Obama: Rejects Clark's Comments about McCain.

[Ilvane]

Barack Obama formally rejected Gen. Wesley Clark's recent comments Monday that questioned whether the John McCain's military experience qualified him to be commander in chief.

"As he's said many times before, Senator Obama honors and respects Senator McCain's service, and of course he rejects yesterday's statement by General Clark," Obama spokesman Bill Burton said in a statement.

The comments came in an interview on CBS Sunday when Clark suggested McCain's experience as a prisoner of war did not alone provide the necessary experience to set the country's national security policies.

"I certainly honor his service as a prisoner of war. He was a hero to me and to hundreds of thousands and millions of others in the armed forces as a prisoner of war. And he has traveled all over the world. But he hasn't held executive responsibility," said Clark, a former NATO commander who campaigned for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2004.

McCain campaign manager Rick Davis told CNN the comments were "the lowest form of politics," and the Arizona senator himself expressed disappointment with the comments on Monday.

"I know that General Clark is not an isolated incident but I have no way of knowing how much involvement Sen. Obama has in that issue," he told reporters. "I know he has mischaracterized some of my statements in the past including our involvement in Iraq but I'll let the American people decide about that. "

Responding to the Obama campaign's rejection of Clark's comments, McCain spokesman Brian Rogers said, "We've learned we need to wait and see what Senator Obama actually does, rather than take him at his word."

Meanwhile, in what appeared to be an attempt to soften Clark's comments, Obama said in speech Monday that "no one should ever devalue that service, especially for the sake of a political campaign, and that goes for supporters of both sides."

"We must always express our profound gratitude for the service of our men and women in uniform. Period. Full stop," Obama said.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`

Nevermind that McCain wasn't just a fighter pilot. After he was a POW, he went on to be a commanding officer in the Navy.

Good for Obama for coming out against this kind of attack.

Angela

[Parkbandit]

Obama didn't have a choice.. and personally it looks as though the entire thing was orchestrated. Obama just happened to use Clark's ignorant comments to stop people from even questioning his patriotism.

Whoever is pulling the strings for Obama in this campaign is a genius.

[Daniel]

It's the liberal conspiracy team. You know the ones who conspire to keep republican professors down and want to stop us from using oil for their own purposes.

[Parkbandit]

We should just tax the shit out of oil.. that will fix everything.

[Daniel]

Nah. Ignoring the problem and destroying our ability to mitigate potential disasters is obviously the best solution.

[Stanley Burrell]

Obama didn't have a choice.. and personally it looks as though the entire thing was orchestrated. Obama just happened to use Clark's ignorant comments to stop people from even questioning his patriotism.

Whoever is pulling the strings for Obama in this campaign is a genius.

Look, I'm you making image links:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3b/Aluminium_foil_micrometer.jpg

You're not even supposed to use tin foil conspiracies for conservatives. Fuck you, Michael: You give hardworking conservatives an even worse name.

[Parkbandit]

Look, I'm you making image links:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3b/Aluminium_foil_micrometer.jpg

You're not even supposed to use tin foil conspiracies for conservatives. Fuck you, Michael: You give hardworking conservatives an even worse name.


Easy pal.. maybe take an extra dose now that you have me off ignore. I don't need you getting all depressed because of me again.

[Parkbandit]

Nah. Ignoring the problem and destroying our ability to mitigate potential disasters is obviously the best solution.


You are right. Tax the fucking shit out of oil.. destroy the world economy in the process.. obviously that is the best solution and the quickest way to our salvation.

[Warriorbird]

I think all our problems will be fixed by invading Iran. Then we can not get the oil from there too. OPEC will love us then.

We can use our reserves in the mean time so that when we do invade Iran and get an OPEC embargo we have nothing to fall back on! That's the ticket!

We're geniuses!

[Ashliana]

I agree. Invading random Arab countries with overblown "intelligence," massively destabilizing the Middle East and driving up the cost of oil seems like a great way to fix the oil crisis.

Or, better yet, destroy a pristine Arctic paradise that belongs to the past, current and future generations of humans, solely for our immediate, extremely short-term gain, rather than actually focusing this effort on actually CURING the American addiction to oil and telling all these crackpot dictators with oil to go fuck themselves, like we should be doing now--if we'd actually invested in green technology twenty years ago before the "public" cared about it.

[Parkbandit]

I'm sticking with Daniel on this one. We should raise the price of gas to like $30 a gallon. That way the poor people will just stay at home and the rich people won't have to worry about congestion on the highways.

BRILLIANT!

[Daniel]

You are right. Tax the fucking shit out of oil.. destroy the world economy in the process.. obviously that is the best solution and the quickest way to our salvation.

The world economy? Oh. You mean the rest of the world that got the memo a decade ago, did that and are now 10x better off then we are? That world?

Oh okay.

Nice job Captain Hyperbole.

[Renian]

We should just tax the shit out of oil.. that will fix everything.

It would certainly spur more development in alternative fuels. I just worry about oil's inelasticity of demand in the meantime.

[Stanley Burrell]

Easy pal.. maybe take an extra dose now that you have me off ignore. I don't need you getting all depressed because of me again.

The day I actually have a physical emotion to anything you type will be the day that you actually say something.

In fact, just in case someone does decide to slip a couple paper blotters into my breakfast tea, instead of being hospitalized with a shit-ton of Thorazine, I'll just read your posts and save the taxpayers some cash.

You do make me laugh sometimes because of how undeniably stupid you are.

