Amish Are being Persicuted!


#1

Now in the country with major frack sand mining. The Amish had to pay $50 per year for the damage the horse hooves cause to the roadway. Now the sand trucks filled to capacity have no concerns for the neighbors and no liability for the roads. Sure I could kvetch about walker and the sulfide ore mining bill, used to be prove it safe you can mine, now screw it fill in wetlands, lakes, have sulphuric acid runoff. went to the hearings, more proponents to speak it seemed, over the time limit, then meeting closed. Oppression coming your way soon.


#2

they should be compensated for the damage done totheir horse shoes by the road


#3

Course I could add since they are a thorn, a new mandate, no certification unless you have a smoke detector, now the inspector says just put it up, later take it down and you pass, Amish, that is lying and cheating we will not do that.


#4

A lot of the big politicians . . . Obama included . . . are 100% backing the fracking industry

It’s abundantly clear that short term gains are supposed to outweigh any other concerns down the road

That is NOT my way of thinking

But money talks and can make people look the other way or keep their true opinions to themselves

By the time everybody admits that fracking caused serious damage to the environment and the groundwater, it will be too late to fix it

In fact, it may cost more to fix the problems than the monetary gains that fracking brought


#5

Question: is this in lieu of gas taxes (since they pay none) to help in the cost of the maintenance of the roadways they benefit from?
If so, it seems reasonable to me.


#6

Fracking does not damage groundwater. If there are illegal spills, prosecute the spilling party. The replacement of coal with natural gas is a major achievement in reducing CO2 emissions.


#7

they , unlike cars, don t need the pavement. im sure they would rather ride on unpaved roads. the pavement is hard on the horses. the “improvements” harmed them. why should they pay taxes for the roads that they don t want or need?


#8

well, they should pay the gas tax like every one else, just not an extra tax on one class of people. that is unconsttutional


#9

It doesn’t matter if they want or need them, they are still using them. I don’t need the road to my local grocery store but it is sure easier than fighting through the tangled weeds and briars to get there not using the road!


#10

the roads they use were there, they may have built the roads themselves. many of the roads here are from the colonial era and many of them were indian trails before that


#11

@wesw In that case, then alternatively they could build their own private roads could they not?


#12

@texases, if fracking doesn’t damage groundwater, why did the CEO of Exxon join a lawsuit to stop fracking near his ranch? Why is the water in West Virginia near fracking sites now poisonous?


#13

they may have built the existing roads before they were paved, does anyone know where Barky is located?


#14

all you have to do is keep traveling a path and it will become a road


#15

its pretty plain that fracking does damage ground water even if there are no spills. the question isdoes the benefit out way the risk? coal mining does much more damage in its present form of mountaintop removal. and yes,gas is much cleaner to burn. I think we should fully exploit our resources until we are energy independent and even until we can remove europes dependence on supplies from totalitarian regimes, while we work toward alternatives to carbon based fuels


#16
I think we should fully exploit our resources until we are energy independent and even until we can remove europes dependence on supplies from totalitarian regimes, while we work toward alternatives to carbon based fuels

There are ways to extract our carbon fuels without totally destroying the environment…but companies don’t want to spend the money because it’ll mean less profit.


#17

Per the AP:

“West Virginia has had about 122 complaints that drilling contaminated water wells over the past four years, and in four cases the evidence was strong enough that the driller agreed to take corrective action, officials said.”

Edit: Out of 3000+ gas wells permitted.


#18

yes, I should have said, exploit them while taking care to do as little damage to the environment as possible


#19
yes, I should have said, exploit them while taking care to do as little damage to the environment as possible

That I’ll agree with. Unfortunately companies aren’t even close.


#20

db4690: I’m pretty sure POTUS supports fracking because, not in spite of, its environmental benefits: compared to oil and coal, it’s seen to be the “least lousy” means of getting energy out of the ground. (Whether or not I agree or disagreee with US energy policy, that’s the thinking behind it.)


Also, we have known about shale gas for a LONG time, and the US and industry has spent a LOT of R+D dollars figuring out how to get at it. It’d be awful stupid to spend that money, then abandon everything once a solution was found, wouldn’t it?