German Government Agrees To Ban Fracking Indefinitely (reuters.com)

An anonymous reader writes: On Tuesday, the German coalition government agreed to ban fracking for shale gas indefinitely. Reuters reports: "Test drilling will be allowed but only with the permission of the respective state government, officials said. German industry is keen to keep the door open to fracking -- which involves blasting chemicals and water into rocks to release trapped gas -- arguing it could help lower energy costs, but opposition is strong in the country, where a powerful green lobby has warned about possible risks to drinking water. If the law is approved by parliament, Germany will follow France, which has banned fracking, whereas Britain allows it subject to strict environmental and safety guidelines. The two parties agreed on Tuesday to an indefinite ban, but the compromise legislation calls for the German parliament to reassess whether the decision is still valid in 2021, said Thomas Oppermann, who heads the SPD's parliamentary group. CDU officials confirmed that a compromise had been reached. Friends of the Earth Germany (BUND) criticized the proposal and said that by setting a date for a fresh look, the coalition had essentially agreed to allow fracking in five years." Last year, Bloomberg published an article making the case that the U.S. must consider the earthquake situation in Oklahoma a national security threat.

Comments

Jill Stein

[Anonymous Coward]

Bernie Sanders is about to bow out.

All Sanders supporters should shift their support to Jill Stein, not the felon Hillary Clinton.

Re:Jill Stein

[Anonymous Coward]

Bernie Sanders is about to bow out.

All Sanders supporters should shift their support to Jill Stein, not the felon Hillary Clinton.

Beware! You have awaken the Trumpians! (grabs popcorn...)

Re:Jill Stein

[fsckinhippies]

How can you get behind someone that says a job is a right? Is it your right to fuck off incessantly and remain employed?

Re:Jill Stein

[riverat1]

Bernie Sanders is about to bow out.

All Sanders supporters should shift their support to Jill Stein, not the felon Hillary Clinton.

Of course Bernie will support Hillary Clinton because he thinks preventing Trump (or any Republican) from becoming President is the most important thing.

Re:Jill Stein

[Anonymous Coward]

Which is why the original posting was very likely from a trump supporter.

Re:Jill Stein

[Anonymous Coward]

Classic false-flag operation.

Re:Jill Stein

[Anonymous Coward]

Think about it ---

If all Sanders supporters voted for Jill Stein, and all Green party supporters voted for Jill Stein, then Stein becomes a formidable opponent to Hillary.

Sanders couldn't get enough votes, but if you add all the Green party votes, then you have a candidate than can challenge Hillary.

Greens + Sanders = More supporters than Hillary
 

Re:Jill Stein

[Anonymous Coward]

How can you get behind someone that says a job is a right? Is it your right to fuck off incessantly and remain employed?

Why not? That worked well in Greece.

Re:Jill Stein

[fsckinhippies]

Touché

Re:Jill Stein

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, that's not what happened in Greece. What happened is a little bit more complicated.

First, one small American securities broker, goldman-something, lead, at the time, by a Mario Draghi, who is currently the boss of the European Central Bank by the power of the revolving door, helped the so-called 'political elite' of Greece borrow quite a lot in violation of the EU regulations, using the implicit guarantees that the EU and the eurozone treaties provided, and the fact that the other ez members looked away.

Then, most of the borrowed money went to buy German submarines to protect Greece from their NATO ally Turkey. Now, this is really strange, because the point of the 'common defense' structure is, ostensibly, lowering the costs of all the members. Too bad in reality NATO is a military block, used by one of its members to squeeze another large European country, and outside of that narrow goal, doesn't involve itself with members' security.

The remainder of the money (which is somewhat insignificant), minus the commissions paid to goldman, was pocketed by some of the said Greek politicians, who promptly deposited it in tax-free accounts, mostly in the fiscally responsible country of Luxembourg, lead, at the time, by a right-wing European with a ridiculous name, Jean-Claud Junicker.

And here we come to the part that's most fun. This err, person, is now the boss of the European Commission and is being helped by the above Mario to 'solve the Greek debt crisis', which is to say, twisting Greek hands to have the poor Greeks repay the German loans that went into buying German gear.

Of course, it is all the fault of the Greeks.

Yeah, it worked really well.

Re:Jill Stein

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll address this as not your personal opinion that you're not saying he should do it but as a fact that he most likely will do it.

I think supporting a corrupt candidate for quick relief against an even worse candidate is selling your life-long ideals cheap. He achieved much by rising to popularity from within a major party, but he should now prove his commitment to his cause by taking a long hard look at the situation and assessing whether supporting a major party candidate really is the best for this country. In the long run it changes nothing. Trump is really bad in the short term whereas Clinton would be a blessing to the current way of (political) life.

The best thing to do is to send a loud and clear message that things need to change, no matter what. He should either consider running as an independent or endorse someone outside the party. Standing strong and taking the fallout would make him a historic figure, someone to look up to and inspire others. We have now also learned that the whole nomination process was practically rigged from the start and this only underlines the previous point.

Many great thinkers didn't succeed in their lifetime, but their legacy really changed the world.

Re:Jill Stein

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe Trump is paid by Hillary to run. This is the most logical explanation (seriously).

Re:Jill Stein

[riverat1]

I listened to Bernie Sanders for an hour nearly every Friday for years on the Thom Hartmann show so I think I know him pretty well. Of course Bernie is an idealist but he's also a pragmatic politician willing to take a partial victory to advance his cause. Doing anything that gives Trump a better chance of winning will not do that. He has got enough support to name several people to the Democratic Platform Committee and dragged Hillary to the left some. If he's inspired some of his followers to follow in his footsteps he has done a lot to advance his cause and made a small change to the world. He's not going to blow that all up just for the sake of personal pride or being a rigid idealist.

Re:Jill Stein

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, never try to make positive change. Just put your efforts into hurt the people you hate.

Re:Jill Stein

[Tom]

If I were Trump, I would call up Bernie and ask him if he wants to be my Vice President.

You know, just to fuck over the establishment, and anyway I'm Trump, I don't really give two shits about any of this politics, I'm in it for the laughs and giggles.

Re:Jill Stein

[silentcoder]

Face it, Bernie won't be president - I wish he would be but he won't. But he just may have opened the door for a president Warren in 2020 or 2024.

Re:Jill Stein

[Rozzin]

Of course Bernie will support Hillary Clinton because he thinks preventing Trump (or any Republican) from becoming President is the most important thing.

While that sort of thing never surprises me at all, I still get frustrated by it: the reason I voted for Bernie in the Democratic primary was because preventing Hillary Clinton from becoming president was the most important thing. The reason I voted in the Democratic primary at all was to try to keep her off the ballot in the general election.

Re:Jill Stein

[kilfarsnar]

Bernie Sanders is about to bow out.

All Sanders supporters should shift their support to Jill Stein, not the felon Hillary Clinton.

Beware! You have awaken the Trumpians! (grabs popcorn...)

He's talking about Jill Stein, not Trump. Plenty of people on the Left are no fan of Hillary.

Re:Jill Stein

[Anonymous Coward]

shes not even on the ballot in most states.

some states like Oklahoma have legally barred all but the main two parties from elections.

Re:Jill Stein

[HornWumpus]

This is a parody of leftist greek apologists. Please tell me you don't believe this nonsense.

Re:Jill Stein

[HornWumpus]

Not sure if it's that direct. But the fix truely is in.

Re: Jill Stein

[Anonymous Coward]

Vote a third party. Simple as that.

Re:Jill Stein

[david_thornley]

What felonies has Clinton been convicted of? I believe the answer is "none", which means she's not a felon. You may be assuming on the basis of biased announcements and a shaky understanding of the law that she will be convicted, but that's speculative at best.

Fracking nuts I tell you

[Anonymous Coward]

that is all

good guys

[Anonymous Coward]

I voted for SPD in 2013 to aid in the creation of a great coalition, and seems it paid off. Really great having a party on board that also thinks about the environment. Yes they are red and did all this woman quota bs and now this time waste with the inheritance tax but thanks to them germany doesnt agree to glyphosate and has banned fracking.

Good guys!

Re:good guys

[Anonymous Coward]

I voted for SPD in 2013 to aid in the creation of a great coalition, and seems it paid off.

And by "paid off", you mean that both major parties are now united in screwing up the German economy?

Re:good guys

[Rei]

Meh, at least some people are happy...

Re:good guys

[Anonymous Coward]

I rather have the government "screw up" the economy, than the economy screw up the environment. Yes, in some industries there is no other way, but I'm really egoistic on this: rather screw up the environment of the russians, they have far more of it than us germans. In fact, they even took some of it away from us.

Re:good guys

[Rei]

And now they can screw up Ukraine's, Georgia's, and Moldova's environments too.

Re:good guys

[Mashiki]

I rather have the government "screw up" the economy, than the economy screw up the environment.

You say that now, because you're likely employed in the first world. With a high paying job, in either a downtown area or suburb where the loss of thousands of blue collar workers jobs will have minimal impact. Right up until the downtown starts shutting down, and your company moves out.

Re:good guys

[silentcoder]

>You say that now, because you're likely employed in the first world. With a high paying job, in either a downtown area or suburb where the loss of thousands of blue collar workers jobs will have minimal impact. Right up until the downtown starts shutting down, and your company moves out. [lmgtfy.com]

The problem with your reasoning is this: you can't eat money, you can't drink it, you can't breath it. Without a healthy, viable environment - the economy is absolutely useless.

Re:good guys

[Anonymous Coward]

Because we all know companies that screw up the environment really care a lot about their work force.

