Rattler

I think that's what I just did in that post.

One correction to the above. If gas production is too large to transport via truck, it is transported from the well head to the many already existing "transportation pipelines" via a "gathering pipeline" which is placed underground, but follows existing right of ways and public roadways. No land is taken with eminent domain. http://marcelluscoalition.org/marcellus-shale/production-processes/transportation-infrastructure/

From the study in the OP "The study concluded the oil and gas industry, including fracking, adds $473 billion to the Texas economy and created as many as 3.8 million jobs." PA is experiencing similar economic prosperity. People benefit from jobs, lots of jobs. That includes all the jobs that serve the people who do the gas jobs too, like restaurants, diners, local businesses, car dealers, etc. I don't have time to go into great detail here, but the economies where gas fracking is going on are booming. Anyone with any amount of land stands to gain, on average, $3000 per acre. Lots of small land owners in PA got thousands for the right to get to the gas far beneath their lawns. They spend that money locally on many things like new vehicles, home improvements and necessities. Many even donate a lot of money to local non-profits and charities. The actual fracking process way down in the shale bed, has never been proven to contaminate wells. Drilling holes in the ground to get down to the shale has released methane gas into wells, and that has been addressed by regulatory updates. BTW, natural seismic activity has contaminated more wells in America than any holes drilled for fracking have. You cannot regulate natural seismic activity problems away either. Lastly, the gas is trucked away from the well heads, not moved through pipelines that cross people's property. So again, fracking improves people's lives. Preconceived objections based on misunderstanding, are what's causing friction on this issue. Cuomo and the enviro-facists have sold many NY residents a ban on fracking based on fear and a left wing political desire to end the use of all fossil fuels. That's the real agenda. Remember when the enviro's wanted more natural gas use in America because it was better for the environment than oil or coal? They don't sing that tune anymore. Why do you think that is? Are those windmills proving to be a better option, costing much more in all areas, including the price people pay for the energy they produce? Does solar have the potential to supply all the energy gas can at similar costs? Fracking, in areas where it is going on, is most definitely enhancing the lives of the people in those areas, as well as people who use natural gas anywhere else.

Brilliant sense of new market opportunity.

This can be expected from idiots who have never had to change a flat tire in their lives. If not for AAA they would all die.

Radicals know time is always on their side, they never stop trying and their beliefs are pushed through insidious encroachment, bit by bit, until they get the change they want. When one of their own gets elected to a major position of power (Obama), the threat is real regardless of how many hold that radical opinion. The last 8 years have proven this.

Yet the LGBT crowd hates Christians because they don't agree with their lifestyle. Christians don't kill them over their beliefs though.

Data about long term effects are accruing every day now. There doesn't seem to be any contamination in areas where fracking is going on. There are wells with methane gas contamination in many areas where no fracking is going on. There is no real evidence fracking caused any well contamination or pollution of drinking water. It has been accused of contamination, yet nobody has provided actual proof fracking caused any of it. If there were any real threat to the environment, I think we would have seen a lot of it by this time. As far as NY goes, the economic positives have been rejected in favor of unknown environmental issues that may be unfounded. If we go 50 years ahead and find fracking has never created any environmental problems at all, will we be able to reverse the ban in NY and help this dying economy then? What was never part of this debate was any discussion about other economic plans that would take the place of the banned economic gains. It's easy to be against something that doesn't improve the quality of your life, if you don't have any concern about others who desperately need something to improve the quality of their lives.

I agree things are back to the way they were, but it is a matter of opinion if things are good. They are certainly not getting better.

What we are seeing isn't more study on fracking methods and problems. These reports are simply revealing accumulated data. So far, no proof of any environmental crises has shown up in any of the data collected since fracking became possible. I suspect as more and more data accumulates, we will see the fears were unfounded and envirofacists once again triumphed over progress with fear mongering. Neither side ever offered any proof of their claims in the fracking debate, but one side was able to effect all of us. There should not have been a "ban" put in place that is irrevocable. Things should've remained on hold until the data became available. The anti-frack crowd didn't want that, because they knew the data would soon prove them to be fear mongers who are really trying to stifle any positive outcome from using fossil fuels.

Seems the cost of road damage is minimal compared to the gains, and the gas companies would willingly pay those costs.