[Renian]

The world economy? Oh. You mean the rest of the world that got the memo a decade ago, did that and are now 10x better off then we are? That world?

Oh okay.

Nice job Captain Hyperbole.

Fail. When America's economy suffers, the world suffers. We saw this in the Great Depression, and recently with the stock market declining as investors tried to invest offshore, only to see all of the world stock markets decline a few months ago.

[Warriorbird]

The Great Depression was a world depression... not just an American depression. This is distinguished by the fact that the rest of the world is doing pretty fucking well right now.

[Daniel]

Fail. When America's economy suffers, the world suffers. We saw this in the Great Depression, and recently with the stock market declining as investors tried to invest offshore, only to see all of the world stock markets decline a few months ago.

Really? That's funny. I haven't really been reading about any global recessions lately.

Maybe it's possible that the world has realized the perils of letting their economic well being depend on the United States within the last 80 years. Or maybe the economic problems of the Great Depression transcended American policies at the time.

In any event, I'll let you take overly simplistic axioms and cliches, I'll take reality. kthx.

[Renian]

Really? That's funny. I haven't really been reading about any global recessions lately.

Maybe it's possible that the world has realized the perils of letting their economic well being depend on the United States within the last 80 years.

I'll let you take overly simplistic axioms and cliches, I'll take reality. kthx.

I will grant you that there is not a global recession yet.

At any rate, you want reality? This would be what I am talking about.
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/BUSINESS/01/22/markets.plunge.asia/

[Parkbandit]

I agree. Invading random Arab countries with overblown "intelligence," massively destabilizing the Middle East and driving up the cost of oil seems like a great way to fix the oil crisis.

Or, better yet, destroy a pristine Arctic paradise that belongs to the past, current and future generations of humans, solely for our immediate, extremely short-term gain, rather than actually focusing this effort on actually CURING the American addiction to oil and telling all these crackpot dictators with oil to go fuck themselves, like we should be doing now--if we'd actually invested in green technology twenty years ago before the "public" cared about it.


Um.. I don't see the source on this post Assliana. How do you know this is a "Pristine Artic Paradise"? Have you been there? Have you seen pictures of this 'Paradise'? Are you planning on ever visiting this 2,000 acres in ANWR?

http://www.grouchyoldcripple.com/archives/anwr2.JPG

Doesn't it make much more sense to drill for oil where no one is.. and where very few animals actually are.. than to drill in places like this:

http://a.abcnews.com/images/Business/nm_oil_la_080509_mn.jpg

[Stanley Burrell]

The Great Depression was a world depression... not just an American depression. This is distinguished by the fact that the rest of the world is doing pretty fucking well right now.

None of this depressed moody business. We don't need ParkBandit telling me how my Lexapro is being used to treat clinical depression and not an NOS Anxiety Disorder because I care about him :-\

[Warriorbird]

Wasting our reserves is very conservative.

[Stanley Burrell]

Um.. I don't see the source on this post Assliana. How do you know this is a "Pristine Artic Paradise"? Have you been there? Have you seen pictures of this 'Paradise'? Are you planning on ever visiting this 2,000 acres in ANWR?

http://www.grouchyoldcripple.com/archives/anwr2.JPG

Doesn't it make much more sense to drill for oil where no one is.. and where very few animals actually are.. than to drill in places like this:

http://a.abcnews.com/images/Business/nm_oil_la_080509_mn.jpg

Oooh, that line. Sexy.

Hey, MikeBandit, you ever been to Iraq, Iran, or any of the Middle East. Yeah. Stop having any sort of geopolitical opinion now on places you haven't visited personally.

[Ashliana]

Um.. I don't see the source on this post Assliana. How do you know this is a "Pristine Artic Paradise"? Have you been there? Have you seen pictures of this 'Paradise'? Are you planning on ever visiting this 2,000 acres in ANWR?

http://www.grouchyoldcripple.com/archives/anwr2.JPG

Doesn't it make much more sense to drill for oil where no one is.. and where very few animals actually are.. than to drill in places like this:

http://a.abcnews.com/images/Business/nm_oil_la_080509_mn.jpg

You do realize that your beloved McCain, before he became epically Flip-Flop McCane, opposed this very drilling? He said it would be short-sighted, and provide only a temporary band-aid to the greater problem: the US's addiction to oil. I agree with McCain. The original.

No, it doesn't make sense to wreck an area declared a national wildlife preservation--by a Republican president. We won't see any of this oil, even if we started today, for 5+ years, and it wouldn't even be sold exclusively in the US. It would be sold on the global market, supposedly lowering the price of oil globally. Except that the demand for oil will continue to grow in the next five years and this would have almost zero impact except destroying a wildlife preservation.

BRILLIANT! About what I'd expect from you. :club:

[Gan]

I agree. Invading random Arab countries with overblown "intelligence," massively destabilizing the Middle East and driving up the cost of oil seems like a great way to fix the oil crisis.

Or, better yet, destroy a pristine Arctic paradise that belongs to the past, current and future generations of humans, solely for our immediate, extremely short-term gain, rather than actually focusing this effort on actually CURING the American addiction to oil and telling all these crackpot dictators with oil to go fuck themselves, like we should be doing now--if we'd actually invested in green technology twenty years ago before the "public" cared about it.

