The Paul File

[786]

Whether they are 'mythical fantasies' the discussion is purely on principle. Principally a late term abortion as late as 1min before birth would be fine by you. Whether it happens or not in practice is another issue. You are saying that it is a choice that the woman CAN make.

The 'status of a pregnant woman'? Your position in particular doesn't even consider life in the face of choice. Most people won't support the idea that in principle it is the women's right to kill the baby 1min before birth. You are running away from this and changing the topic from principle to practical. If we're to use the example you just gave of some 'sadistic woman' getting pregnant and killing babies what if she does that at the last minute, from your viewpoint its just a 'oh its her right'.

Laws are created on the basic principle of things so that they prevent the 'shit that can happen'. Not that it would happen.

As for your discussion with Chipz. The Morgan discussion was in the context of rape so Ron's response was on that topic. But for you to assert that is the only case 'honest rape' is total bullshit, since you should already know that Ron isn't in favor of regulating morning after-pills either, so its acceptable in more than just 'honest rape' case, in which case the whole discussion of distinction becomes irrelevant.

And the 'he hates women'.... ohh pahleaasseee!

 

[Chipz]

I'll just assume English isn't your first language.

 

[adoucette]

Well pointed. I would prefer abortions not be performed in back alleys. No more coathangers; no more bathtub-gin abortifacients.

Late term abortions, after ~20 weeks, can't be done that way anyway.

It is a serious medical procedure at that point.

Indeed, Canada has no restrictions on when abortions can be done, but even in that case many abortions after 20 weeks are done in the US because many Canadian clinics are not capable of the medical care necessary for the procedure.

And in almost all cases it is done because of the risks to the mother related to the fact that the fetus is not viable (you do not want a baby that size dying inside you)

Abortions > 20 weeks is ~.4% of Canadian Abortions (2005).

Abortions after ~24 weeks are nearly non-existent as viability with excellent medical care is now down to ~22 weeks.

 

[adoucette]

Since as I understand it, Supreme Court decision banned "late" abortions.

Not exactly.

Roe V Wade allowed the states to ban late term abortions.

(a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman's attending physician. Pp. 163, 164.

(b) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health. Pp. 163, 164.

(c) For the stage subsequent to viability the State, in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life, may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother. Pp. 163-164; 164-165.

 

[Billy T]

...
Billy, reading the text you quoted would suggest adoucette is right. How would that law ban the importation of tar sands oil for private use?

It does not if no federal government funds are used - I said that already in post* where I complained that he was putting words in my mouth and then being critical of those words.

My old post, re-posted as post 1308 here at your request, was explicitly clear as to what parts were quotes and what parts were my thoughts and comments. It even ends with the statement identifying that my contributions are the parts inside the {......} brackets.

* I also noted that while that federal law only prohibits use of Federal funds for keystone, there probably are state laws doing so because of the strong NIMBY effect. I believe the keystone route has already been moved by a Nebraska law prohibiting it from passing along the origianlly planed route but that is just from memory.

 

[adoucette]

It does not if no government funds are used - I said that already post where I complained that he was putting words in my mouth and then being critical of those words.

My old post, re-posted as post 1308 here at your request, was explicitly clear as to what parts were quotes and what parts were my thoughts and comments. It even ends with the statement identifying that my contriburions are the parts inside the {......} brackets.

No Billy, there is nothing in the bill that precludes use of government funds for building pipelines for Shale based Oil.

You are just making this supposed restriction up.

The Bill is quite specific in its scope:

Prohibits agencies from entering into contracts for procurement of alternative or synthetic fuel, including fuel from non-conventional petroleum sources, for any mobility-related use,

Shale oil, which is unrefined, doesn't fall under this narrow restriction because once refined it can be used for OTHER uses besides just mobility related fuel.

 

[Billy T]

No Billy, there is nothing in the bill that precludes use of government funds for building pipelines for Shale based Oil....

Possibly true if there is some way to be sure none of it is used for car fuel. My complaint, was that your called my post "total BS" and based that on your false claim that I had said something I clearly did not but only quoted the soruce with link to the law.

Total BS. Section 526 of the EISA of 2007 does NOT prohibit what you claim it does...

Again I did not make that claim - you put those words in my mouth but I know you never appoligize for false and abusive statements you make about others.

Here is a direct link to what is said: http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2893045&postcount=220

Any idiot can understand that only the parts within the Brackets {.....} are my claims and comments as that is explicitedly stated at the end of that post and post is too old for me to edit and add that clarification now - which you even quoted too.

 

[Billy T]

No Billy, there is nothing in the bill that precludes use of government funds for building pipelines for Shale based Oil.

You are just making this supposed restriction up. ...

False. I made nothing up. You are just fabricating words and claiming I made the restrictions in those words.