Guess what, you can have a successful economy and not screw up the environment at the same time.

Fart

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you ever put your dick in a dudes ass and then he rips a massive fart?

I laugh when that happenz.

Captcha: perfumes (can't make this shit up!)

Battlestar Gallactica

[MrKaos]

Who'd of thought that frak would turn out to be a dirtier word that fuck.

Frak the fraking frakkers!

Re:Battlestar Gallactica

[Anonymous Coward]

Frack you, you fracking frack.

Re:Battlestar Gallactica

[MrKaos]

get fraked you mother frakker.

Kooky, but

[amightywind]

their stupid decisions only make US LNG exports (which I inve$t in!) more attractive. So outlaw fracking, green morons.

Felony

[Anonymous Coward]

The average American commits something like 30 felonys a day. So Hillary being a felon is really a very low bar. Every American is a felon.

Re:Felony

[Anonymous Coward]

The average American commits something like 30 felonys a day. So Hillary being a felon is really a very low bar. Every American is a felon.

Holy cow! I've only committed two (2) today. I better get busy!!! Is today Purge day???

Re:Felony

[Anonymous Coward]

Holy cow! I've only committed two (2) today. I better get busy!!! Is today Purge day???

Two felonies will suffice if the government doesn't like you for whatever reason.

Think of the poor overworked unicorns!

[Applehu Akbar]

No nukes, no fracking. What are German Greens going to say when Ruhrkohle, or whatever it's being called now, starts digging the giant lignite pits it has long planned to fill in for the now totally hollowed-out national baseload?

Re:Think of the poor overworked unicorns!

[dwye]

No, again, of course. No to anything but Russian natural gas imports.

Re:Think of the poor overworked unicorns!

[Applehu Akbar]

And imported French power.

Re:Think of the poor overworked unicorns!

[Sique]

You seem to be pseudo-informed. Ruhrkohle AG does not mine lignite. They mine anthrazite in Ibbenbühren and Bottrop. The lignite is mainly mined by RWE (at the Lower Rhine), MIBRAG (Central Germany) and Vattenfall (Lausitz). Vattenfall tries to sell its lignite activities in Germany though. At the Rhine, Hambach and Garzweiler II are already mined, and it is estimated that they will be done between 2040 and 2045. Hambach II, while being planned in the 1990ies, will not be realized. MIBRAG has stopped all further expansion plans, will not built the planned lignite power plant Profen.

So which alleged giant lignite pit are you talking about?

Re:Think of the poor overworked unicorns!

[Sique]

Natural gas in Germany accounted for 8.8% of all electric energy generation in 2015, down from 12.1% in 2012. Other sources were lignite (24.0%), anthrazite (18.2%), nuclear (14.1%) and oil (0.8%). Renewables were at 30%, and 4% not specified.

At least that's what the government publishes.

Re:Think of the poor overworked unicorns!

[Sique]

Luckily we have the exact numbers ready, so we don't need to speculate. Germany generated in 2015 a total of 630.1 TWh of electric energy, and in the same time imported 12.1 TWh from France, while exporting 83.1 TWh to other countries. Just to put the numbers in perspective.

Re:Think of the poor overworked unicorns!

[AmiMoJo]

Germany's imports of gas are going down: https://upload.wikimedia.org/w...

Part of their plan for transition is to reduce energy consumption, e.g. by insulating homes so they need less heating and cooling. Every year they are getting less dependent on gas.

At the moment Germany imports about 35% of its gas from Russia because it is cheap. However, they have made sure they are not dependent on any one supplier, as any sensible government would. They get the rest from other European suppliers like Norway.

Re:Think of the poor overworked unicorns!

[pipingguy]

And Russia wouldn't be funding any anti-fracking activists or protesters (or other eco-activists, for that matter), would they?

Re:Think of the poor overworked unicorns!

[dywolf]

yes, lets just completely ignore the massive solar infrastructure already in place in Germany and set to continue expanding. Germany, a country further north than the US yet with a much larger installed solar area and larger portion of energy delivered from it.

Re:Think of the poor overworked unicorns!

[angel'o'sphere]

You are pretty dumb.

What are German Greens going to say when Ruhrkohle, or whatever it's being called now, starts digging They need a permit for that, too. So likely: njiet.
the giant lignite pits it has long planned to fill Exhausted pits are refilled, or converted to lakes or simply reforrested.
in for the now totally hollowed-out national baseload?
What has base load to do with that?

Probably you should look up what base load means. Germany has a base load demand of about 40% of peak. How should that ever be in danger when we already produce 35% of our power with wind?

You are retarded.

This, was once a moon scape: https://corporate.vattenfall.d...

Re:Think of the poor overworked unicorns!

[angel'o'sphere]

At the moment Germany imports about 35% of its gas from Russia because it is cheap
Nope.
We import gas from russia, because we get it more or less for free. In the 1970s we made a 50 years contract with russia, Germany delivered pipes to connect Russia to Europe, in return we got gas as payment. Or in other words a super cheap gas contract as payment.

Probably some German who knows more about it can put in the details?

However, they have made sure they are not dependent on any one supplier, as any sensible government would.

Yes, and Germany has gas storages that last over 2 years in situations of crisis.

Re:Think of the poor overworked unicorns!

[AmiMoJo]

At the moment Germany imports about 35% of its gas from Russia because it is cheap
Nope.
We import gas from russia, because we get it more or less for free. In the 1970s we made a 50 years contract with russia, Germany delivered pipes to connect Russia to Europe, in return we got gas as payment. Or in other words a super cheap gas contract as payment.

That's exactly what I said. You even put it in bold. Germany has a deal that gets it cheap gas from Russia, it's not that it absolutely has to import it from there and nowhere else for some reason.

Germany takes a pragmatic approach. No point shutting down that link and further alienating Russia, that won't help anyone. But also be prepared in case they turn it off at the other end.

Re:Think of the poor overworked unicorns!

[HornWumpus]

They don't really need to. The Saudi money is enough.

Re:Think of the poor overworked unicorns!

[Anonymous Coward]

What does that tell us? Nothing about baseload. The exports are understandable: when the sun shines or the wind blows the German energy prices dip below zero. Germany is actually paying its neighbours to dispose quite a few TWh. Why do you think there are both imports and exports in the same month to the same countries? There's a reason the Dutch built a new coal plant right on the German border.

As a BSG fan....

[Lumpy]

All I can do is read that headline and giggle...

Re:As a BSG fan....

[allcoolnameswheretak]

XD

"Indefinitely" is a very long time

[Anonymous Coward]

German Government Agrees To Ban Fracking Indefinitely

How do they define 'indefinitely' in Germany?

Re:"Indefinitely" is a very long time

[MouseR]

...because their last final solution wasn't so final after all.

Putin rejoices

[mi]

The alternative to fracking is buying more gas from Russia's Gazprom.

Last year, Bloomberg published an article making the case that the U.S. must consider the earthquake situation in Oklahoma a national security threat.

Maybe. But buying stuff from an aggressor is certainly increasing a national security threat. Does Germany believe, Putin will be satisfied with Ukraine and the Baltic states?

The way the rest of the world believed, throwing Czechoslovakia to Germany will bring "peace for our time"?

Re: Putin rejoices

[boredwithpolitics]

Currently, the aggressor is the USA trying to create conflict in Europe like what a self respecting empire would do. It already succeeded to destabilise the middle East more than it was already bringing irak to its knees, bleed out iran, destroy Syria, support a military coup in Egypt, destabilise Algeria and so on. There was an agreement to not expand NATO (which is a us initiative) eastwards for Russia's agreement to allow reunification of Germany besides other agreements and NATO is currently no more than 1000 km from Moscow. Meaning nuclear missiles as close as 1000 km. It's like Russia having nuclear missiles in cuba. Further, Russia has a proven track record of sticking to its commitment in oil and gas delivery as long as payment is done. So there is not much I would worry about other than it being a general dependency. If you want to worry about anything then please about us nuclear missiles stationed in Europe!

Re:Putin rejoices

[rtb61]

So Russia allowing the US to grab the Ukraine because they were sick of subsidising the Ukraine economy to the tune of tens of billions of dollar per year, to maintain access to the Crimea, that was stolen by the Soviet Union and given to the Ukraine, after hundreds of thousands of Russian died fighting to defend and then retake it from the Nazis (Russians got exactly what they wanted, the Crimea and the end of the huge fiscal burden that was the Ukraine, as for the Baltic states, all crap, they are just playing a game to get as much NATO cash as possible, soldier tourists spending big on rotation, outside of that they spend bugger all on defence).

Perhaps Germany sees fracking as just another Ukraine, it originally seemed like a good idea but the actual consequences are quite undesirable. From accelerated geologic movement (you are actually accelerating the system to the next major event via the relocation of stresses), to extensive pollution of the environment, which of course will be hugely magnified when there is a major earthquake in those affected regions.

Fracking should definitely be contained to unpopulated zones only and should be required to recover and store for reuse all fracking fluids. Most likely reason why the ban, https://www.youtube.com/watch?.... Considering the seize of the Australia, just why the fuck did they allow fracking in a populated rural zone, just fucking why?!? So what is happening to that river in the driest country in the world, as fracking gases and fluids disperse into it, hmm, tasty.

Re:Putin rejoices

[DNS-and-BIND]

Merkel wants alliance with Putin and is only being stopped by NATO. A German-Russian axis could dominate the continent. German know-how and technology combined with Russian manpower and natural resources are an unstoppable juggernaut. Why do you think the rest of the world was so dead-set against this union when the Germans tried it by force? Now, it can happen peacefully, no more Stalingrads. Give the Germans credit for learning something. Never get involved in a land war in Asia.