Ahh, there we go. A fresh argument and one not touted here in quite a while. The pristine untouched environment argument where the very presence of humans desecrate the pristine environment of mother nature. In fact, we should just set aside all the land west of the Rockies for mother nature use only and require everyone to move out. That way we have pristine environment that belongs to humans past, present, and future. The only downside is that due to pollution and contamination possibilities humans are not allowed to even visit there, so you'll just have to take our word for it that its a really nice place.

http://www.treehuggersofamerica.org/images/tree_hugger.jpg

[Ashliana]

Ahh, there we go. A fresh argument and one not touted here in quite a while. The pristine untouched environment argument where the very presence of humans desecrate the pristine environment of mother nature. In fact, we should just set aside all the land west of the Rockies for mother nature use only and require everyone to move out. That way we have pristine environment that belongs to humans past, present, and future. The only downside is that due to pollution and contamination possibilities humans are not allowed to even visit there, so you'll just have to take our word for it that its a really nice place.

http://www.treehuggersofamerica.org/images/tree_hugger.jpg

This is not a "hippy" ideal. This area was declared a wildlife reservation bipartisanly. It's shortsighted to destroy it because of a temporary pressure, rather than investing the technologies that will completely move us out of this dependence.

You're essentially a crackwhore desperately searching for her fix, wanting to break open the collectible silver dollars your grandmother gave you to collect so you can afford your habit.

[Stanley Burrell]

Ahh, there we go. A fresh argument and one not touted here in quite a while. The pristine untouched environment argument where the very presence of humans desecrate the pristine environment of mother nature. In fact, we should just set aside all the land west of the Rockies for mother nature use only and require everyone to move out. That way we have pristine environment that belongs to humans past, present, and future. The only downside is that due to pollution and contamination possibilities humans are not allowed to even visit there, so you'll just have to take our word for it that its a really nice place.

http://www.treehuggersofamerica.org/images/tree_hugger.jpg

Please do not confuse all liberals for dendrophiliacs. I don't confuse all conservatives for PB, Gan ;)

[Gan]

This is not a "hippy" ideal. This area was declared a wildlife reservation bipartisanly. It's shortsighted to destroy it because of a temporary pressure, rather than investing the technologies that will completely move us out of this dependence.

You're essentially a crackwhore desperately searching for her fix, wanting to break open the collectible silver dollars your grandmother gave you to collect so you can afford your habit.

LOL, do you speak that crackwhore example from experience?

I bet you drive a big SUV (your parents probably), have your A/C set at 68, all the lights on in the house, and have a carbon footprint that would make Al Gore proud.

You obviously talk the talk. But do you walk the walk?

[Ashliana]

LOL, do you speak that crackwhore example from experience?

I bet you drive a big SUV (your parents probably), have your A/C set at 68, all the lights on in the house, and have a carbon footprint that would make Al Gore proud.

You obviously talk the talk. But do you walk the walk?

I despise SUVs. If I had the money to afford one, I'd buy a Prius or, if I REALLY had the money, I'd buy a Chevy Volt. Anyway, overall I'm fairly environmentally conscious, but not perfect. Nobody is.

I'd just like to take the time to thank you for making the argument about me as a person, rather than the actual topic at hand. Who else did this, I wonder? Hm..

[Back]

I always get a kick out of enviromental haters who think anyone who remotely cares about the enviroment should live in a grass hut.

[Gan]

I despise SUVs. If I had the money to afford one, I'd buy a Prius or, if I REALLY had the money, I'd buy a Chevy Volt. Anyway, overall I'm fairly environmentally conscious, but not perfect. Nobody is.

I'd just like to take the time to thank you for making the argument about me as a person, rather than the actual topic at hand. Who else did this, I wonder? Hm..

So you just spit the rhetoric so it will ease your conscious. Check.

PS. I have some carbon offsets you can buy...

[Gan]

I always get a kick out of enviromental haters who think anyone who remotely cares about the enviroment should live in a grass hut.

I'm not the one who brought up the pristine environment argument.

And I always get a kick out of your thread contributions. ;)

[Ashliana]

So you just spit the rhetoric so it will ease your conscious. Check.

PS. I have some carbon offsets you can buy...

Right. Because trying to do my part in some way, is just spitting "rhetoric." As opposed to being a worthless, SUV-driving yuppie who has absolutely no need for it, slowing down traffic (which is already horrendous in the DC/NOVA area) and driving up the gas of oil by greatly increasing our consumption.

If anything, being the so-called "conservative" (conserving everything except civil liberties and oil), you're the more likely to drive an SUV than I am. Labels are so useful!

[Gan]

Right. Because trying to do my part in some way, is just spitting "rhetoric." As opposed to being a worthless, SUV-driving yuppie who has absolutely no need for it, slowing down traffic (which is already horrendous in the DC/NOVA area) and driving up the gas of oil by greatly increasing our consumption.

If anything, being the so-called "conservative" (conserving everything except civil liberties and oil), you're the more likely to drive an SUV than I am. Labels are so useful!

We get it. You're a limousine liberal. You want others to suffer for your indulgences so it eases your conscious.

Thanks for your recent thread contributions. Be sure not to cut your grass this summer so you dont ruin the pristine environment of your backyard and contribute to global warming with the carbon emissions of your lawnmower.

[Ashliana]

We get it. You're a limousine liberal. You want others to suffer for your indulgences so it eases your conscious.

Thanks for your recent thread contributions. Be sure not to cut your grass this summer so you dont ruin the pristine environment of your backyard and contribute to global warming with the carbon emissions of your lawnmower.

This is just moronic. You're arguing, essentially, that no rich person (which I'm not, for the record) can be liberal without being a hypocrite? Every American, affluent or not, spends way more of the Earth's resources than say, someone in Africa.

Does that mean no American has the qualification to talk about conservation?