Please quote me showing where I made those restriction, Any restictions in my posts are quotes of others.

{post 1303}No it was the only LEGAL option Obama had due to the ignorance of the law and stupidity of Republicans trying to embarrass Obama for their political gains by allowing only 60 days for a yes / no decision on keystone approval.

Congress will need to change that environmental law before Obama or any POTUS can authorized Keystone. A link to the law has been posted several times, but basically it makes it illegal to import petroleum from any source that over all (from ground to car´s tank) increases the CO2 release.

This my first post in this thread related to Keystone makes it completely clear that I understand the federal law only prohibits importation of shale oil for mobile fuel used* - see now bold part of the above. Note keystone is a specific proposed project intended to transport shale oil to gulf coast refineries where it will mainly be made into mobile unit fuels (cars, etc.).

* and then what is prohibited is use of federal funds, but I cannot put all the law´s restrictions in every sentence I write, after having already mentioned them. I have said that private importation of shale oil with no use of federal funds is probably not prohibited by this particualr federal law, but likely is by various state laws, due to the NIMBY effect.

 

[adoucette]

False. I made nothing up. You are just fabricating words and claiming I made the restrictions in those words.

Please quote me showing where I made those restriction, Any restictions in my posts are quotes of others.This my first post in this thread related to Keystone makes it completely clear that I understand the federal law only prohibits importation of shale oil for mobile fuel used - see now bold part of the above. Note keystone is a specific proposed project intended to transport shale oil to gulf coast refineries where it will mainly be made into mobile unit fuels (cars, etc.).

No Billy you STILL don't get it.

And yes your posts on this such as:

Section 526 of that law was motivated by thoughts I think you support (not really for enviromental reasons) I.e. it was to keep cheaper oil out of the US so domestic shale oil would have and advantage over foreign shale oil -

Are totally without merit.

Nothing in EISA nor in Federal Law prohibits importation of shale oil for ANY reason.

526 only applies to procurement and use of Syn Fuel by FEDERAL AGENCIES.

It doesn't apply to our Private Oil companies and of course most of us who use fuel don't work for a federal agency so of course there is NO RESTRICTION on importing/using Shale Oil by the majority of Americans.

 

[Billy T]

... Federal Law does NOT prohibit importation of shale oil for ANY reason.

I agree and have said so in posts.

... 526 only applies to procurement and use of Syn Fuel by FEDERAL AGENCIES.

I don´t think (from memory) 526 makes any statement about USE of the oil. It prohibits federal agencies from signing contracts facilitating importation of shale oil.

So I supose the FBI, etc. could fill the tanks of their vans and cars with gasoline made from Canadian shale oil IF it was imported by and refined by a private company with no federal money spent to do so.

... Most of us who use fuel don't work for a federal agency so there is NO RESTRICTION on importing/using Shale Oil.

Even the FBI etc. could USE it, if the conditions I just mentioned were met, I think.

Are you making up this restriction on USE or is it in 526 and I have just forgotten it? I think 526 basically only prohibits federal agencies spending taxpayer´s money for import of fuels that are more CO2 polluting than the normal sources of mobile fuel and says nothing about who can or cannot use gasoline made from it.

 

[adoucette]

I agree and have said so in posts.
I don´t think (from memory) 526 makes any statemment about USE of the oil. it prohibits federal agencies from signing contracts facilitating importation of shale oil.

No Billy, it doesn't.

It only applies to Federal agencies use of Syn Fuel and it puts no restrictions on importation of Shale Oil.

 

[Billy T]

... It only applies to Federal agencies use of Syn Fuel and it puts no restrictions on importation of Shale Oil.

I can not find any section of 526 which, for example, prohibits the FBI from using gasoline made from shale oil IF no federal funds were used to import or refine it. Can you tell me where that section is, (quote it) or are you just making up this "use restriction" ?

I have not made any of the restrictions you claim I have, only quoted others. You, however, do seem to be making up this "agencies can not use gasoline, made from imported shale oil"

 

[adoucette]

Are you kidding me?

I never said that "agencies can not use gasoline, made from imported shale oil"

I said that 526 poses NO RESTRICTIONS on the importation of Shale Based Oil.

And it doesn't.


Nor are there any restrictions on the Government spending money on a pipeline to bring in Shale oil.

All of those restrictions are simply in your very pessimistic imagination.

 

[Billy T]

Are you kidding me? I never said that "agencies can not use gasoline, made from imported shale oil"...

Yes you did. Notice I can and do quote your post 1329 below, not merely claim you said something, which you did not as you often do.

post 1329... 526 only applies to procurement and use of Syn Fuel by FEDERAL AGENCIES. ...

Nor are there any restrictions on the Government spending money on a pipeline to bring in Shale oil.