Seems more and more studies are coming out showing the fears of fracking are unfounded and the potential for economic gains are huge. In NY, Cuomo made a political decision, based on emotional propaganda lacking data or evidence. It should have been decided to only put fracking on hold until more research was done. The amount of money that could've benefited NY's economy, as well as the taxes NY could've gained, might have taken a huge state government spending burden, off our backs. Thanks to political agitators, it was lost, maybe forever. http://dailysignal.com/2017/06/19/study-finds-fracking-doesnt-harm-drinking-water-texas/?utm_source=TDS_Email&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=MorningBell&mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiT1dNNFl6Sm1NbVJoTkRVeSIsInQiOiJaYXBid1h3c0E4RHhxSmJmc2NNNGEzYTd3K2VCQkk5TXBxRzZLRU9LZE4yaCtTUjltSW1GdjZoM215UlVPTk5WUzVjYk1CQlh4OHpZeXI2QVNlVEI3N0VLMHNzUDQ3WHAzUHZ5MUlkcmpBSTJsbWNobis2M0NhZXZoRERBR1RPaiJ9

The rhetoric isn't quite as ridiculous.

I must say, IMHO this is more hyperbole than reality.

If it isn't him, why doesn't Snopes flat out just say it isn't? Why do they beat around the bush and address everything except the fact of what kind of car he owns? Maybe they can't. Quote: Even if Sanders actually was the one driving the car, it was unclear how commenters would know that he owned it and how he had paid for it simply from a series of grainy photographs. That doesn't sound like Snopes is saying he doesn't own an R8.

Snopes is biased as all hell and nobody should consider them a factual source. They use very slippery language here to call it all false. They never claim Sanders doesn't own that car. They claim he didn't buy it with campaign funds and wasn't in it in a motorcade, but as far as him owning it, what they are saying is, you can't prove it.

Mainly from the right wing? I beg to differ. There are plenty from both sides of the political aisle, but I believe far more are Leftists who believe in anarchy, fascism and Marxism.

"One of the reasons the crime rate in Switzerland is low despite the prevalence of weapons — and also why the Swiss mentality can’t be transposed to the current American reality — is the culture of responsibility and safety that is anchored in society and passed from generation to generation. Kids as young as 12 belong to gun groups in their local communities, where they learn sharpshooting. The Swiss Shooting Sports Association runs about 3,000 clubs and has 150,000 members, including a youth section." “Social conditions are fundamental in deterring crime,” says Peter Squires, professor of criminology and public policy at the University of Brighton in Great Britain, who has studied gun violence in different countries and concluded that a “culture of support” rather than focus on individualism, can deter mass killings. “If people have a responsible, disciplined and organized introduction into an activity like shooting, there will be less risk of gun violence,” he tells TIME. That sense of social and civic responsibility is one of the reasons the Swiss have never allowed their guns to come under fire." Switzerland is what America used to be in the 1950's. America, being a feel good country with no foresight, decided gun owners can't be trusted. It's about the culture of the people in the country. Our culture of responsibility was destroyed by the government in order to gain control of the people's ability to resist, under the pretense of making us all "safer".

This is the end result of people adopting the attitude that it's the government's responsibility to protect you. Ignorance is bliss, until the truth comes after you.

There is absolutely no method used to stop a murderer that can be considered unfair. Since when do we demand victims abide by rules when defending themselves against murderers?

If you think the problems the government creates are bad, wait until you see their solutions.

Cuomo is moving as far as he can towards full socialism, in order to buy as many votes as he can with other people's money. He's too stupid to realize the people who are against the state increasing it's spending are starting to rebel.

I have a S&W Model 1917 in .45 ACP that uses moon clips, or can be fired using the .45 Auto Rim cartridge, of which I have one box of 50 rounds that is very old. I got it cheap because the prior owner cut the barrel down to 4" and put adjustable sights on it. Still quite an imposing handgun with that big fame.

Steyr SSG-69 made in Austria. This is one of my favorite rifles, but hasn't been out of the safe for quite a few years. It's a .308 Win and a blast to shoot, but shoots best with match ammo, which ain't cheap. It has the set trigger which really brings it down to "hair trigger" status. It currently sports a Redfield 3-9x40mm Battlezone scope calibrated for 168 gr .308 Win bullets at 2800 FPS. Once sighted in @ 100 yards, just dial in the range needed and aim dead on. It's shoots .5 MOA consistently. Too heavy for hunting though.