That's bullshit and that's the rhetoric.

[Keller]

You're essentially a crackwhore desperately searching for her fix, wanting to break open the collectible silver dollars your grandmother gave you to collect so you can afford your habit.


While I don't necessarily agree with the line of reasoning -- I think the analogy is funny as fuck. I like it.

[Warriorbird]

I just find wasting our reserves stupid when we are in two countries and may well invade a third.

[Gan]

This is just moronic. You're arguing, essentially, that no rich person (which I'm not, for the record) can be liberal without being a hypocrite? Every American, affluent or not, spends way more of the Earth's resources than say, someone in Africa.

Does that mean no American has the qualification to talk about conservation?

That's bullshit and that's the rhetoric.

Al Gore agrees with you 100%.

:lol:

[Gan]

While I don't necessarily agree with the line of reasoning -- I think the analogy is funny as fuck. I like it.

I thought it was pretty funny too.

+1 for originality.

[Keller]

Gan -- stop aspiring to become PB. It's unbecoming.

Edited to add: There is a reasonable discourse and out-of-hand rejection of any argument that doesn't coincide your positions. In the past you've always tried to reason your opinions. So far in this thread you've just made accusations and unsubstantiated conclusions.

[Warriorbird]

Right... because somehow likening her to Al Gore totally scores you points. I imagine its news to all the rich liberals that they're not liberal and can't apparently give their money away.

[Ashliana]

Al Gore agrees with you 100%.

:lol:

Better him than Rush Limbaugh or Jerry Falwell.

[Apathy]

Obama didn't have a choice.. and personally it looks as though the entire thing was orchestrated. Obama just happened to use Clark's ignorant comments to stop people from even questioning his patriotism.

Whoever is pulling the strings for Obama in this campaign is a genius.

Come on. Both candidates have said they will try to run a cleaner campaign than what we've had in the past. I find it discouraging that you wouldn't concede even a little appreciation to the Obama camp for trying to stay in line with that statement, regardless of the greater motive.

And yes, drill in America already.

[Gan]

Better him than Rush Limbaugh or Jerry Falwell.

Thanks for that confirmation. I bet you wear that badge proudly - even when dining on steak.

[Back]

I'm not the one who brought up the pristine environment argument.

And I always get a kick out of your thread contributions. ;)

No. But you are the one who can’t seem to believe that someone out there in the great big wide world actually cares about the environment and does something about it that is not actually a huge hypocrite driving a Hummer down the block and back for a bucket of ice cream to scarf down while watching a movie on a super A/V system in a house that needs a small electric company to run.

[Warriorbird]

Gan just wants all environmentalists to drop off the grid and never be heard from again. It is an interesting thought towards getting what he wants... but unlikely to achieve much.

[Back]

Gan just wants all environmentalists to drop off the grid and never be heard from again. It is an interesting thought towards getting what he wants... but unlikely to achieve much.

Gan obviously took the blue pill.

[Gan]

No. But you are the one who can’t seem to believe that someone out there in the great big wide world actually cares about the environment and does something about it that is not actually a huge hypocrite driving a Hummer down the block and back for a bucket of ice cream to scarf down while watching a movie on a super A/V system in a house that needs a small electric company to run.

No, I just believe in walking the walk if you're going to talk the talk. My own efforts of environmental conservation would suprise you. Well, maybe not you - since you have a distorted view of reality to begin with.

Bottom line, if you're going to preach it, and support efforts that will impact how others will live, then you need to live it too. Thats like someone who smokes preaching the evils of smoking and trying to convince others to stop smoking. I believe the term would be Hypocrite... one that you are intimately familiar with.

[Gan]

Gan just wants all environmentalists to drop off the grid and never be heard from again. It is an interesting thought towards getting what he wants... but unlikely to achieve much.

Yes, thats my goal - to stop all dialogue - not just the disingenuous ones. /sarcasm.

[Warriorbird]

So... has anybody said anything environmental on this board that you haven't said anything snide about?

[Gan]

So... has anybody said anything environmental on this board that you haven't said anything snide about?

You mean has anyone said anything not environmentally retarded on these boards where it has not elicited a snyde comment from myself? You're searching for the needle in the haystack. I tell you what - you have 15k posts of mine to go through if you really want that answer. Because I cant recall the last time someone mentioned something environmentally non-retarded.

[Warriorbird]

And you wonder why I think your goal is stop all dialogue...

[Latrinsorm]

In fact, we should just set aside all the land west of the Rockies for mother nature use only and require everyone to move out.I expect PB to give you the Captain Hyperbole pic at any moment.
No, I just believe in walking the walk if you're going to talk the talk.So when you asked Ashliana if she(?) had an SUV and she said she didn't, how did that prompt a conclusion of not "walking the walk"?

[Ashliana]

Apparently I, by mentioning any cause of conservation, instantly become a hypocrite. The fact that I'm not one is inconsequential.

[Back]

No, I just believe in walking the walk if you're going to talk the talk. My own efforts of environmental conservation would suprise you. Well, maybe not you - since you have a distorted view of reality to begin with.

I’ve never questioned your enviromental habits. Good for you that you have been trying to, dude. We seem to be on the same page about conserving our enviroment.


Bottom line, if you're going to preach it, and support efforts that will impact how others will live, then you need to live it too.

We are in full agreement.


Thats like someone who smokes preaching the evils of smoking and trying to convince others to stop smoking. I believe the term would be Hypocrite... one that you are intimately familiar with.