There are if it is used to produce mobile fuel, which is precisely the main intent of the keystone project -to deliver crude to the gulf coast refineries that that were designed to produce gasoline from heavy crude and currently do so but probably soon Hugo Chavez will cut off their supply.

 

[adoucette]

Yes you did. Notice I can and do quote your post 1329 below, not merely claim you said something, which you did not as you often do.

No Billy, the reg doesn't say what you claim it does.
Gasoline comes from a refinery operation, which blends oils from multiple sources so the output of any refinery won't meet the definition used in 526.
Our largest supplier of crude is Canada and so given the amount of blending going on it is essentially impossible to even buy ANY fuel which contains no Canadian oil sands or shale as its crude source.

And so 5 years after passage of EISA it's clear that the intent (and the enforcement of) is not based on making Canadian Crude illegal in the US.

There are if it is used to produce mobile fuel, which is precisely the main intent of the keystone project -to deliver crude to the gulf coast refineries that that were designed to produce gasoline from heavy crude and currently do so but probably soon Hugo Chavez will cut off their supply.

Again, you are reading WAY too much into 526.
There is no prohibition in it against the US Govt spending money on the Keystone project.

ALL of those supposed restrictions are simply in your very pessimistic imagination.

 

[Billy T]

No Billy, the reg doesn't say what you claim it does....

Then AGAIN, I ask you to quote my post, giving the post number, showing me making a false claim. - Please stop just repeating your claim that I have posted a false claim.

I showed your false claim in post 1329 that even use was included in 526 law. Do the same - tell post where I make false claim and what is false about some claim I make in my post. I agree some sources I have quoted many not be completely accurate in all details.

 

[adoucette]

Then AGAIN, I ask you to quote my post, giving the post number, showing me making a false claim. - Please stop just repeating your claim that I have posted a false claim.

I showed your false claim in post 1329 that even use was included in 526 law. Do the same - tell post where I make false claim and what is false about some claim I make in my post. I agree some sources I have quoted many not be completely accurate in all details.

No problem:

it makes it illegal to import petroleum from any source that over all (from ground to car´s tank) increases the CO2 release.

I understand the federal law only prohibits importation of shale oil for mobile fuel us

NO SUCH PROHIBITION about importation exists in EISA Billy.

Indeed the Keystone pipeline is already in operation, and was built AFTER EISA was passed.

Phase 1
The 3,456 kilometres (2,147 mi) long pipeline runs from Hardisty, Alberta to the United States refineries in Wood River, Illinois and Patoka, Illinois. The Canadian section involves approximately 864 kilometres (537 mi) of pipeline converted from the Canadian Mainline natural gas pipeline and 373 kilometres (232 mi) of new pipeline, pump stations and terminal facilities at Hardisty, Alberta. The United States section is 2,219 kilometres (1,379 mi) long. It runs through Buchanan, Clinton and Caldwell counties in Missouri, and Nemaha, Brown and Doniphan counties in Kansas.[9] Phase 1 went online in June 2010.

Phase 2
From Steele City, Nebraska, the 291 miles (468 km) Keystone-Cushing pipeline was routed through Kansas to the oil hub and tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma in 2010 and went online in February 2011.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keystone_Pipeline

 

[Billy T]

No problem:

in post 1328
I understand the federal law only prohibits importation of shale oil for mobile fuel us

NO SUCH PROHIBITION about importation exists in EISA Billy.

That is dishonest cherry picking and out of context as you leave out the footnote tied to this sentence, the end of which was use* not just us. Here is what post 1328 actually said:

{Post 1328}... This, my first post in this thread related to Keystone, makes it completely clear that I understand the federal law only prohibits importation of shale oil for mobile fuel use* …
--------
* and then what is prohibited is use of federal funds, but I cannot put all the law´s restrictions in every sentence I write, after having already mentioned them. I have said that private importation of shale oil with no use of federal funds is probably not prohibited by this particular federal law, but likely is by various state laws, due to the NIMBY effect.

 

[adoucette]

That is dishonest cherry picking and out of context as you leave out the footnote tied to this sentence, the end of which was use* not just us. Here is what post 1328 actually said:

No Billy, you are still wrong, 526 has no prohibition against use of Federal Funds for this pipeline.

Of course this is a red herring, since no one is asking for Federal Funds to build the pipeline.

Indeed, as my last post showed, two phases of the pipeline have been built and we are importing Canadian shale/sand based oil and there is no violation of 526 for doing so.

What Obama delayed was the approval of the 3rd phase (which extends the existing pipeline down to Texas), and that has nothing to do with any Federal funding.

 

[Billy T]

... Indeed, as my last post showed, two phases of the pipeline have been built and we are importing Canadian shale/sand based oil and there is no violation of 526 for doing so.

the law resticting import by federal agancies was only passed in 2007. I think the two earlier parts of Keystone pipline were contructed well prior to the passage of 567.