Fairweather

The infographic, you know, the one quoted in the piece, the one that doesn't say anything about fracking? Yeah, at the bottom it's credited to the Oklahoma USGS. Really, is this how you plan on spending the rest of your life? As a buffoon? Geeeez, are you really this dense? The graphic is most certainly NOT from the USGS. It is Maddow's--and cobbled together with hand-selected data from the USGS site. The citation placed in the graphic is poor form, no doubt. But this is what you get when you watch MSNBC. (Try the right-click inspect element thing. It's not hard.) But in any event, it makes no connection between the events and the wells. The story simply speculates on a connection. Get it? Is this stuff really that hard for you?

Congratulations!! You are the recipient of this year's Kevbone 9/11-Truther Scholarship Award. Redeemable at the alternative school of your choice.* *Sorry, but certain minimum academic requirements may apply.

Embarrassed? Well did the USGS say it? or didn't they?

Hmmm, just above you wrote "actually the US Geological Survey said it." But they really didn't, did they Prole. You should just let this one go--and try to source that which feeds your selective hysteria a little better in the future.

Here is the USGS page to which your "news story" alludes. There is no mention of a connection to oil and gas production anywhere in the story. None. Zero. That leap was made by The Nation, Maddow, and you in the well-disguised speculation/editorial you posted. Whatever works for ya, man.

No, Rachael and The Nation said the USGS said it. Which doesn't mean they actually did. But that doesn't matter to you, does it.

Yeah, they're way too small to care about, amirite? Who cares if they went from 1 a year to over 500 this year already. Definitely not statistically significant, and even if it were, the earthquakes are really small. Everyone is obviously being PARANOID! DRILL BABY DRILL! Nothing to see here. P.S. get those damn bicycles off the road so I have room to drive my car! VROOOOOM! right, FW? You're super intelligent, I respect that about you But it must be true! Rachael told us so. Have you verified this breaking story? I mean, Rachael would never "embellish" right? I like you too, Rob. I mean, you're way smarter than the average Thai mountain guide...

Rachael said it. I believe it. That settles it.

[video:youtube]CWv1t42ByMQ

"This startling graphic, from The Rachel Maddow Show Tuesday, shows a massive spike of 2.5-magnitude or larger earthquakes, starting last year..."

money for nothin and the chicks for free

Prole, you are the last person here who should be reprimanding anyone for playing a "two-party grudge match." Fucking hilarious. As for Woodrow, well, yes he used his new-found power against organizers and socialists like Debs--or anyone else who spoke out against his war of choice. More importantly, anyone who challenged his authority to conduct the war. (Harding, an evil Republican, released him BTW.) Sorry, I'm not due for another read of Das Kapital or the Manifesto for a long, long time. In any event, I don't think Marx was an evil man. But I think his ideas on how societies ought to organize are so easily corrupted by evil men--like Lenin--that they should be studied only with the absolute highest level of cynicism. Ditto 3.2 versions like Gramsci. In short, I reject the (your) notion of a post-modern world. Whether you are, in fact, a communist who now claims Lenin was merely practicing "state capitalism," or whether you believe in some rehash version that calls itself "cosmopolitan" or "communitarian" or whatever, I don't really care. Moderately-regulated capitalism (and private property) is firmly rooted and will remain so for a long, long time to come. Don't like it? Move your ass to Cuba.

I think Rand Paul is actually trying to sue Obama over it, and every Republican I know is outraged. I certainly don't hear Harry or Nancy howling over BHO's surveillance programs. And while I support the ACLU on this--and salute their efforts--you'll have to forgive me for being a little skeptical of this selective outrage campaign. Their lack of enthusiasm for the 2nd Amendment comes to mind.

You're supposed to ride up the road--and then over and down the Fawn Ridge trail to Buck Creek. Then Skookum Flats or White River Rambler back to your car. Anyhow, you're right--the view is awesome and the lookout now has a caretaker in the summertime.

Sure, you've all been "uncomfortable" about the activity itself--but loathe to admit your emperor has no clothes.

Now there's an old, tired left-wing boogey man. Hey, kinda like you!

I love the way American leftists like you harp on about free speech and the press even as you look the other way when "your guys" are at the helm. An early father of modern American liberalism, ole Woodrow Wilson comes to mind with his Espionage and Sedition Acts. And who can forget FDR's court-stacking scheme? Things you never bothered to read about--or have willingly "forgotten." And now, of course, your guy is e-snooping on us all for God-knows what reason and nary a peep from complete tools like you. Are these the leftist "traditions" you are referring to? You also seem to lack a basic understanding of a social pact that married unions to the Democratic Party. It's no real secret that unions have representation via the Democrats--the pact was constructed in just this way. And it's all part of the essential tension you can't seem to stand. Well, buddy, grow up--it's supposed to be this way. And God help us all if morons like you & yours gain any more power than you already have. You've shown a real knack for using it to intimidate and silence opposition, and your comments here are a reflection of this. May I suggest Cuba--and a leaky boat.

He's already answered the larger question here in past threads. I just wish his belief system afforded the same freedom of political expression that ours does. He probably fancies himself more of a Trotskyite or a Gramscian in any event.

No need for you to defend comrade Prole. He is quite capable of standing up for himself. Well, sort of.

Yer obviously not one of them educated commies. Don't worry, it's most definitely not a deal-breaker.

Not sure if you just don't get the historical reference--or just don't get it, period. My guess is the former--and the latter. Either way, your political ideas are going nowhere.

No, posting someone's name on an anonymous board without their permission is bullying. Compredes?

Ya get what ya give. Strange you haven't figured this out after all these years.