George Bush's Leaving Present
Archived36 replies · 1,295 views
Ahhhh the love of Jesus eh? That man will need a coffin like Thatch's when he fucks off..........ie one with a sprung dancefloor for a lid.
Bush's midnight regulations will: (my comments ->) • Make it easier for coal companies to dump waste from strip-mining into valleys and streams.
-> big business pay
• Ease the building of coal-fired power stations nearer to national parks.
-> big business pay
• Allow people to carry loaded and concealed weapons in national parks.
-> this is a good one, remember it is the lawful that get ther hand gun permits
• Open up millions of acres to mining for oil shale.
-> well we do need more oil, and uit will generate jobs and money
• Allow healthcare workers to opt out of giving treatment for religious or moral reasons, thus weakening abortion rights.
-> this will be balanced by people who want to do the jobs thus giving them more opotunity to make money. i certainly agree with personal freedoms. i hope there is a clause for life threatening situations
• Hurt road safety by allowing truck drivers to stay at the wheel for 11 consecutive hours.
-> they do anyway
Presidents do this all the time-such "midnight legislation"
But Bush is well evil.
Though I must check. I saw somewhere if the executive orders he is signing are less then 60 days from the end of his admin...
Then Obama can make another executive order just overriding Bush'es actions.
or as I said to a friend last night "Thank you Jesus that that evil man is soon to be gone."
Diamond 383 wrote: Shale mining is an environmentally brutal and expensive way to extract oil.
I was thinking about this, and more specifically oil-sand extraction.
Surely they take a bunch of shale/sand that full of nasty filthy "unnatural" oil, clean it up for mother nature and then put it back. I mean it's not as if anything could grow or live they when it was "polluted" with oil?? unless those greenies have been telling fibs all these years and animals actually love the stuff.
Given that, surely the only negative impacts would not be of the process itself but of the negilgent, greedy, and unscientific way in which big biz carries it out.
If oily sand is more environmentally friendly than non-oily sand....why spend all the money cleaning up Prince William Sound?
God help the next poof who gets run over in Texas! (Jeff.....look left AND right before crossing).
Actually don't thank god, he's the one who told the cunt standing over them to watch them die.
Still....at least educated people (and let's be honest, that would hopefully be most medical professionals) can also watch these christian scum die when THEY get hurt (doubt they would know, only god needs you to be that cruel).
The process to extract uses more energy than it generates and the land that is left behind is ruined, in most cases.
Then there's the combustion of the oil itself; a double-hit for the environment.
EDIT: The clue is in the word MINING. It's not just lying there on the beaches. You have to dig down to where it's been lying undisturbed for millions of years.
At least the Bush administration (or Dick Cheney if he is the one actually in charge) will actually apparently give up power and not have a coup. They have bent every rule in arrogance or partisanship over the years, and they defend them by saying "every president has done it". Taking the low road. Probably will try to get a priest to curse the White House and will leave with the toilets unflushed.
Why do you need a gun in a park? To shoot and kill bears that go rogue and attack your picnic basket, or dingos going after your babies? Do you need a gun to protect yourself from the "coloreds" in a national park? Didn't realize that it was a problem.
As for environmental concerns, Bush thinks all the "good" people are all going to heaven soon anyway. You have to protect the holy land in Israel from the dark Muslims so the Jesus fairy can come down and save the white christians.
0_o wrote:
Why do you need a gun in a park? To shoot and kill bears that go rogue and attack your picnic basket, or dingos going after your babies? Do you need a gun to protect yourself from the "coloreds" in a national park? Didn't realize that it was a problem.
Actually crime is pretty high in National parks. Found this out when I was thinking of being a park ranger (one use of the geology degree)... but found that park rangers have become less and less about scientists and more and more simply a police force. The rangers I interviewed stated that national forests have more drug trafficing than cities, since there are less eyes watching. As drug trafficing increases, so does the crime. Suprised the hell out of me, but it does make sense.
i don't carry a gun, but my wife does. we spend alot of time in national parks. yes the parks can be dangerous. we both hope we never have to shoot someone.
Diamond 383 wrote: The process to extract uses more energy than it generates and the land that is left behind is ruined, in most cases.
Then there's the combustion of the oil itself; a double-hit for the environment.
EDIT: The clue is in the word MINING. It's not just lying there on the beaches. You have to dig down to where it's been lying undisturbed for millions of years.
If it uses more energy than burning the oil produces, surely it would be better to sell that energy (which would be oil....not many extension cables in the ass end of nowhere) instead.
If I have 20,000 barrels of oil, I can sell them for $1,000,000 OR use them up mining 10,000 barrels of oil which I can sell for $500,000. Doesn't sound like good ecconomics to me.....but then you mentioned enviro-mentalist shite so clearly you've somehow become a wooly thinker.
If oil mess is underground it's OK then? Fair enough, we can put our mess there too then.
People with concerns, who post about it using machines consuming electricity, and made from petrochemicals, are on SLIGHTLY shakey ground (or in your case......a fucking great OIL platform 
)
I think you're just spreading FUD about the competition.
I think that you're just adding a load of bullshit to what little you know, then coming on here, presenting it as fact and being rude to anyone who disagrees with you.
So what if they can make oil without the kind of big expensive oil platforms that I design?
Fuck them, I hope they get their boots dirty.
Diamond 383 wrote: I think that you're just adding a load of bullshit to what little you know, then coming on here, presenting it as fact and being rude to anyone who disagrees with you.
So what if they can make oil without the kind of big expensive oil platforms that I design?
Fuck them, I hope they get their boots dirty.
Perhaps......but....I still want to hear why anyone would waste money extracting X barrels of oil using more than X barrels.