Re:Putin rejoices

[jandersen]

The alternative to fracking is buying more gas from Russia's Gazprom.

Or they could do what we will all to do eventually, which is to 1) cut back on our energy wastage and 2) develop renewable energy asap. When America uses - how much? - 15 times or even more energy per person than the average person in a developing country, then there clearly is some scope for saving energy. Even in Europe we don't waste as much as Americans do - and our living standard is certainly comparable; and some would say better in many respects.

As for whether renewable energy is ever going to be feasible: of course it is. Hardly a day goes by without some improvement or other in that area, and it is something that both Europe and China are investing heavily in. We could, according to some, switch away from fossi fuel almost "instantaneously" (ie. in the time it would take to change the necessary infrastructure etc - perhaps less than a decade); we actually know from experience how quickly it can be done, to some extent, since we had to make some very drastic changes during WWII. We can move pretty damn fast when necessary.

Re:Putin rejoices

[Tom]

But buying stuff from an aggressor

So we should stop buying stuff from Saudi Arabia (currently invading Jemen) immediately? I'm for it. From the USA of course, don't even have enough space here to list all the countries they have bombed and invaded in the past 50 years.

Russia? An aggressor? Sorry, which parallel universe do you live in?

Does Germany believe, Putin will be satisfied with Ukraine and the Baltic states?

How would the USA react if, say, Mexiko would join an economic and military alliance lead by Russia? Wait, we don't have to speculate, we know what would happen, because there is Cuba.

Actually, we should speculate, because Ukraine wasn't always a neighbouring country, it was a part of Russia not long ago. So let's speculate what would happen if Texas would declare independence and then a few years later makes big noise about how it wants to join an economic and military alliance lead by Russia. If you seriously think there wouldn't be US military action, I want some of the drugs you are taking.

Re:Putin rejoices

[Tom]

2) develop renewable energy asap

Germany was the world leader in renewable energy, until our government decided to shoot the whole thing in the knee. I'm quite certain bribes and promises of well-paid board positions were involved.

Re:Putin rejoices

[drinkypoo]

Fracking should definitely be contained to unpopulated zones only and should be required to recover and store for reuse all fracking fluids.

That is literally impossible, and also the opposite of the oil industry's goals, because fracking fluids are refinery wastes that they've finally found a place to dump. That's why they resisted so long giving out any information about it. By the time we realized this, the average schmoe was already on to worrying about statistically irrelevant shootings in gun-free zones.

Re:Putin rejoices

[StormReaver]

But buying stuff from an aggressor is certainly increasing a national security threat.

If I lived in an area that was experiencing fracking-induced earthquakes, I would probably be overwhelmed by the devil's bargain I would have to strike: keep living there, and probably lose everything to an earthquake (which isn't an insurable loss anymore just about anywhere). Or support the movement to stop fracking, and support an evil empire (which may or may not ever affect me, but would weigh heavily on my moral conscience).

Fracking is going to depress property values in the affected areas, so moving right now would be the only viable option. Otherwise, I would be royally screwed in a few more years.

Re:Putin rejoices

[dywolf]

yes. its a totally binary decision.
because we're just gonna completely ignore the massive solar infrastructure already in place in Germany and set to continue expanding.
Germany, a country further north than the US yet with a much larger installed solar area and larger portion of energy delivered from it.
because that's just how Mi rolls.

Re:Putin rejoices

[angel'o'sphere]

The alternative to fracking is buying more gas from Russia's Gazprom.
Germany is reducing its gas usage year by year, so how should we need to "buy more gas"?

On the other hand Germany is world wide leader in techniques that are similar to fracking, we do that since the 1950s.

The ban is about "shale gases", which is a different kind of fracking. So if there are engineers who know about the problems regarding "frackings" it is the german ones.

If we would do shale gas fracking we would do it for export, likely. Not to use it. Actually the german gas market is rather small.

Does Germany believe, Putin will be satisfied with Ukraine and the Baltic states?
No we don't believe that. But political problems have to be solved with political solutions. Not by stepping back from a 50 year old contract about gas deliveries that is to our favour!

Re:Putin rejoices

[dywolf]

except that chamberlain gets a bad rap from people (like you) who only learned the surface of history, and not the rest of it.
like the fact that chamberlain didn't actually believe it was a lasting peace and immediately began ramping up the british industry for the coming conflict.

he knew it would be only temporary at best. but he also knew that his country, still reeling from the depression and with a cratered industrial base like most European nations, was in no condition to engage in conflict with Germany at the time. without the delay afforded by his actions, England would likely have never survived the Blitz. as it was, it was a very near thing. and if England had fallen, Germany would have been free to focus its attention elsewhere.

there would have been no friendly base of operations for the allies; the US would have had to base its operations from either the sea or north Africa. or from Russia and join the Eastern front. Germanys focus being divided between the African, Russian, and Western fronts is the biggest reason for their loss. Just taking England would very likely have resulted in a very different outcome. They may still have been defeated, but the cost would have been far higher, and the war far longer.

Re:Putin rejoices

[MillionthMonkey]

Invading a country to exterminate its population and plunder its resources isn't quite the same as partnering with it to form an axis that dominates the continent. You eat a turkey- you don't marry one.

Re: Putin rejoices

[ultranova]

There was an agreement to not expand NATO (which is a us initiative) eastwards for Russia's agreement to allow reunification of Germany besides other agreements and NATO is currently no more than 1000 km from Moscow.

If you don't want nations bordering you to join NATO, maybe you should stop invading them. It's nobody's fault but your own that you keep electing one corrupt asshole after another who then loots the coffers without even trying to improve the country and starts wars of conquest to serve as distraction. Get your shit together rather than act like you've been grievously wronged when others refuse to passively wait for your predations.

Re:Putin rejoices

[Anonymous Coward]

You should be ashamed, and do some reading.

The Ukraine has been many things over time, conquered and divided between many parties, including Lithuania, the Ottoman Empire, Austria-Hungary, Poland and Russia. It never was Russian. It was part of the Soviet Union, but so where the Kazakhs, and they for sure are not "Russians". Trying to conflate Russia with the Soviet Union is wrong, disingenuous and a direct insult to all it's victims.

Russia is a dangerous aggressor right here in this universe. Ask any Finn, Estonian, Latvian, Lithuanian, Hungarian, ex Czechoslovakian for instance. So, firstly, the question is what fucking universe you live in, you ignorant pot-head.

The second question is why are you trying to misconstrue the former eastern European states looking westward for security as "big bad NATO including states as new front lines" like they were more or less included against their will or tricked into it, when we're talking about people who are quite legitimately trying to look for the only insurance they can get against a well known and historically documented aggressor.

Get off your fucking drugs, and get an education. Or at least stop being a fucking tool for Putin.

Re: Putin rejoices

[HornWumpus]

Nobody asked Russia about anything in the 80s and 90s. Even the Russians realized how fucked their nation was. Now delusions have returned.

Re:Putin rejoices

[HornWumpus]

Ukraine was part of the Soviet union, never part of Russia. Russians are confused about the difference.

Re:Putin rejoices

[HornWumpus]

1950s is very late to the fracking game.

It's been done for 100+ years. The environmentalists found a new boogie man about 10 years ago and act like fracking is something new.

Re:Putin rejoices

[Tom]

Russians would never confuse Ukraine with Russia. In Russia, the Ukrainians are seen as lazy and stupid.

Re:Putin rejoices

[Tom]

It never was Russian.

Way to go off on a tangent.

If you switch on your brain you will see that the difference between Russia and the USSR is not the core of the argument I'm making.

The USA is, as we are writing this, moving armed forces into countries bordering Russia. I ask you again: What would happen if Russia did the same? You think US media and politics would shrug and say "well, Canada and Mexiko are souvereign nations, if they think this is in their best interest, we're ok with that?"

Of course not. There would be a media blitz and a new "red army on our front door" propaganda.

against a well known and historically documented aggressor.

List of countries that the USSR/Russia has attacked since the end of WW2:

Hungary 1956, Czechoslovakia 1968â"1991, Afghanistan 1979â"1989, Georgia 2008, Crimea 2014

List of countries that the USA has attacked since the end of WW2:

China 1945-46, Korea 1950-53, China 1950-53, Guatemala 1954, Indonesia 1958, Cuba 1959-60, Guatemala 1960, Belgian Congo 1964, Guatemala 1964, Dominican Republic 1965-66, Peru 1965, Laos 1964-73, Vietnam 1961-73, Cambodia 1969-70, Guatemala 1967-69, Lebanon 1982-84, Grenada 1983-84, Libya 1986, El Salvador 1981-92, Nicaragua 1981-90, Iran 1987-88, Libya 1989, Panama 1989-90, Iraq 1991, Kuwait 1991, Somalia 1992-94, Bosnia 1995, Iran 1998, Sudan 1998, Afghanistan 1998, Yugoslavia â" Serbia 1999, Afghanistan 2001, Libya 2011

I rest my case.

Censroship

[sexconker]

Slashdot has been deleting comments on this post, including my own!

Why Hydraulic Fracking

[pjbgravely]

People, businesses and politicians act like there is no alternative to the water/chemical mixture. The truth is liquefied propane gas can work just as well and 100% of it is recovered and used as gas.

Re:Why Hydraulic Fracking

[tomhath]

The people opposed to gas drilling don't want an alternative. They want to stop the use of fossil fuels.

