
What a fracking joke! Hypocrisy at is finest folks! This shows just how out of touch the 1% are with the 99%. ExxonMobil has bullied those cites, counties & homeowners that have tried to sue them to stop projects like the one Mr. Tillerson is so outraged about!!! So basically isn't he sorta just suing himself? People like this don't care about safety regulations, EPA regulations or people in general. It's the mighty dollar they have a relationship with! Watch as he uses his money to support a Tea Turd Candidate that wants less government, like The EPA to further their Fracking Cause. Gullible citizens that support their hand picked candidates do this by telling what you want hear not what the candidates are pulling on doing once elected. These vultures just like the Koch Brothers don't care about these citizens they just want someone(candidate & special interest groups) to do their dirty work. They bankroll and fund the crap into campaigns all the while hiding in the shadows. They never speak in public or news interviews because people will do it for them. So my Question Is: "don't those supporting their idelogy & views realize their supporting something that is against their best interest?"Wake up these slime balls are buying government to further their agenda. They want no regulations to deepen their pockets. They could care less about your home, land, town, city, county or state. Just read about the growing number of earthquakes in Oklahoma! If you vote for their candidates these scum support then you CAN NOT whine or moan once a pipeline, water tower, pipeline or project like this runs right through your community! THINK!!!!' Think before voting this mid-election 2014. They could give a FRACK about your livelihood.
What a fracking joke! Hypocrisy at is finest folks! This shows just how out of touch the 1% are with the 99%. ExxonMobil has bullied those cites, counties & homeowners that have tried to sue them to stop projects like the one Mr. Tillerson is so outraged about!!! So basically isn't he sorta just suing himself? People like this don't care about safety regulations, EPA regulations or people in general. It's the mighty dollar they have a relationship with! Watch as he uses his money to support a Tea Turd Candidate that wants less government, like The EPA to further their Fracking Cause. Gullible citizens that support their hand picked candidates do this by telling what you want hear not what the candidates are planning on doing once elected. These vultures just like the Koch Brothers don't care about these citizens they just want someone(candidate & special interest groups) to do their dirty work. They bankroll and fund the crap of their hand picked candidates campaigns all the while hiding in the shadows. They never speak in public or news interviews because people will do it for them. So my Question Is: "don't those supporting their idelogy & views realize their supporting something that is against their(your) best interest?"Wake up these slime balls are buying government to further their agenda. They want no regulations so they can deepen their pockets. They could care less about your home, land, town, city, county or state. Just read about the growing number of earthquakes in Oklahoma! If you vote for their candidates these scum support then you CAN NOT whine or moan once a well, water tower, pipeline or project like this runs right through your community! THINK!!!!' Think before voting this mid-election 2014. They could give a FRACK about your livelihood.
In other news, Exxon Mobil CEO mercilessly ridicules /. poster that can't spell company name correctly.
Ask me about my sig!
High enough Inheritance tax or an AK47 would do the job.
"This is just plain utter bullshit."
When you have spent as much time in Japan and working with Japanese people as I have, come back and speak again. Their mass transit infrastructure is generally better, but by no means is it as ubiquitous as you seem to think. But the actual FEAR aspect is another matter entirely. It was first called to my attention not in Japan, but in the US. I must admit I had apprehensions about driving in Japan if only because they drive on the wrong side, but also because they literally have roads which are too narrow for some cars... intentionally. But the fear thing? It was hard to wrap my head around but it was right there in spoken language that they were afraid of cars due to safety and other concerns.
"OK, Mr Greased Lightning, ..."
Are you incapable of pointing your finger at a thing you wish to indicate to others? If so, then I agree with you, be careful. And as I read back, I see no indication of saying "quick draw" or any dramatics such as that. You really, really need to learn a thing or two. One of the first and probably most important things to learn is how to feel it right. You already do this for many things in your life. Keyboards, for one and probably your hands on the steering wheel (providing you're not afraid of cars). And are you also able to raise a spoon to your mouth without visual guidance? How about tying your shoes without looking? You probably do hundreds of things without a great deal of visual qualification. Sure, sites are great at first. But depending on them requires hesitation. Sites are more like training wheels or if you're shooting at a distance. Pistol distance is closer than you might imagine if you don't already know and understand things like this.
