When Halliburton (yes, Dick Cheney's Halliburton) wanted toxic fracking chemicals kept secret, NC House Reps. Tim Moffitt and Michelle Presnell were happy to vote to make it a crime to disclose those chemicals pumped into our mountain ground. When Halliburton wanted forced pooling, allowing big oil companies to frack on your land without your permission, Moffitt and Presnell were happy to allow it. And when Halliburton wanted free rein over local towns, Moffitt and Presnell were happy to vote to ban local governments from stopping fracking.
If fracking is so safe, why are companies like Halliburton afraid to let the public know what chemicals are being used? And why do they want to take authority away from private property owners and municipalities?
Moffitt and Presnell side with big oil companies like Halliburton at every turn. Sign our petition telling them to stop sucking up to big oil!
Background
New polling shows that 66% of voters in House District 118 (Moffitt) and 54% of voters in House District 116 (Presnell) oppose fracking. In state after state that has pursued fracking, we’ve seen contaminated water, earthquakes and other environmental disasters. Despite all of this, State Representatives Tim Moffitt and Michele Presnell continue to side with big oil companies over the people by fast tracking fracking in North Carolina. We need to send a clear message to them that it’s time to stop sucking up to big oil and start listening to the people of their districts.
I did not sign the petition. They'll certainly continue being lapdogs for Big Oil and Gas, regardless, and I'm fine with them embarrassing themselves. Maybe the voters will hold them accountable.
I might be wrong, but that image looks photo-shopped.
You aren't doing it wrong if no one knows what you are doing.
Vrede wrote:
Gee, more than one person here has said that petitions have no effect. Must have just been Yahoo!'s conscience, right?
Being one of "those" persons, I'd like to clarify that I think most petitions have little to no effect on members of Congress and state legislators. There are other entities that may be more responsive.
Vrede wrote:
Gee, more than one person here has said that petitions have no effect. Must have just been Yahoo!'s conscience, right?
Being one of "those" persons, I'd like to clarify that I think most petitions have little to no effect on members of Congress and state legislators. There are other entities that may be more responsive.
Online petitions in general are probably taken less seriously than other forms of activism. Not that I'm an expert or anything when it comes to activism, because I'm most certainly not, but I do think though that online petitions are probably viewed as slacktivism. For instance, those white house petitions that you hear about on the news every now and again. There was one that garnered a lot of "signatures" requesting the US build the death star. Things like that dilute the seriousness of other petitions calling for legitimate action on legitimate issues. Not sure of the requirements for signing online petitions, but I could see maybe if there was some method of binding signatures to concrete identities, rather than letting anyone (or their bots) "sign" them, then I could see them being taken more seriously.
This is my opinion, however, and I'm not a narcissistic profiteering congressman.
You aren't doing it wrong if no one knows what you are doing.
Vrede wrote:Polls measure attitudes but not depth of commitment at all. Petitions do a little better at that. Then:
JTA wrote:Online petitions in general are probably taken less seriously than other forms of activism...
I agree 100%. It's just the kind of activism that I can anonymously share with y'all, and I have fantasies that some of you will look more into the groups that sponsor them and become more involved.
Nothing wrong with that at all. If anything online petitions at least bring awareness to issues that some people might otherwise be unaware of.
You aren't doing it wrong if no one knows what you are doing.
O Really wrote:The seriously unfortunate part is that neither petitions, polls, or protests have the same impact as dollars. Ask NRA.
Yeah that's true. Politics is all about imagery, and you can't advertise your image without lots of money. I sometimes wonder how things would be had mass media not become so pervasive. Not sure, maybe different, probably the same. I read some article a while back about the Kennedy vs. Nixon debates. People who watched the debates on television were more likely to say Kennedy won, while those who listened to it on the radio or read transcripts were more likely to say Nixon was the clear winner.
You've gotta don a mask and carefully cultivate that public persona. Fill that archetype that quenches the public's thirst for their man. Shrink wrap yourself in some plastic and simplify things down so you're easily consumed in neat little talking points, sound-bytes, and photo-ops.
You aren't doing it wrong if no one knows what you are doing.
JTA wrote: I read some article a while back about the Kennedy vs. Nixon debates. People who watched the debates on television were more likely to say Kennedy won, while those who listened to it on the radio or read transcripts were more likely to say Nixon was the clear winner.
.
I've seen that, too. But it's not much of a mystery. It's the same as seeing the written word vs. hearing or seeing someone. It's why the emoticons were invented. If you listened to Nixon, you would have heard reasonable sounding words, but if you saw him, you saw a sweating, swarthy shifty-eyed sleazebag. Hmmmm, not unlike Moffit.
JTA wrote: I read some article a while back about the Kennedy vs. Nixon debates. People who watched the debates on television were more likely to say Kennedy won, while those who listened to it on the radio or read transcripts were more likely to say Nixon was the clear winner.
.
I've seen that, too. But it's not much of a mystery. It's the same as seeing the written word vs. hearing or seeing someone. It's why the emoticons were invented. If you listened to Nixon, you would have heard reasonable sounding words, but if you saw him, you saw a sweating, swarthy shifty-eyed sleazebag. Hmmmm, not unlike Moffit.
It's human nature.
Appearance > substance. But then again maybe appearance is also important when you're the figure head of a country.
What makes qualities make a good president, or a good leader for that matter?
You aren't doing it wrong if no one knows what you are doing.
She better get working on that beard before the presidential elections or she won't have my vote. Never trust a clean shaven man or woman. Means they are dishonest and not to be trusted.
You aren't doing it wrong if no one knows what you are doing.
Vrede wrote:Your marriage is just for show? Does your wife know?
Nah the marriage is legit. It's the beard that's the problem apparently. I didn't know beards meant you were gay. I thought only mustaches did. I got one of those that connects to my beard though too, so not sure if that makes them cancel each other out or not.
You aren't doing it wrong if no one knows what you are doing.
Vrede wrote:Your marriage is just for show? Does your wife know?
Nah the marriage is legit. It's the beard that's the problem apparently. I didn't know beards meant you were gay. I thought only mustaches did. I got one of those that connects to my beard though too, so not sure if that makes them cancel each other out or not.
Dang, and I thought mustaches meant you were either a child molester or a cop.
JTA wrote:...I didn't know beards meant you were gay...
You may be playing me, which is fine, but in case you're sincere - the "beard" is the opposite sex companion (male or female) that helps one hide being gay. Hairy face or not, you aren't gay . . . probably.
False.
I am incredibly gay from Friday afternoon through Sunday night. I'm especially gay on three day weekends.
You aren't doing it wrong if no one knows what you are doing.