Re:Why Hydraulic Fracking

[Anonymous Coward]

The alternative is renewable energy and reducing the amount of energy that is needed through efficiency and improved design, not giving more money and power to the oil cartels to pollute and control the media/government.

Also, we want them to have to follow the Clean Water Act that is in place for a reason.

Re:Why Hydraulic Fracking

[ShanghaiBill]

not giving more money and power to the oil cartels to pollute and control the media/government.

Most fracking is done by small independent operators. The oil cartel would love to see fracking shut down.

Re:Why Hydraulic Fracking

[Anonymous Coward]

Most fracking is done by small independent operators.

In reference to fracking in Germany one of these small independent operators is Exxonmobil.

Re:Why Hydraulic Fracking

[Anonymous Coward]

Fossil fuels are not going away even if we stop using them for transportation or to generate electricity. Our modern world is possible because of the products produced from these fuels and eliminating them would prevent the manufacture of many drugs, fertilizers, plastics, stabilizers, lubricants, solvents, etc.

Don't buy it

[p51d007]

You reduce fracking, watch oil prices jump above 3,4,5 dollars a gallon, which, will of course make liberal-greenie types happy. Plus, with a lot of the terrorist taking advantage of stealing oil in places they control, less expensive oil, means less money for their terrorist acts.

Re: Don't buy it

[boredwithpolitics]

'terrorists' I imagine means Isis ( by definition, the us would be one too but never mind that). However, is is is lacking refinweiea. They do sell unrefined oil to others such as turkey a close ally of the us In it's fight against Isis. Hold in, something's not right here.. maybe they actually like the destabilising effect of Isis? Would you look at that!!

You insen5itive cl0d!

[Anonymous Coward]

be on a wrong shout the loudest FreeBSD showed many of us are that FrreBSD is market. TherefOre, guys are usually for the record, I WORKING ON VARIOUS ones in software

No, we shouldn't

[Anonymous Coward]

No, the Green party should nominate Bernie. Let's face it, he's waaaay more qualified than Jill is.

I won't vote for Crooked Hillary. I haven't ruled out voting for Trump, but he's not doing a whole lot to impress me at the moment.

Probably just gonna sit this one out... I don't live in a swing state so it doesn't much matter anyway.

Re:No, we shouldn't

[Anonymous Coward]

Hillary has been in the political establish dominated by wealthy donors who expect her to delivery a return on their investment. She is owned lock stock and barrel and her only goal is to become the first woman US President. Running the country comes in a distant second. I like Trump not because of what he says or does I like him because of the people he has pissed off in the current political environment. The media has had to come out of the closet to attack Trump. They have revealed that they are nothing more than paid shills. The US President has limits on what they can and cannot do. If Trump wins he will have to deal with the legislative branch where no one , Democrat or Republican, will support him. The minute he looks like he is exceeding his authority he would be impeached in an instant. What he will do is be very entertaining. Just look at all the foreign countries panicking about Trump winning because of his stance on demanding people pay their fair share if they want US military protection. I some country needs military assistance of any kind they should be presented with a bill upfront that requires a 50% down payment. If Hillary wins she will continue to do what she always does and that is nothing.

Re:No, we shouldn't

[riverat1]

I won't vote for Crooked Hillary. I haven't ruled out voting for Trump, but he's not doing a whole lot to impress me at the moment.

The right wing in this country has spent nearly 25 years trying to vilify the Clintons. They've spent probably well over $100 million in Federal money between the GWB administration and the R's in Congress investigating them. And what do they have to show for it? Nada, just a lot of innuendo.

I'm not saying Hillary is a perfect person and she wasn't my first choice for President but she's not the evil person so many are trying to make her out to be either.

Re:No, we shouldn't

[Plus1Entropy]

Plus everyone is calling her a felon when she has yet to be convicted, put on trial, or even indicted for anything.

Of course if you listen to people who oppose her, the FBI have been "about to indict her" for the last 6 months.

Re:No, we shouldn't

[davester666]

She is responsible for running a poorly secured email server. And she did not lead a covert counter-attack at Benghazi.

Re:No, we shouldn't

[HornWumpus]

Because nobody should be concerned that the justice department is refusing to indict when the evidence is so clear. No politics there at all.

Step back for a second and consider what you would do if the roles were reversed.

Re:No, we shouldn't

[david_thornley]

The evidence isn't clear. I've seen a lot of malicious speculation on what she might have done, and simplistic and incomplete at best explanations of the law by people who are self-evidently not lawyers.

Re:No, we shouldn't

[Plus1Entropy]

It doesn't matter. She is not a felon. That's a fact. If she's a felon in the future, so be it, but she isn't right now.

Step back for a second and consider what you would do if the roles were reversed.

I'm confused, which roles should be reversed? Do I become Hillary Clinton, does Hillary Clinton become the FBI, or do I become the FBI?

Trump 2016

[Anonymous Coward]

throwing Czechoslovakia to Germany

Lolno... have you been living under a rock?

What's actually been happening is throwing Germany to the ragheads.

(((Who))) benefits from this sad state of affairs? Certainly not the Aryan race.

Hitler was right.

Re:Trump 2016

[silentcoder]

Erm... Hitler loved the 'ragheads' as you call them. He considered them practically honorary Aryans - the second most noble race on earth according to him. Seriously - if your'e going to be a racist troll, at least don't be an ignorant one as well.

Re:Trump 2016

[HornWumpus]

Citation needed.

Hitler supported any group that hated the jews. Ragheads qualified.

Re: Trump 2016

[silentcoder]

NAZI mythology held that Aryans were the descendants of Atlantis. The mythology stated that there were two offshoot races that shared this heritage to a lesser degree making them cousins to Aryans and superior to other races. These number 2 races were Arabs and Asians (especially Tibettans and Japanese who were believed to be the purest Asian races). Hitler sent several scientists to Tibet to look for proof of this idea, brought Japan into the axis and gave Arab immigrants immunity from slavery. These are not controversial claims. It is well documented history. Hell it is literally what Heinrich Himmler's department was for.

A step in the right direction

[curiousdave]

We, as a civilization, should be discouraging any technology that lowers the cost of energy fuels producing IR filtering gases that linger in the atmosphere. Especially techniques with other harmful side-effects as environmental groups pointed out in Germany.

Instead, offering incentives in research and development of lower cost energy alternatives or techniques that prevent greenhouse gases from entering the atmosphere. For example: research like this method using electrolysis to change CO2 into profitable carbon nano-tubes Power plants that covert all CO2 emissions into carbon nanotubes

Re:A step in the right direction

[Anonymous Coward]

It isn't just CO2 that is the problem. CH4 is a big issue with fracking rigs, and there are other pollutants from fossil fuel use that should get attention too. That is part of the problem with the Climate Change message, is that coal tar pits, fracking waste water, smog, methane leaks, and radioactive waste get minimized because it is CO2, CO2, CO2!

Re:A step in the right direction

[tlambert]

We, as a civilization, should be discouraging any technology that lowers the cost of energy fuels producing IR filtering gases that linger in the atmosphere. Especially techniques with other harmful side-effects as environmental groups pointed out in Germany.

Instead, offering incentives in research and development of lower cost energy alternatives or techniques that prevent greenhouse gases from entering the atmosphere.

We are offering an incentive:

"YOU produce lower cost energy alternatives or techniques that prevent greenhouse gases from entering the atmosphere, or WE will continue to produce greenhouse gasses; YOU want alternatives? YOU pay for them."

Greenhouse gasses themselves encourage such solutions.

Just like peeing and defecating in public in a particular alley encourages adjacent businesses to install public toilets.

Re:A step in the right direction

[angel'o'sphere]

Just like peeing and defecating in public in a particular alley encourages adjacent businesses to install public toilets.
Interesting.
In my country, people who get caught doing that get fined.
No one is installing public toilets. The few we have are installed by the city and not local business, why would they?
The next thing you risk is a serious beating.

On the other hand most restaurants and pubs allow you to use the toilet for free, if you ask politely.

And if you are really in server need, at late night, when pubs are closed: there is always a tree, even in big cities.

Re:A step in the right direction

[HornWumpus]

One of the things that surprised me about Germany is the near universal toilet charge. In America any highway side gas station/store that charged to use the toilet would have the back of the building covered in urine.

Germans are a bunch of law abiders. They stand and wait for a walk signal when the roads a completely empty; rules crazy.

Re:A step in the right direction

[Anonymous Coward]

It is called common sense and education.

Re:A step in the right direction

[HornWumpus]

Nothing to do with waiting for a walk signal to turn green when you can see for half km both ways on a 35 km/h road. After a night drinking. In Berlin. A city that's not internationally known for rules followers.

And the looks they gave us American cousins just waltzing across. Face it, you're just like the Swiss with the 'stink eye'...

That wasn't meant as a compliment. I realize there is some confusion. BTW we take 'cowboy' as a complement, same a Ruskys take 'cossack'. Know it's meant as an insult, we just choose otherwise.

Re:A step in the right direction

[tlambert]

Just like peeing and defecating in public in a particular alley encourages adjacent businesses to install public toilets.
Interesting.
In my country, people who get caught doing that get fined.

Same in the U.S.; the strategy is to avoid being caught.

No one is installing public toilets. The few we have are installed by the city and not local business, why would they?

So that it doesn't smell like human waste when you sit at a table in front of your patisserie.

And if you are really in server need, at late night, when pubs are closed: there is always a tree, even in big cities.

Like the tree in the inset in the sidewalk in front of your business?