"And I would invite you to look into a mirror and ask yourself what you are so afraid of."
I am afraid of my own disappointment. Missed opportunities to help and to protect people I care about. It is a man's duty to protect his family and to be as trained, informed and prepared as possible. And the world around us is filled with humans of all sorts. If you agree we don't live in a peaceful world, then you already understand the answer to what I must presume is a rhetorical question. And to be clear, firearms do nothing to provide a sense of comfort or warmth against fear of danger. Nothing. If someone gets that feeling from having a tool on their belt, I would invite them to just the rest of the world in reality. But, as in the spare tire analogy, I keep air in my spare tire and I always keep one in my car. I have never actually needed a spare tire but I wouldn't think of traveling without one.
You completely misread just about everything to do with the use of firearms. What we are talking about is a device which launches tiny projectiles at high speed through a tube which directs it. There's nothing magic there. Nothing insidious. You seem to be suffering from an associative disorder if you imagine more than that. To help remedy the problem, start by turning off your TV.
I had written a well-crafted response to yours but for some reason I neglected to commit the reply... an error on my part. Now I won't respond in quite the same way as before.
"Fight back against whom? Who is attacking you? Dude, you're going to kill the fuckin' UPS guy! True story: it was well after dark one evening, maybe 8PM. The UPS guy pulls up and we heard him shouting "UPS! UPS!" and he had a thick accent so we didn't know at first what he was saying. If I had been armed he could've been shot. "
Overreact much? First of all, "fighting chance" does not mean what you think it means. As long as we're using anecdotes (more on that later) I offer one of my own. I was in Texas when this happened. There was a lot wrong in that situation but the most significant was that the people there did not have a fighting chance. They literally cowered in place waiting their turn to have a bullet put into their head. One, now famous lady, is the daughter of one man who attempted to rush the gunman and was dropped immediately. The man's wife hovered over her dead husband and was shot in the head as well. The daughter was able to make her escape during her father's rush, but her gun was in her vehicle as required by law leaving her helpless... her mother... her father and the large body count of people. All helpless.
This is just a single story. These things do not happen as often as you might think. But times are getting increasingly more difficult and as that happens, people become more on-edge. Look to history or even the news to discover what it takes to lead up to these nightmarish situations. We've been in a global financial crisis for quite some time. Some increase in frequency is to be expected. You seem to draw comfort in knowing you do not live in a "3rd world country." Well, Europe isn't exactly a 3rd world country. My only response to that comfort is "yet."
"But anyway, I think gun owners have a right to their guns, but they should be way more heavily regulated by the (evil) govt. There should be regular training requirements and restrictions on ammo (same as for buying Sudafed, for example), national database registration, you know, all that stuff."
Heh... really? And I suppose the fox should guard the hen house too. You know who doesn't have restrictions on ammo? You guessed it, the foxes... and not just the government foxes, but the criminal foxes too -- the same ones who use sudafed in an unrestricted manner. And a database? Really? You know? At some point, and it has been that way in the past in other places, having a radio to receive the news or other communications once required registration. And then not long after that, they were confiscated to prevent enemy communications from getting in.
We're talking about good, common, decent people and you're talking about tracking and limiting what they can do. Why? Punishment follows what people do -- it doesn't come before it. And we're not talking about children. We're talking about adults in a free society. Restricting access to drugs (and alcohol) has led to an increase in violence. Industrial scale violence. That was why the prohibition on alcohol was repealed and why the war on drugs should be ended. It certainly hasn't saved the lives of those who want drugs but has managed to add to the pile. And to top it all off, someone like you would want to limit the amount of defensive power innocent people would have?
"Why are you so fearful? Where do you live? People absolutely have a right to defend themselves, but guns are really a lousy way of doing that."