I would imagine that, as on an oil platform, the associated hydrocarbon gas is used to power the process. Gas has a much lower price than oil.
EDIT: The oil companies will probably present figures like 30% of the output energy is consumed in the production process. But when you factor in the cost of all the other chemicals required to wash the sand, the transport of the raw materials and moving the finished product (which is much heavier than oil and can't be transported in a pipeline), it's a lot less efficient than conventional crude oil production, and also does more damage to the environment, both locally and globally.
What with this:
"Bush can pass the rules because of a loophole in US law allowing him to put last-minute regulations into the Code of Federal Regulations, rules that have the same force as law. He can carry out many of his political aims without needing to force new laws through Congress. "
And the Presidential pardon thing, it seems to me that this 'separation of powers' business that Americans are so proud of is a bit of a joke. Apparently the president has the powers of the judiciary and the legislature as well as the executive. Why even bother having the rest of the system? Just elect a dictator every 4 years.
The US constitution seems to have more holes in it than a bumper packet of polo mints. Or a bagel shop.
404 error wrote: W And the Presidential pardon thing, it seems to me that this 'separation of powers' business that Americans are so proud of is a bit of a joke. Apparently the president has the powers of the judiciary and the legislature as well as the executive. Why even bother having the rest of the system? Just elect a dictator every 4 years.
If the powers are abused, yes that is a possibility I suppose. The pardons are in place for a purpose though. The President might be prevy to national security information that legislature and judicial branches are unaware of. For this reason the President is able to pardon individuals that might otherwise be found unfairly guilty at trial.
But it has been used not for this case on most occasions, but it does need to be in place.
Diamond 383 wrote: I would imagine that, as on an oil platform, the associated hydrocarbon gas is used to power the process. Gas has a much lower price than oil.
EDIT: The oil companies will probably present figures like 30% of the output energy is consumed in the production process. But when you factor in the cost of all the other chemicals required to wash the sand, the transport of the raw materials and moving the finished product (which is much heavier than oil and can't be transported in a pipeline), it's a lot less efficient than conventional crude oil production, and also does more damage to the environment, both locally and globally.
First off, Shale comes from mudstone (created from clay), not a sandstone... so you wouldn't be washing any sand when extracting from shale.
Sandstone is very pourous, where as shale is not. As such, the oil form in pockets of sandstone that overlay shale. The main process is to shoot water down in the earth, and since oil is lighter than water, the oil can be pulled out. However, only about 60% of oil is in the sandstone, and about 40% has been slowly absorbed and retained by the shale and in other areas, it was bacteria/algae that lived within the clay portions of ancient continental shelves. Getting to it though is more difficult, as you can't merely push water into shale like you can a sandstone. For this reason you need to mine it, crush it up and then use another water process, which can only take about 70% of the oil off of the clay particles (this is because clay particles are so small and platy and it is impossible to break it all apart and get to the oil in all the pores).
Where do they put all of this material and water? not only is it contaminated, but the worst and highest pollutant is soil runoff... we're only adding to this problem by moving around this material (add that it is clay particles that stick and coat everything and travel very long distances, versus say sand). Plus it really isn't cost efficent, very little profit is made (but not negative). So for this reason it won't be used for petroleum.
However, oil shale is good for burning similar to coal. Its more powerful than coal as well, however there is the added process of heating it up that makes it more expensive than coal. But with our coal supllies dwindling, and power plants in need of power, oil shale is a good substitute. Add that also over 50% of the world's oil shale in in the US, it is a supply that can keep us independent from other international sources.
There is alot less processing for use of oil shale as an entity versus the petroleum, so the whole crushing and washing issue is taken out of the equation.
It is by far not the best solution out there, but it is not as damaging as many enviromentalists bang on about, as they usually try to explain the petroleum portion that simply won't happen.
I think I muddied the water a little there with mentioning the oil-sand operations in Canada and (I believe) Alaska.
Anyway, the oil companies are wasting a valuable opportunity to be the ones distributing hydrogen when the oil runs out.....they already have all the required infrastructure, except the power plants, which really ought to be nuclear so it's clean.
Diamond 383 wrote: Did you see that bloke lobbing his shoes at the Prez?See it here :laugh:
On first glance, was what I thought this thread was about. Bush's new pair of shoes. A more fitting leaving present.
Hey, give him credit... George Bush kept his cool. Shame he has to leave when he is just getting used to the job.
I assume throwing shoes is a very bad insult there, as in the soles may have traces of shit, urine, semen, blood so they are unclean...
I bet a lot of folks have wanted to hurl all sorts of stuff at Shrub.....
But dude, the chucker's aim SUCKED!!!
LiamShed wrote: I bet a lot of folks have wanted to hurl all sorts of stuff at Shrub.....
But dude, the chucker's aim SUCKED!!!
Second shot was MUCH nearer the target. If only he'd had three legs, or a friend. They looked like well made, hefty shoes.....might have done him quite some harm, and all on camera.....so close, but still so far :(
I've heard it before that hitting someone with shoes is a bad insult. Remember when that massive statue of Sadam was topped and loads of people ran up to it and belted it with their shoes.
I seem to remember that 'not worth an old shoe' is a pretty bad insult round them parts too.
It would have been TV gold if he'd caught him. It's pretty good anyway.
I'm sure the thrower is regretting it now, wherever he is 
I saw the shoe throwing incident whilst watching the news last night with, Joe. We both looked at each other and burst out in hysterics laughing! They showed it it in mega slow motion, which is brilliant!
I love the "this is a farewell kiss, you dog" comment that compliments the actual throwing of the shoe! That's one to remember in the future! 