Moratorium

[Sir Holo]

It's only a moratorium, not a ban.

There is a big difference.

Gary Johnson

[Anonymous Coward]

If you don't like Trump, then vote for Gary Johnson.

other important factor

[Anonymous Coward]

"but opposition is strong in the country, where a powerful green lobby has warned about possible risks to drinking water."

also, green lobby in the EU (incl Germany) gets heavy funding from Russia. Russia is major supplier of natural gas to large part of central Europe. Spreading FUD on fracking is good for Russia.

Kremlin-bots on alert

[mi]

Currently, the aggressor is the USA trying to create conflict in Europe

And here come Russians deluded by Putin-TV into believing, it was the US, who invaded Ukraine. So sad...

Re:Kremlin-bots on alert

[Uberbah]

And here come Russians deluded by Putin-TV into believing, it was the US, who invaded Ukraine. So sad...

And here come the American Exceptionalists, ignoring the fact that their assistant Secretary of State is on video bragging about spending billions to subvert a democracy - in front of banners for American oil companies - and then caught on the phone picking leaders after the coup.

American Exceptionalists are as full of shit on Russia, as all the Bush chickenhawks when they were running around accusing wounded veterans of cowardice for opposing the Iraq war.

Re:Kremlin-bots on alert

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately you're being bit by the well-known paid shills out of Russia. Don't even bother: leakers about them have said they are the dumbest of dumb that you could ever encounter.

Re:Kremlin-bots on alert

[Anonymous Coward]

And here come the American Exceptionalists, ignoring the fact that their assistant Secretary of State is on video bragging about spending billions to subvert a democracy

Not disputing you, but do you have a link to that video?
Would be seriously interesting.

Re:Kremlin-bots on alert

[dywolf]

and here's mi reading into statements things that weren't actually stated.

Re:Kremlin-bots on alert

[mi]

And here come the American Exceptionalists

Subject-change detected — the usual tactics of Kremlin bots. I accept your surrender of the previous topic — of Russia being a dangerous aggressor — and move on to the new one: whether the US "is just as bad".

ignoring the fact that their assistant Secretary of State is on video bragging about spending billions to subvert a democracy

Notably, your bombastic accusation includes neither a link to the video, nor transcript of the actual words.

It is perfectly normal for countries to spend money on legal organizations abroad. USSR has been doing just that for decades fomenting racial strife in the US, for example, as well as the so-called "Peace Movement". In the Middle East KGB kept Arafat afloat and fighting Israel.

In today's world, Russia buys influence among not only its traditional Communist-allies, but the far-right as well.

You joked about Obama being a KGB-agent — had that been true, it would've been "subverting Democracy" in the extreme. And yet, the entire Russia would've found it awesome.

So, blaming the hapless State Department for "subverting Democracy" is rather hypocritical of you, KGB wrote that book — using Western freedoms to subvert them. But that's not all Russia does... Armed invasion is Ok with you to — and not even to dethrone a particularly nasty dictator or right some other wrong (real or perceived), but to simply grab land.

caught on the phone picking leaders after the coup.

And that, even if it were true, equates to an armed invasion in your opinion? Wow...

Re:Kremlin-bots on alert

[Anonymous Coward]

This is why legalizing drugs is a bad idea, we'll get more far-out posts like this.

Re:Kremlin-bots on alert

[Uberbah]

This is why legalizing drugs is a bad idea, we'll get more far-out posts like this.

Then stop toking, Exceptionalist, so you stop looking like a dumbass by disputing indisputable facts.

Re:Kremlin-bots on alert

[Uberbah]

No problem.

Re:Kremlin-bots on alert

[Uberbah]

Subject-change detected â" the usual tactics of Kremlin bots.

You mean projection, from another American Exceptionalist. With the bit that anyone who answers western propaganda with facts is a Putinbot.

I accept your surrender of the previous topic â" of Russia being a dangerous aggressor

They're not. You're comparing an anthill to Mt. Everest. Parked on top of Mauna Kea. On top Mt. McKinley, on Fuji, on Rainier...It takes a positively Biblical level of willful blindness for a westerner to point at Russia and claim it's an aggressive power. How many democracies has Russia overthrown since Obama took office? How many countries in Central America have Russian drones flying over them, ready to murder suspects (and dozens of nearby people) at the touch of a button? How many countries has Russia illegally bombed/invaded since the fall of the USSR, compared to the United States? Has Putin been busy expanding the Warsaw Pact to Mexico and Canada, after promising not to do so, running the largest military drills since the second world war? How many bases does Russia have around the world, compared to the U.S.> I could go on all day with facts that cannot be disputed.

Notably, your bombastic accusation includes neither a link to the video, nor transcript of the actual words.

Like asking for a citation that water is wet.

It is perfectly normal for countries to spend money on legal organizations abroad. USSR has been doing just that for decades fomenting racial strife in the US, for example, as well as the so-called "Peace Movement". In the Middle East KGB kept Arafat afloat and fighting Israel.

GTFO with that amateur hour BS. Radio America, heard of it? How many governments around the world has Russia - and even the USSR - overthrown compared to the United States? Is the KGB trying to spy on the electronic communications of every person on the planet? No, that would be the NSA.

You joked about Obama being a KGB-agent

On what planet was that?

And that, even if it were true, equates to an armed invasion in your opinion? Wow...

You want to play that game? Obama has bombed more countries than Bush - how many countries has Putin bombed without the request of that nation's government? Where's the evidence of Putin's "invasion" of Ukraine that doesn't come from social media? Months of western propaganda that Ukraine was being "invaded" by Russian forces, without a single satellite photo.

Because even Colin Powell, when testifying at the U.N., had satellite photos. He was as full of shit as the rest of you American Exceptionalists, but he had photos! Which is more than you have.

Re:Kremlin-bots on alert

[mi]

Subject-change detected — the usual tactics of Kremlin bots.

You mean projection

So, you are denying having changed the subject? Fine, let's recount: I started this thread pointing out Russia being a dangerous aggressor and it is therefor dangerous to be buying gas from her. You and boredwithpolitics "counter" that by saying, US is more of an aggressor... Sorry, but USA was not even in the picture — buying gas from the US is not an option for Germany.

The only reason to bring US into the conversation at all was for you two Kremlin-bots to shift attention from the topic you'll immediately lose to the one, where you can usually fight to stalemate.

But I recognized your subject-change — before moving on — and called it out.

You're comparing an anthill to Mt. Everest.

I'm comparing American efforts to propagandize freedom and Capitalism to Russia's armed invasions: into Moldova, Georgia, and Ukraine to name just the most recent ones. Yes, one of them is an ant hill and the other — a mountain. Only it is not the side you are backing, hater.

Radio America, heard of it?

What of it?

How many governments around the world has Russia - and even the USSR - overthrown

Let's see — and, unlike you, I'm going to stick to known facts of military invasions not unsupported accusations of "foreign influence":

1. Ukraine in 1917
2. Lithuania in 1918 — unsuccessful
3. Poland in 1919 — unsuccessful
4. Poland together with Hitler — successful
5. Finland — partially unsuccessful
6. Estonia
7. Lithuania
8. Latvia
9. Moldova
10. Hungary
11. Czechoslovakia
12. Afghanistan

    That was USSR. Now comes modern Russia: Moldova, Geogrgia, Ukraine. Again, the above are only the military invasions by Russia. Subtler things — like poisoning of Ukraine's presidential contender — aren't included for brevity.

    Notably, your bombastic accusation includes neither a link to the video, nor transcript of the actual words.

    Like asking for a citation that water is wet. [youtube.com]

    There is still no transcript and the video is nearly 9 minutes long. If you can not find the transcript — as would've been customary for text-based debates — perhaps, you can link directly to the section of the v

Russian scum defending Putin

[mi]

So Russia allowing the US to grab the Ukraine

Yes, like the rest of Russian scum, you keep talking about "US grabbing", while it was Russia, that actually invaded a peaceful neighbor.

Crimea, that was stolen by the Soviet Union and given to the Ukraine

Soviet Union is Russia and Russia is Soviet Union. The current Russia recognized Ukraine's borders — including Crimea — several times. Most recently — in 2010.

But your attitude is most telling — and reinforcing my point: Russia will not honor any of its agreements, and is a dangerous aggressor.

And it is not just the evil Putin at the top — ordinary Russians, including Slashdot critters, have been brainwashed into becoming scum as well.

Fuck you, Russian scum.

Re:Russian scum defending Putin

[dunkelfalke]

Well, if that isn't the pot calling the kettle a nigger.

Re:Russian scum defending Putin

[Tom]

Russia will not honor any of its agreements, and is a dangerous aggressor.

One of the promises made to the USSR when the whole wall came down and Soviet Union dissolved and all that was that the NATO would not expand to the borders of Russia. Oh look, how we keep our promises.

If Russia would expand - peacefully, through alliances - to include Canada and Mexiko, how do you think the USA would react? Peacefully? Really, it's possible to be so stupid?

Re:Russian scum defending Putin

[dunkelfalke]

Well, there was also a treaty on conventional armed forces in Europe between the USSR and NATO countries that limited the amount of NATO troops and equipment in Europe. It was broken by the NATO expansion.

Re:Russian scum defending Putin

[Kierthos]

When Ukraine gave up it's nuclear stockpile, Russia agreed not to interfere with Ukraine in return. We can see how well that worked out.

Re:Russian scum defending Putin

[mi]

One of the promises made to the USSR when the whole wall came down and Soviet Union dissolved and all that was that the NATO would not expand to the borders of Russia

Yes, yes — a tale oft-repeated by Russian scum. Please, cite the treaty, where that promise was made. Oops...