Fearful? I wouldn't characterize my position as fearful. Fear decreases IQ points. I'm glad you agree people have the right to defend themselves, so how do you propose people do that? And how are guns a lousy way to do that? That requires explanation. Personally owned firearms provide a tremendous amount of equalization against threats. A person with a pistol can defend
What changes? Oh! More people with guns to act as deterrent to behavior like that. You seem to believe more people are like Curtis Reeves and Michael Dunn. I hold they are a tiny minority and that most people don't use deadly devices for deadly purposes most of the time -- the department of transportation data seems to reflect this.
Look. There are risks with walking around with a gun. There are risks with walking around without a gun. There are risks with keeping a gun in the home. Firearm accidents do kill people, and, whatever you say about other things, firearm accidents don't happen without firearms. In this case, GP is more afraid of having a gun than not having one, which might be entirely rational. Note the word "more" - he is more afraid of possible firearm accidents than of being attacked while not having a gun. Doesn't say he's got any significant fear of having a gun in his home.
Moreover, you say it's necessary to be "aware and prepared" - in other words, you should go into any unusual encounter with the attitude that you might have to kill somebody. (If you aren't, you're probably safer without the gun. A gun wielder in a fight is a dangerous threat, and liable to be killed if he or she doesn't win the fight. A person without a gun doesn't provoke the same level of violence.) Not everybody is willing to do that, and it's not from cowardice.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
He is also suing to stop the feeding of hungry children. If gas can be used to cook hamburgers for a family with children that haven't eaten since lunch, then stopping the building of a water tower stops fracking which would limit the supply of gas which increases the cost, making backyard grilling a less viable method of cooking. Because little Timmy only wants a hamburger and refuses to eat the meatloaf mom prepared in the electric oven, he goes hungry that night... Poor Timmy.
Tell that reasoning to the passengers on the 9-11 hijacking.
You cannot predict what an assailant has in mind. You can only reasonably guess if your life may be in danger and act accordingly.
Moreover, as more and more people begin carrying guns (which is happening now) people will become decidedly less inclined to do ANYTHING threatening at all.
I had written a well-crafted response to yours but for some reason I neglected to commit the reply... an error on my part.
Hate when that happens!
I was in Texas when this happened. There was a lot wrong in that situation but the most significant was that the people there did not have a fighting chance. They literally cowered in place waiting their turn to have a bullet put into their head.
Yes, I remember that of course. I fully understand where you are coming from, and I'm not really opposed to competent gun ownership. I am very much opposed to guns in the hands of the stupid, untrained, insane, and of course, criminal. The problem is, there are a lot of those people and it is difficult to discriminate. Guns are a grave responsibility, and a lot of owners don't take this seriously. They don't apparently realize that it is now very easy to kill somebody through their carelessness. Woohoo.. celebratory gunfire!! Not so much. (queue YouTube vid of accidental wedding party killing)
This is just a single story. These things do not happen as often as you might think. But times are getting increasingly more difficult and as that happens, people become more on-edge. Look to history or even the news to discover what it takes to lead up to these nightmarish situations. We've been in a global financial crisis for quite some time. Some increase in frequency is to be expected. You seem to draw comfort in knowing you do not live in a "3rd world country." Well, Europe isn't exactly a 3rd world country. My only response to that comfort is "yet."
Agreed. If I lived in Somalia, sure, I would have a gun or three. Also, I don't buy your implication about having to be ready to resist against the govt. (You never said that, but seem to be in that mindset.) Granted, I'm a peacenik hippy, but none of us are in the position to confront the police and military with our pea shooters.
We're talking about good, common, decent people and you're talking about tracking and limiting what they can do. Why?
Because they are incompetent mainly. They get drunk and get in arguments and kill their spouses and children. You know, the stupid stuff.
But anyway, my context for some of this is as a martial artist also. I expect I could disarm a gun wielding attacker in maybe 25-30% of the time. If they were stupid enough to be within reach, maybe 70% of the time. It's a fighting chance, and if I were in a to-the-death situation I would take that chance. My point here is that regular training is hugely important. You should be practicing at least monthly, more if you want to think you are competent.
Anyway, it's been fun chatting with you. Take care.
Ya, people like this should probably not teach gun safety: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/l...