I’ve never said I was never without some hypocracy... but I am curious as to how you view me as hypocriticlal since you have now attacked my character instead of the actual argument.

[Stanley Burrell]

You weren't being a hypocrite. You are being paranoid. And do you honestly think that if the entire landmass of the United States stopped all carbon dioxide emissions today, that this could somehow make it that rapidly industrializing nations, such as China, would suddenly have enough preventative technique to counter their just-turned-industrial-age mass production.

Why not, instead of preventing something with a piss poor outcome, do things to accomodate poor sea towns and have emergency relief more available to susceptible regions?

[crb]

I agree. Invading random Arab countries with overblown "intelligence," massively destabilizing the Middle East and driving up the cost of oil seems like a great way to fix the oil crisis.

Or, better yet, destroy a pristine Arctic paradise that belongs to the past, current and future generations of humans, solely for our immediate, extremely short-term gain, rather than actually focusing this effort on actually CURING the American addiction to oil and telling all these crackpot dictators with oil to go fuck themselves, like we should be doing now--if we'd actually invested in green technology twenty years ago before the "public" cared about it.
I wasn't aware drilling in an area that amounts to a postage stamp on a football field destroys an area.....

I don't like speaking in absolutes.... liberals tend to say "Oil is never clean, never safe, never a good idea. Nuclear is never clean, never safe, never a good idea."

People who use "never" so much are just ideologues and mark themselves out as being unrealistic.



This is not a "hippy" ideal. This area was declared a wildlife reservation bipartisanly. It's shortsighted to destroy it because of a temporary pressure, rather than investing the technologies that will completely move us out of this dependence.

Why not do both? Why not help us temporarily while at the same time funnel more money into cleaner/replacement technologies?

That is what McCain, and most of the American people (by polls) want. Both, everything on the table. Do it all. Lets work on a better electric car or hydrogen technology, but in the meantime, more oil isn't going to HURT the average american is it? Sending less money to dictators overseas isn't going to HURT us, is it? Creating jobs in our own country isn't going to be harmful, will it?

[Warriorbird]

Helping us temporarily when we're preparing to piss off OPEC is a silly idea. I'm for nuclear expansion though.

[crb]

and before someone says... "but if we drill now it'll be years before it is ready."

Well, how do you know that in 5 years we WON'T need oil even worse? I mean, you gotta start sometime right? Lets get the infrastructure in place so if Israel attacks Iran and oil goes up to $300 a barrel we can open the keg eh?

[Warriorbird]

That's not what is being proposed. The oil companies could get moving very rapidly if the time came.

[Ashliana]

I wasn't aware drilling in an area that amounts to a postage stamp on a football field destroys an area.....

I don't like speaking in absolutes.... liberals tend to say "Oil is never clean, never safe, never a good idea. Nuclear is never clean, never safe, never a good idea."

People who use "never" so much are just ideologues and mark themselves out as being unrealistic.

I agree. But I don't think it's quite as small as you're thinking of.



Why not do both? Why not help us temporarily while at the same time funnel more money into cleaner/replacement technologies?

That is what McCain, and most of the American people (by polls) want. Both, everything on the table. Do it all. Lets work on a better electric car or hydrogen technology, but in the meantime, more oil isn't going to HURT the average american is it? Sending less money to dictators overseas isn't going to HURT us, is it? Creating jobs in our own country isn't going to be harmful, will it?

That's why I said it's shortsighted. It would be five years or more before this showed any benefit at all--and in the meantime, India and China's demand for oil will grow and grow. By the time it was sold on the global market, is it really going to be a benefit to the degree of damage we're doing to this Wildlife preservation?

[Ashliana]

and before someone says... "but if we drill now it'll be years before it is ready."

Well, how do you know that in 5 years we WON'T need oil even worse? I mean, you gotta start sometime right? Lets get the infrastructure in place so if Israel attacks Iran and oil goes up to $300 a barrel we can open the keg eh?

That's the point. The demand for oil will increase. It will continue to increase. The amount we're going to get, by supposedly "not" destroying this reserve, is not going to be enough to offset the exponentially increasing demand for oil. Especially not enough to justify what we're going to do to the reserve itself.

[Mabus]

I think all our problems will be fixed by invading Iran.
So does the Democratic controlled congress that allocated $400 million doallrs for covert operations in Iran.

Oh, Obama voted for that, didn't he.

[Mabus]

You do realize that your beloved McCain, before he became epically Flip-Flop McCane, opposed this very drilling?
McCain still opposes drilling in ANWAR. He has changed his position on drilling in offshore areas.

"But he reaffirmed his opposition to drilling in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, known as ANWAR. "

From:
McCain Brings Campaign to Southwest Missouri (http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/News/NewsReleases/2c28d4f3-9bad-4e0c-b935-c3c13be95aa1.htm)

[Ashliana]

McCain still opposes drilling in ANWAR. He has changed his position on drilling in offshore areas.

"But he reaffirmed his opposition to drilling in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, known as ANWAR. "

From:
McCain Brings Campaign to Southwest Missouri (http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/News/NewsReleases/2c28d4f3-9bad-4e0c-b935-c3c13be95aa1.htm)

Oh? I'm happy to be wrong.

[Daniel]

I will grant you that there is not a global recession yet.

At any rate, you want reality? This would be what I am talking about.
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/BUSINESS/01/22/markets.plunge.asia/

Yea. How's that going six months later?

[Daniel]

No, I just believe in walking the walk if you're going to talk the talk. My own efforts of environmental conservation would suprise you. Well, maybe not you - since you have a distorted view of reality to begin with.