If Russia would expand - peacefully, through alliances - to include Canada and Mexiko, how do you think the USA would react?

You are trying to equate unequatable. Russian "expansion" brings not the prosperity of freedom and Capitalism, but disasters of Socialism. Witness Cuba, where we tried to fight it decades ago, and Venezuela, where we did not. Russia keeps trying, though — and we haven't attacked anyone.

Re:Russian scum defending Putin

[mi]

Well, there was also a treaty on conventional armed forces in Europe between the USSR and NATO countries that limited the amount of NATO troops and equipment in Europe.

Citation needed.

Re: Russian scum defending Putin

[dunkelfalke]

For fuck's sake, i even have provided the name of the treaty, are you too stupid to use a bloody search engine? http://m.state.gov/md108185.ht...

Re: Russian scum defending Putin

[mi]

For fuck's sake, i even have provided the name of the treaty, are you too stupid to use a bloody search engine?

You make a claim, you present evidence. That's how things work in a debate.

Good. Now, please, cite the actual violations. Oh, heck, I'll do your job for you — this once... So, Russia and others have violated the treaty in 1998, according to Wikipedia and its sources, whereas NATO violated it in 2006...

Seriously, claiming that these "violations" are equivalent to and justify an actual armed invasion is ridiculous... Russian scum indeed.

Re:Russian scum defending Putin

[david_thornley]

The Soviet Union was socialist. I've seen no particular signs of socialism in modern Russia, and nobody will who doesn't define socialism as "government I don't like". There are many ways to screw up a country and a government, and Russia has wound up with one that the Soviets didn't.

Re:Russian scum defending Putin

[Tom]

Yes, yes â" a tale oft-repeated by Russian scum. Please, cite the treaty, where that promise was made. Oops...

No such treaty was signed, but documents support the claim. Here is a reputable source for you:

http://www.spiegel.de/internat...

Quote Jack Matlock, the US ambassador in Moscow at the time, has said in the past that Moscow was given a "clear commitment."

NATO itself officially rejects this claim: http://nato.int/cps/en/natohq/...

The thing is controversial, but your choice of words makes it clear you have no interest in facts and nuanced views, you're a stupid git who shouts at everyone who dares to not share your dimwitted opinion.

You are trying to equate unequatable.

You are dodging the question and your counterpoint has nothing to do with the argument. It was a simple question: Do you believe the USA would stand by and watch if the Warsaw Pact were resurrected and Canada and Mexiko joined? Yes or no? It's a simple question.

Re: Russian scum defending Putin

[Tom]

Are you completely mental or a paid shill?

Nobody said Russia is innocence in white. People with brains are just tired of this cold war USA = good, Russia = evil propaganda.

But you admitted that the west has broken its promises, which was all that was claimed in this thread, so case closed. If you want to compare dicks, sorry, violations, that's three threads over to the left.

that makes Bernie evil

[Anonymous Coward]

The fact that Bernie would prefer a felon says something terrible about him.

Any random non-felon would be better. I mean it. Without even really knowing their politics, I'd rather have any of: Lady Gaga, Howard Stern, Theodore T'so... heck, let's just put all eligible non-felon used-car salesmen in a lottery.

Re:that makes Bernie evil

[davester666]

why just limit these guys to president? they are all likely better able to manage a budget and interact with their peers in a much less retarded way than anybody we have elected to Congress or the Senate. hell, their initial problem will be that they aren't nearly as good liars as the current crop.

Re:that makes Bernie evil

[Anonymous Coward]

The fact that Bernie would prefer a felon says something terrible about him.

Any random non-felon would be better. I mean it. Without even really knowing their politics

That is just retarded.
Would you for example rather vote for a candidate that runs Putins errands rather than a felon candidate that only cared about her own wealth?

Of course the "vote for lesser evil" means that you only get those two choices.
What some people call "tactical voting" is a pretty bad tactic since it puts you in a position where you will be screwed over no matter what.
Voting for a better person when no possibility to win gives better results. When the larger politicians wonder where the votes went they will realize that they need to shape up if they want to win.
As long as people vote for the lesser evil that won't happen.

Re:that makes Bernie evil

[silentcoder]

> non-felon used-car salesmen

Why not just ask for honest lawyers or smart generals ? I mean if you're trying to limit the lottery to the shortest list possible...

Re:that makes Bernie evil

[silentcoder]

>Voting for a better person when no possibility to win gives better results.

Sadly - it does not. In fact, most often, it has led to the worst possible candidate winning. Gore may not have been a good president (I have my doubts about the guy behind the PMRC crap being a good leader) - but Bush II was terrible, and he got the job in 2000 mostly because so many people who would otherwise have voted for Gore voted for Ralph Nader instead.
I think Nader would have been a better president than Gore but he was always a no-hoper and he caused 8 years of the shrub instead. On the other side of the dark, dangerous ally one of the only cases in the last 70 years of an incumbent not winning re-election was when Bush 1 lost to Clinton in '92 - a loss almost entirely caused by Bob Dole.

So either way - voting for a non-mainstream candidate ends up, most often, ensuring your second choice loses. This is a major problem in the US system. A better system would let you rank candidates by preference.
If you voters could list Nader as first choice, Gore as second and Bush as third - chances are Nader may actually have won, and even if he hadn't, Gore would not be as terrible as Bush was.

In such a system, if your number one choice doesn't get enough votes to win - your vote still counts for your number 2, they don't end up being - effectively, a vote for the person you LEAST want to win.
It doesn't much matter if you're a liberal (like me) or a conservative, either way the current system is bad but as long as this is the system the ONLY chance to get somebody else elected is in the primaries. In the general you HAVE to vote with your brain or you end up voting for the thing you wanted least. Right now, any vote not for Hillary is a vote for an avowed fascist who eagerly spouts policies taken straight out of mein kampf and actually can't even be bothered to come up with any explanation of why they may be different.

Re:that makes Bernie evil

[Anonymous Coward]

but Bush II was terrible, and he got the job in 2000 mostly because so many people who would otherwise have voted for Gore voted for Ralph Nader instead.

Actually, I think Bush II got the job in 2000 mostly because so many people voted for Bush II.

Re:that makes Bernie evil

[riverat1]

Of course Gore won the popular vote in 2000. He just lost in the Electoral College.

Fracking isn't the problem

[tappingamanda]

Just to be clear: Fracking (short for fracturing) has been around almost as long as humans have been digging wells. Way back when, dynamite was used for fracking oil wells. I believe shaped charges were also used. And even Hydraulic Fracking has been tried a number of times with varying methods. Plain old water pressure and also steam have been used. So Fracking itself is not the problem, as it's been around forever and has many methods. What's different about fracking as used in the context of this article? One difference is the METHOD. But the most important difference is the SCALE. So banning Fracking in general will be counterproductive in the long run, as there are many safer ways to do it. What needs to be regulated/modified/banned is this particular method and most importantly the scale. Fracking is your friend!! ;-)

Re:Fracking isn't the problem

[Plus1Entropy]

Isn't another difference in modern hydraulic fracturing that they drill the last portion of the well horizontally before pumping the fluid into it?

My understanding is that this particular innovation made modern fracking more economically viable. I assume it's because it allows you to access more of the gas trapped in the strata without having to drill as many holes. It is also my understanding that this is the reason the gas can potentially vent out of random, unpredictable places in the ground, not just out of the well hole itself.

Re:Fracking isn't the problem

[tomhath]

It is also my understanding that this is the reason the gas can potentially vent out of random, unpredictable places in the ground, not just out of the well hole itself.

I've never heard of that happening. The videos of flaming faucets/garden hoses in the "documentary" about gas drilling were proven fake.

Re:Fracking isn't the problem

[RockDoctor]

Horizontal drilling is also a fairly old technique, though the technology for doing it has been getting more reliable and more affordable over the nearly 30 years that I've been working in drilling. You can certainly fracture horizontal wells, just as well as vertical ones. It's all a question of length of exposed reservoir and permeability of that reservoir. When I'm steering a horizontal well, we've typically got a target of [so many] milliDarcy * feet to achieve the well's production requirements. (milliDarcy - unit of permeability ; times the length of exposed wellbore). Production requirements are set by the flow rate required by the surface processing equipment.

It is also my understanding that this is the reason the gas can potentially vent out of random, unpredictable places in the ground, not just out of the well hole itself.

Completely not. That would be highly counter-productive. The whole point of planning and drilling a well is to produce hydrocarbons at the wellhead, not to have them squirting out of the ground where you can't sell them.

Just to put things into perspective, a typical well (whether or not fractured) would be at a depth of 4 to 6 thousand feet below the ground. The volumes of water (and additives) pumped into the ground in order to produce fractures is very carefully monitored as you're running the pump (literally, you count the number of strokes of the pump, and each stroke is typically 4-6 gallons) is in the hundreds of gallons, which is sufficient to make one fracture some hundreds of feet long - or many shorter fractures. This is actually designed (i.e. - it's not an accident) so that you only spend money (remember that stuff?) on fracturing rocks that may yield a profitable amount of gas (or oil), not on fracturing useless rock. It also means that your activities are far below aquifers which people use for drinking or industrial water.

There is so much bullshit talked and written about fracturing by people who literally do not know what they are talking about.

Re:Fracking isn't the problem

[Plus1Entropy]

Completely not. That would be highly counter-productive. The whole point of planning and drilling a well is to produce hydrocarbons at the wellhead, not to have them squirting out of the ground where you can't sell them.