Bottom line, if you're going to preach it, and support efforts that will impact how others will live, then you need to live it too. Thats like someone who smokes preaching the evils of smoking and trying to convince others to stop smoking. I believe the term would be Hypocrite... one that you are intimately familiar with.

What exactly do you know about her besides your unsubstaniated conclusions that allow you to conveniently dismiss her argument outright?

[Warriorbird]

Covert operations != war. The Office of Special Plans was formed the last time that covert operations told us we shouldn't go to war because we didn't want to listen.

Next misrepresentation?

[crb]

You do realize that your beloved McCain, before he became epically Flip-Flop McCane, opposed this very drilling?

When the facts change McCain changes his mind? What do you do?

People who claim he's flip flopped on off shore drilling are twits. Gas prices have doubled in the last year, shouldn't minds be changing?

[crb]

I agree. But I don't think it's quite as small as you're thinking of.

It is. Tiny.



That's why I said it's shortsighted. It would be five years or more before this showed any benefit at all--and in the meantime, India and China's demand for oil will grow and grow. By the time it was sold on the global market, is it really going to be a benefit to the degree of damage we're doing to this Wildlife preservation?

See below:



like we should be doing now--if we'd actually invested in green technology twenty years ago before the "public" cared about it.


I think we can all agree that we should have started working on alternatives years ago, and we should have started drilling more years ago. Aye? Or can you really hold the opinion that it'd take 5-10 years for oil is reason not to do it, but that it'd take 5-10 years for alternatives (really, more like 20-30) is reason to start as soon as possible? Hrm?

It seems contradictory to me.

FWIW, I think we should start both, as soon as possible.

[Warriorbird]

Heck. Let's just open the Strategic Oil Reserves and the oil shale right now. Who cares about the future?

[Ashliana]

When the facts change McCain changes his mind? What do you do?

People who claim he's flip flopped on off shore drilling are twits. Gas prices have doubled in the last year, shouldn't minds be changing?

Why? Because he didn't change his opinion during the course of last year. He was saying drilling was a bad idea, period--in May.

[Fallen]

Why does drilling in the area = it being completely destroyed? It may have a negative environmental affect, but I doubt the entire area will be completely obliterated. It isn't like they are logging the place to build the facilities.

[Paradii]

Why does drilling in the area = it being completely destroyed? It may have a negative environmental affect, but I doubt the entire area will be completely obliterated. It isn't like they are logging the place to build the facilities.


http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/07/24/gas.wildlife.wyoming/index.html


This article has to deal with Coal-bed methane extraction. I am sure anyone who lives in Wyoming, Nodak, Sodak, Montana, Colorado, ect ect knows what it is.

CBM is all underground and removed by basically drilling and sucking it out as it flows 300-10000 feet underground in gaseous form. So, its not like logging or mining coal.

In areas where there is moderate to extensive CBM development, the ecosystems crash.

I was working on a projecting looking at sage grouse populations, and we were losing 60-70% of the nests and chicks, and approximately half of the adult females would die each year.

Ecosystems are fragile, and they have been shown to be more susceptible in colder/tundra climates.

[Daniel]

It's okay. We'll use the money to make a new environment*

*may not actually happen.

[Parkbandit]

Why does drilling in the area = it being completely destroyed? It may have a negative environmental affect, but I doubt the entire area will be completely obliterated. It isn't like they are logging the place to build the facilities.


Because if it didn't mean the destruction of an entire ecosystem or the complete annihilation of a species.. then their bullshit reasoning begins to break down.

Like I said.. if I had to choose between drilling in downtown LA or a place no one ever visits in the far reaches of the arctic circle.. why the fuck wouldn't you drill in Alaska?

[Kembal]

Why does drilling in the area = it being completely destroyed? It may have a negative environmental affect, but I doubt the entire area will be completely obliterated. It isn't like they are logging the place to build the facilities.

It'll wreck the permafrost and permanently alter the habitat there. Generally, that'll probably threaten a species or two. That's the primary reason I know of, there may be others.

[Parkbandit]

It'll wreck the permafrost and permanently alter the habitat there. Generally, that'll probably threaten a species or two. That's the primary reason I know of, there may be others.

If people like you are so concerned about a lousy 2,000 acres in Alaska that is uninhabited.. you must be even more concerned about any urban expansion. Here's a picture of what most of the 2,000 acres in ANWR looks like:

http://www.anwr.org/gallery/images/48-Coastal_Plain_summer.jpg

Tell me again how this is a 'pristine paradise'? It's fucking scrub land that holds very little value. How is this scrub land worth more than say:

http://www.mass.gov/envir/forest/images/multiLayerForest.jpg

or

http://www.erdc.usace.army.mil/pls/erdcpub/docs/erdc/images/Stream.jpg

These places are destroyed every day.. where is the outrage??

[Daniel]

Uh. I'm pretty sure the liberal conspiracy team has interests in those places as well.



Then again, facts never really mattered to you did they?

[Ilvane]

ANWR is not just what you showed, PB, and it has very limited gain for the amount of destruction it would cause.
(Wildlife in ANWR)
http://arctic.fws.gov/wildlife.htm

http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f310/Angela913/ANWR.gif

We have to learn how use less oil, that is all.

Angela

[diethx]

We have to learn how use less oil, that is all.

Angela

Good thing that you have a huge surplus of adipose to live off of should you have to make a choice like other people, who are choosing between gas to get to work and food for their skin-and-bones family, right?

So while scientists are working for the next whoever knows how many years to learn how to use less oil, you'll be just perfectly fine.

[Paradii]

Good thing that you have a huge surplus of adipose to live off of should you have to make a choice like other people, who are choosing between gas to get to work and food for their skin-and-bones family, right?

So while scientists are working for the next whoever knows how many years to learn how to use less oil, you'll be just perfectly fine.

I really don't think there are many people making the Gas or Feed my dying kids decision. It's more like Gas and I can't take the family out to dinner this friday decision. Or even worse, Gas and we eat ramen for awhile. Which is basically like college all over again with 3 people to share your meals with.

*99.9 of the starving skin and bones kids are in 3rd world countries where gas prices are not the deciding factor. The remaining percentage just have lousy parents.

Man, you conservatives are such a bunch of whiners sometimes.



*Assumption

[diethx]

Who the fuck's a conservative? I just wanted to call Ilvane fat. Because she's fat.

[Ilvane]

Up until recently I was working to take care of my family by taking the train into Boston to work, so I'm not sure what the fuck you are talking about.

And what does me being fat have to do with anything we are discussing here at all? Is it supposed to hurt or something? (waaah)

Angela

[Parkbandit]

ANWR is not just what you showed, PB, and it has very limited gain for the amount of destruction it would cause.
(Wildlife in ANWR)
http://arctic.fws.gov/wildlife.htm

http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f310/Angela913/ANWR.gif

We have to learn how use less oil, that is all.

Angela


We won't drill on the mountain.. look at the plain in front of the mountain. THAT's where we would be drilling.

And all this bullshit "OMG! WE R GOING TO DESTROY THE ENVIRONMENT AND THE ELK WILL GO EXTINCT" is utter bullshit. Here's a picture of an OLD drilling rig. Those poor caribou look on the brink of extinction.

http://www.americansforamericanenergy.org/Portals/AAE/images/anwr_caribou.jpg

[Parkbandit]

Uh. I'm pretty sure the liberal conspiracy team has interests in those places as well.



Then again, facts never really mattered to you did they?

Really? I was just at a county meeting about a month and a half ago.. where they were voting on whether or not to turn a palmetto field into a new condo subdivision. I heard ONE hippie get up and say we couldn't because of the snake population in the area. She was laughed at. "OH NOEZ! NOT THE SNAKES!!"

[Valthissa]

That's the point. The demand for oil will increase. It will continue to increase. The amount we're going to get, by supposedly "not" destroying this reserve, is not going to be enough to offset the exponentially increasing demand for oil. Especially not enough to justify what we're going to do to the reserve itself.

The demand for oil increase is linear (somewhat less than 2% annually), not exponential.

We will drill ANWR, and the continental shelf, and in your backyard if there is oil there. It's just a question of when.

I believe conservation (managing the resources of Earth) is a moral imperative. Of course, it's the details of what constitutes conservation that causes disagreement.


C/Valth

[Ashliana]

The demand for oil increase is linear (somewhat less than 2% annually), not exponential.

We will drill ANWR, and the continental shelf, and in your backyard if there is oil there. It's just a question of when.

I believe conservation (managing the resources of Earth) is a moral imperative. Of course, it's the details of what constitutes conservation that causes disagreement.


C/Valth

Once the markets in China and India are flooded with things like the Tata "Nano," combined with their exploding economies--don't think it'll be a small, linear growth for long.

[Gan]

And you wonder why I think your goal is stop retarded dialogue...
Fixed that for you.


I expect PB to give you the Captain Hyperbole pic at any moment.
Perhaps you should slow down a little so next time you'll get the factiousness when you come across it.


So when you asked Ashliana if she(?) had an SUV and she said she didn't, how did that prompt a conclusion of not "walking the walk"?
Because attacking the credibility of the source after already refuting the argument was the next logical step. Not to mention it had high entertainment value.

Apparently I, by mentioning any cause of conservation, instantly become a hypocrite. The fact that I'm not one is inconsequential. Al Gore seems to think so too. ;)


I’ve never said I was never without some hypocracy... but I am curious as to how you view me as hypocriticlal since you have now attacked my character instead of the actual argument.
Dude, we have so much history on you that you're like an open book here on the PC. Not to mention that it helps to refute the argument when you can prove its source is disingenuous or hypocritical. Not that you are a stranger to attacking the source or anything...


The demand for oil increase is linear (somewhat less than 2% annually), not exponential.

We will drill ANWR, and the continental shelf, and in your backyard if there is oil there. It's just a question of when.

I believe conservation (managing the resources of Earth) is a moral imperative. Of course, it's the details of what constitutes conservation that causes disagreement.
C/Valth
/agreed.

[Daniel]

Really? I was just at a county meeting about a month and a half ago.. where they were voting on whether or not to turn a palmetto field into a new condo subdivision. I heard ONE hippie get up and say we couldn't because of the snake population in the area. She was laughed at. "OH NOEZ! NOT THE SNAKES!!"

Uh..okay.

[Valthissa]

Once the markets in China and India are flooded with things like the Tata "Nano," combined with their exploding economies--don't think it'll be a small, linear growth for long.

Do you have any source that predicts a non linear future demand for oil, or is that just your personal speculation?

C/Valth

[Ashliana]

Do you have any source that predicts a non linear future demand for oil, or is that just your personal speculation?

C/Valth

Just speculation.

[Gan]

...

[crb]

anwar is 19 million acres. The size of the drilling compared to it is, a postage stamp on a football field, it has been calculated. Or, Dulles airport and the entire state of virginia.