I'm really glad to hear that the hydraulic fracturing industry is the only one in history completely devoid of incompetence, negligence, and corruption. Since that's the only way what you're saying could possibly be true. Whew, what a load off my mind. Thanks!

Re:Fracking isn't the problem

[RockDoctor]

I'm really glad to hear that the hydraulic fracturing industry is the only one in history completely devoid of incompetence, negligence, and corruption

I didn't claim that, and you know I didn't.

No-one plans to do these things badly. And given the amount of regulatory hurdles before you get to put bit to rock, such errors are extremely rare.

At least, that's the case in the countries where I've worked. If you live in such a corrupt society, people by incompetent and cheaply-brought politicians and incapable regulatory agencies, elected by a population with the wool pulled over their eyes or paid a pittance for their silent compliance, then maybe you should look to dealing with your country's political problems. But don't blame a technical process for the failings of your body politic. Unless, of course, you have some vested interest in maintaining a corrupt body politic in your country.

Water contamination risk, see EPA and PNAS reports

[dumky2]

EPA
PNAS

Organic compounds found in drinking water aquifers above the Marcellus Shale and other shale plays could reflect natural geologic transport processes or contamination from anthropogenic activities, including enhanced natural gas production. Using analyses of organic compounds coupled with inorganic geochemical fingerprinting, estimates of groundwater residence time, and geospatial analyses of shale gas wells and disclosed safety violations, we determined that the dominant source of organic compounds to shallow aquifers was consistent with surface spills of disclosed chemical additives. There was no evidence of association with deeper brines or long-range migration of these compounds to the shallow aquifers (emphasis added). Encouragingly, drinking water sources affected by disclosed surface spills could be targeted for treatment and monitoring to protect public health.

Pro Frackers

[pablo_max]

To be honest, I have a very time to understand the pro-fracking movement in the US.
It seems that public in general in America is very, very short sighted.
There is actually a lot of evidence to support the premise that fracking not only pollutes the ground water, but also causes mild earth quakes.

Perhaps, in time, they will find out that it is safe. Who knows. But, right now there is a very reasonable doubt.

Here's the thing.
Oil is important. We all know that. We depend on it for our modern world. Sure, there are substitutions for nearly every application of oil, but they are expensive. Thus would of course cause harm to the economy should we run out or stop using it all together.

Water, on the other hand. Is not important. It is literally life and death. We cannot live without the stuff. No ifs ands or buts about it. If we pollute all of our drinking water, we will all die.
So, why the fuck would people take that chance? To save 15 or 20 bucks filling their gas tanks? It makes no sense.

I sometime wonder; maybe the whole plan IS to pollute the water. The oil companies are buying a lot of water rights and have been for a long time.
So, if they pollute all the water except for the areas in which they control, they would have a monopoly on fresh drinking water. Then we would have a water cartel in place of an oil cartel. Forever raising the price of water and literally holding the life of the population in their hands.
 

Re:Pro Frackers

[tomhath]

There is actually a lot of evidence to support the premise

Not evidence. Just speculation and FUD by people opposed to the use of fossil fuel.

Re:Pro Frackers

[swillden]

There is actually a lot of evidence to support the premise that fracking not only pollutes the ground water, but also causes mild earth quakes.

Cite? Because the mechanism of the first is very non-obvious and the second seems like a good thing.

On ground water pollution, unless we're having a lot of trouble with surface-level spills of fracking fluid (which argues for higher standards and tighter regulation, not banning), it's very difficult to see how injecting fracking fluid thousands of feet below the groundwater can have any effect on it.

On the quake issue, it seems clear that fracking cannot cause earthquakes, it can only accelerate and reduce earthquakes, making them happen sooner and more incrementally by lubricating the substrata enough to allow them to move and relieve pressure that is already present. In the long run that's a good thing. It means having many smaller and therefore less damaging quakes instead of fewer, larger and more dangerous ones.

Of course, both of my points are based on reasoning about theory, and actual evidence always trumps theory... but in spite of your claim I haven't seen any actual evidence. Do you have some?

Re:Pro Frackers

[Anonymous Coward]

You watch too many Bond movies.

Re:Pro Frackers

[pablo_max]

Ok..
Here is only one recent study.
http://www.pnas.org/content/11...
There are loads out there. ... it's very difficult to see how injecting fracking fluid thousands of feet below the groundwater can have any effect on it.

Are you joking? You fail to see how injecting a crap ton of chemicals below the water table can impact the water table? Really?
You know that just because you put it in the ground, does not mean they stay down there, right?

BTW; the USGS website does say there are, though few, direct links between fracking and quakes.

Re:Pro Frackers

[swillden]

Are you joking? You fail to see how injecting a crap ton of chemicals below the water table can impact the water table? Really? You know that just because you put it in the ground, does not mean they stay down there, right?

Given that the fracking fluids are, by design, very heavy, yes it's very difficult to see how they're going to migrate upward thousands of feet in anything less than geologic time scales. The arguments in the study you cite actually support my argument. They are theorizing shallow fractures and surface pit leakage as the mechanism for the contamination, not fracking fluid working its way up large distances.

BTW; the USGS website does say there are, though few, direct links between fracking and quakes.

Which in no way refutes my point. I granted that it makes perfect sense that fracking could cause earthquakes to happen sooner than they would otherwise... but that' s a good thing, not a bad one.

I don't have any particular reason for wanting to support fracking, and I'm very willing to be convinced by evidence, but what I see from fracking opponents is a lot of heat and noise and very little data. I also see a lot of overlap between fracking opponents and supporters of other forms of pseudoscience, such as homeopathy, anti-vaccine arguments, etc., which doesn't do much to convince me.

Re:Pro Frackers

[AmiMoJo]

It can be explained by billions of dollars spent convincing people that fracking is great.

Re:Pro Frackers

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you joking? You fail to see how injecting a crap ton of chemicals below the water table can impact the water table? Really?
You know that just because you put it in the ground, does not mean they stay down there, right?

THOUSANDS OF FEET below the water table. And fracking wouldn't actually work unless there was an impenetrable (relatively) layer stopping the frack propogation upwards and downwards.

So basically your sarcasm amounts to "Are you joking? You fail to see how farting in a building in LA can impact the air quality in NYC? Really?"

Re:Pro Frackers

[HornWumpus]

Perhaps with time?

Fracking is more than 100 years old. It was just recently noticed and made into a boogie man by the fucking hippies but is nothing new.

Re:Pro Frackers

[Anonymous Coward]

It beats me too. After people see the "water hose on fire" video and listen to someone describing the exact place and circumstances (I, admittedly, saw it on the Daily Show), it's *REALLY REALLY REALLY* hard to believe our country isn't totally and utterly corrupt that this s**t can not only happen, but not be fixed and be forced to not happen again.

Re:Pro Frackers

[Solandri]

There is actually a lot of evidence to support the premise that fracking not only pollutes the ground water, but also causes mild earth quakes.

Most fracking is done several km undeground. Most groundwater aquifers are less than a km underground, usually less than 100 meters. The premise behind the fracking fluid polluting groundwater requires you to believe that the fluid can permeate several km up through the rock, while simultaneously water is incapable of draining down several km. If pollution from fracking were possible, the bigger issue in the news would be fracking causing cracks at the impermeable rocks at the bottom of the aquifer, causing the entire aquifer to drain further underground.

The gases released by fracking OTOH can in theory percolate up. However, the dramatic videos you've seen of people lighting their tap water on fire leave out one important question - could they do that before the fracking? Volcanic gases naturally percolate up through the rock until it reaches aquifers, where they dissolve into the water. When the gas is CO2, we call the result sparkling water. If the gas is CH4, you end up with water you can light on fire (the gas bubbles out when you pump the water up and the ambient pressure decreases). I'm sure you believe in natural sparkling water springs. So why is it so hard to believe in natural well water you can light on fire?

As for earthquakes, those wanting to ban fracking because of earthquakes are the ones who are short-sighted. The fracking doesn't cause the earthquakes, it merely triggers them. Fracking comes nowhere near pumping enough energy into the ground to cause an earthquake. If it were that energy-intensive, we wouldn't be doing it because the energy you got from the natural gas and oil recovered this way wouldn't cover the energy used by the fracking process. All fracking does is trigger the release of energy already there - built up in the rocks by natural geological forces.

This is energy that would've eventually been released in an earthquake anyway. Usually a much bigger and much more destructive earthquake. Fracking allows the release of that energy more frequently in smaller amounts, instead of less frequently all at once. It's analogous to deliberately triggering small harmless avalanches on a snow-covered mountain to eliminate the possibility of a large destructive avalanche later in the year. We've accidentally stumbled upon a method to mitigate the danger of large earthquakes (which so far we've been unable to predict), but the technology is going to be buried because the anti-fracking crowd have turned it into a negative by selectively looking only at the short-term consequences.

Re:Pro Frackers

[RockDoctor]

I also see a lot of overlap between fracking opponents and supporters of other forms of pseudoscience, such as homeopathy, anti-vaccine arguments, etc., which doesn't do much to convince me.

Yeah, I see that too. (I'm a professional in the oilfield.)

Re:Pro Frackers

[RockDoctor]

The premise behind the fracking fluid polluting groundwater requires you to believe that the fluid can permeate several km up through the rock, while simultaneously water is incapable of draining down several km.

You're forgetting the point (which is also forgotten by almost all the people who know nothing and talk a lot) that the particular rocks that you're trying to fracture are below a sequence of rocks of low enough permeability that hydrocarbons (oil and/ or gas) have been trapped in them, despite considerable natural pressure (due to density difference) pushing the hydrocarbons to travel through the rocks.

If pollution from fracking were possible, the bigger issue in the news would be fracking causing cracks at the impermeable rocks at the bottom of the aquifer, causing the entire aquifer to drain further underground.

That would only be the case if the deeper rock formations were charged with gas ; generally not the case. Surprisingly since most sediments are deposited at the bottom of rivers, lakes or the sea, they are mostly filled with water from day one. You could do this if you wanted to destroy your gas field, but profit does not lay that way.

However, the dramatic videos you've seen of people lighting their tap water on fire leave out one important question - could they do that before the fracking?

A common way of creating this situation is to have a leaking slurry pond from a cattle feed lot or pig farm, when the shit-laden water gets down into the aquifer, then rots in the absence of oxygen. producing biogenic methane. This has a distinctly different carbon-13 to carbon-12 ratio than thermogenic natural gas. Distinguishing the two is trivial (if you've got a mass spectrometer). Which is when the lawsuit evaporates as the farmer reailses that they're making evidence against themselves for their pollution of their neighbours aquifers.

Nearly two centuries ago we discovered why having a water well next to a leaking cess pit is a bad idea. Some people still haven't learned.

We've accidentally stumbled upon a method to mitigate the danger of large earthquakes (which so far we've been unable to predict),

That is certainly not impossible, but would be pretty fraught. As you say, predicting earthquakes is an extremely difficult task. The liability issues would be ... well, I'm not going to try that unless you're paying the liability insurance, and probably not even then.

OTOH, in the aftermath of a substantial quake, starting a fracking programme to continue releasing strain ... that's much more feasible. My 2â, at least.

or until a change in the political climate.

[Anonymous Coward]

Which ever comes first.

completely wrong

[Tom]

Funny how the story changes completely across the Atlantic.

Here in local news (I live in Germany), the decision is largely painted as allowing fracking and the coalition partners are slammed for not having enough guts to outlaw it, which apparently was the original proposal before it was watered down.

The "if the states allow it" is the federal government cop-out if they can't find a solution. Because we have two houses as well, one elected by the people directly and one with representatives from all states, and because people sometimes vote differently in local vs. federal elections and because of different coalitions, holding a majority in one doesn't automatically mean holding one in the other, much like it is in the USA.

So when the coalition could push something through the Bundestag, but not through the Bundesrat, their solution is "leave it up to the states". Spineless cowards, all of them. Always change your opinion so you find a majority.

The important thing is that a lot of NGOs and opposition parties wanted a ban on fracking, and they didn't have the spine to do it. This is not a ban, it's basically a permission with the added bureaucracy that you need a local permission.

Re:completely wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

I found that interesting too. As well as the amusing if not depressing idea that environmental protections in Britain are strong.

Re:completely wrong

[RockDoctor]

If Germany is anything like the UK - and statistically, it likely is - then there will have been several hundred wells drilled in Germany and fractured already. Including particularly wells for producing drinking water.

The first well fractured in Britain that we can find records of was in the early 1950s (a lot of records from the early onshore production were lost in world war 2 however). Given the amount of exploration work done along the edge of the Zechstein basin, trying to find analogues of the Groningen gas super-giant field and the Schoonebeek oil field in the Netherlands, then I'd be utterly astonished if there weren't dozens to hundreds of wells fractured along that trend.

But what would I know, after 30 years in the business including several years working for Shell in the Netherlands?

That word doesn't mean what you think it does

[raymorris]

"American Exceptionalism" doesn't mean what you seem to think it does. It's not "American Betterism". Look it up some time if you're interested in knowing what the words you use mean.

In brief summary, it's the idea that the US has a special responsibility to act in accordance with the principles of freedom and democracy because it was founded not as an ethnic group, but based on those principles.

Re:That word doesn't mean what you think it does

[dywolf]

"American Exceptionalism" doesn't mean what you seem to think it does. It's not "American Betterism.

that's pretty much exactly how most americans who believe in it interpret it.

Re:That word doesn't mean what you think it does

[Uberbah]

"American Exceptionalism" doesn't mean what you seem to think it does. It's not "American Betterism". Look it up some time if you're interested in knowing what the words you use mean.

In brief summary, it's the idea that the US has a special responsibility to act in accordance with the principles of freedom and democracy because it was founded not as an ethnic group, but based on those principles.

You mean the principles of selling billions in weapons to Saudi Arabia - the beheading capital of the world, executing people for sorcery - or allowing child rape on military bases? The principles of supporting coups of democracies - most recently Honduras and Ukraine?

Look it up some time if you're interested in knowing what the words you use mean.

If you're interested in not being a complete shit-for-brains, ray, you might want to do something about your willful ignorance before you prattle on about what others should know. Has Russia spent the last 30 years expanding the Warsaw Pact to Mexico, Canada and surrounding islands after promising not to? Is Russia murdering people with robot planes on the other side of the planet from them?

Has Russia run a worldwide kidnapping and torture program, that was so brutal it even shocked Bush? Is Russia trying to spy on the electronic communications of every person on the planet, the way the NSA has? Nope, nope and nope.

No, it did NOT!

[silanea]

This must have been submitted by someone who does not know how law and politics work in Germany. The federal government has forwarded a proposal to regulate fracking. Not to ban it. And it ultimately leaves the decision to the individual states, most of which are in dire need of more funding. Some of the state governments have already expressed support for fracking – this is the enabling piece of legislation they have been waiting for.

And in contrast to the praise some AC showered over our social democrats, I am delighted to be just as disappointed as I expected to be by the Traitors' Party (as the moniker for that particular party goes around here) for the sell-out they committed here. Again.

If only someone invented a machine that recovered electricity from broken political promises, all our current and future energy needs would be fulfilled by year's end.

Yes, russia is not usa.

[Anonymous Coward]

Then again, russia isn't germany, so why the fuck you give a shit about a "subject change" when the subject HAD ALREADY CHANGED beggars any intelligent being.

And TExas is part of the USA

[Anonymous Coward]

and not America.

You saying the texans aren't American?!?!?!?

Re:And TExas is part of the USA

[HornWumpus]

The difference is that Texas actually is part of America, same as Alaska.

Stop trying to be smart. You're just embarrassing yourself.

The reason that Russia has to accept NATO on its borders is that it LOST THE COLD WAR. Get over it already and accept your role as 3rd world resource extraction center. Like most of Africa.

Re:And TExas is part of the USA

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, the reason is that they have to accept it because the people there does not want to be under Russian boots, which is how Russians define "friendship" - they get to trample all over you, like the "Herrenmenschen" they think they are.

The people living in what Russia considers "its" sphere of influence chose between being "friends" with the Russians and being in NATO. The result is telling.

Re:And TExas is part of the USA

[Tom]

Get over it already and accept your role as 3rd world resource extraction center. Like most of Africa.

I hope archive.org survives, because when school children learn how WW3 got started, that is a good example.

But of course you don't understand how utterly fucked up your attitude is. Or that this exact attitude after WW1 is what contributed massively to the rise of Hitler and the resulting WW2.

Except that claim was proven false.

[Anonymous Coward]

The claim that the gas venting in the documentary (no scare quotes needed: it was a documentary) were proven faked has been proven a lie.

In other news

[Anonymous Coward]

Now that Germans aren't allowed to frack, the birth rate is plummeting.

Fucking hell, seriously?

[Anonymous Coward]

In 50 years people will look back on fracking with the same eyes we look at shoe store x-ray machines today. It's a bad idea to any half intelligent person on the planet and no one would do it if money wasn't involved.

Getting closer

[raymorris]

You wrote a very comprehensive response. Thanks for that. I appreciate you sharing your viewpoint. I wonder if we could now focus a bit more and you could tell me briefly what you think about these specific questions:

> supporting coups of democracies - most recently Honduras and Ukraine

Clearly you're unhappy that Clinton supported the coup in Honduras. Would you be surprised or upset if you thought Castro supported it? That is, if Castro (or Russia) supported a coup of a democracy, would that be just as upsetting, or would you expect one dictator to support another? A detailed explanation is necessary.

You expressed great displeasure that the United States has a friendly relationship with the House of Saud, which is the secular half of the Saudi government. If Iran forged an alliance with one of the Saudi governments, whould that be just as bad, or would you expect one Muslim nation to ally with another? If Russia supported Iran, would that be as bad as the US working with the Saudis?

I'm very curious about your thoughts directly on this specific pair of questions.

I missed the word NOT. Detail NOT necessary

[raymorris]

Typing on a small phone, I missed the word NOT. Sorry about that. I wrote "a detailed explanation is necessary". I meant "a detailed explanation is NOT necessary".

I'm just curious if you would agree more with a or with b:

A) The US SHOULD support democracy, they claim to be "the brightest beacon of freedom and democracy".

B) The US has no more responsibility to support freedom and democracy than Iran, North Korea, or any other country does. It's perfectly fine for each country to support whoever they want in each situation.

Typo - detail NOT necessary

[raymorris]

Typing on a small phone, I missed the word NOT. I wrote "a detailed explanation is necessary". I meant "a detailed explanation is NOT necessary".

I'm curious if you would agree more with a or with b:

A) The US SHOULD support democracy, they claim to be "the brightest beacon of freedom and democracy".

B) The US has no more responsibility to support freedom and democracy than Iran, North Korea, or any other country does. It's perfectly fine for each country to support whoever they want in each situation.