Where they want to drill is the shitty scrub PB showed, not pretty glacial mountains. It is on the north side of Alaska near the north pole, no one lives up there, except a few inuit living in trailers with snowmobiles. No tourists visit.

Why don't we do this? Let the Alaskan's decide. They're the ones who live there, they know the area best don't they? They're more likely to have actually been there, right?

... the Alaskans already decided, they want to drill. We won't let them. Who are we to not let them?

People don't get just what the kind of race we're in. China is drilling off the coast of Florida, Russia is going to start drilling at the north pole (They did this little flag planting thing a couple years ago up there). If we don't go to these places, other people are just going to go and do it and beat us to it and fuck us over economically.

And you know, don't always think that the liberal leaders you listen too are free from illicit motives. Not drilling helps some oil companies, companies who already have oil (like the saudis), not mining helps some coal companies, companies who already have coal. Who paid for the clinton presidential library again? Hmmm?

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=285982232964929

Oh ya, clintons are dirty as hell.

.....

One final thought for you anti-drilling nazis. Right now millions of acres of brazilian rainforest are being burnt, burnt, to create more cropland for the growing of biofuels.

So, by being against oil drilling, you're literally encouraging rainforest to be burnt down. Environmentalism gone wild. Surely, putting 2000 acres of infrastructure on 19 million acres of frozen wasteland is less of a price?

[Warriorbird]

The land in ANWR is not in international waters. Less hyperbole please?

[Daniel]

One final thought for you anti-drilling nazis. Right now millions of acres of brazilian rainforest are being burnt, burnt, to create more cropland for the growing of biofuels.



This is a pretty disingenous statement. That's the *only* reason the rainforest is being burned down?

[Gan]

I wish the mass transit system here in Houston was better than it currently is.

I would love nothing more than to let someone else drive me everywhere I needed to go. Then I could read the paper or my book while I travelled. Now thats heaven. :)

[Daniel]

I wish the mass transit system here in Houston was better than it currently is.

I would love nothing more than to let someone else drive me everywhere I needed to go. Then I could read the paper or my book while I travelled. Now thats heaven. :)

Preface: I don't own a car and use public transport\walk everywhere

Statement: There is nothing love about being smashed into a metro rail car for the morning commute. Nothing worse then a rank mix of flowery shampoo, cologne, Perfume and BO to wake you up in the morning.

[crb]

The land in ANWR is not in international waters. Less hyperbole please?
I never said it was, but if we don't drill in anwar, do you think we'll drill off it's coast up in the artic with the russians? Probably not.



This is a pretty disingenous statement. That's the *only* reason the rainforest is being burned down?

Does it matter? The biofuel boom is literally driving Brazilians ag industry, the thing is going like gangbusters, and they need more arable land, and they're getting it from the rainforest.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8262015/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2006/mar/16/comment.environment



President Lula said biofuel "is significantly less polluting than conventional petroleum-based diesel". But Brazil is set to produce most of its biodiesel from soya beans, which have virtually no advantage over conventional fuels in terms of overall greenhouse gas emissions, let alone the millions of hectares of tropical forest that have been cleared for large-scale soya plantations.

How much rainforest is okay to be burnt? How many acres is your limit before it becomes too high a cost? When does drilling become the lesser of two evils? Surely you're not going to take a position that you'd rather it all goes down before we start drilling, are you? So, whats your line in the sand?

[Daniel]

Does it matter?

Yea. It does.

[Gan]

Preface: I don't own a car and use public transport\walk everywhere

Statement: There is nothing love about being smashed into a metro rail car for the morning commute. Nothing worse then a rank mix of flowery shampoo, cologne, Perfume and BO to wake you up in the morning.

My commute would be outbound in the morning (opposite of flow into town) and inbound in the afternoon (opposite again). Houston is so spread out that not everyone would be on the same line heading to the same place. Being spread out is our curse though. It makes it impractical to have greater frequency in busses and our rail system is still in its infancy. I just get tired of having to drive every day everywhere I go. The freedom is nice but ugh.

That and I love to be in populated areas where I can watch people. People are an endless source of entertainment for me. Food Court at the mall (#1 place).

[Ashliana]

anwar is 19 million acres. The size of the drilling compared to it is, a postage stamp on a football field, it has been calculated. Or, Dulles airport and the entire state of virginia.

The size of the equipment is not the issue. It's the effect it'll have on the surrounding environment.


Where they want to drill is the shitty scrub PB showed, not pretty glacial mountains. It is on the north side of Alaska near the north pole, no one lives up there, except a few inuit living in trailers with snowmobiles. No tourists visit.

Those inuit you're talking about rely on the animals that would negatively impacted by this. Just because "only brown people will be affected" doesn't mean that we should do it.


Why don't we do this? Let the Alaskan's decide. They're the ones who live there, they know the area best don't they? They're more likely to have actually been there, right?

... the Alaskans already decided, they want to drill. We won't let them. Who are we to not let them?

Because the federal government bipartisanly declared it a wildlife preserve? The current oil crisis will not be remembered in the long term, but any damage we do to the environment or ecosystem in ANWR will last hundreds of times longer.


People don't get just what the kind of race we're in. China is drilling off the coast of Florida, Russia is going to start drilling at the north pole (They did this little flag planting thing a couple years ago up there). If we don't go to these places, other people are just going to go and do it and beat us to it and fuck us over economically.

Many of the countries we're competing with, unlike us, subsidize their oil production. The oil from ANWR would be sold on the open, global market also benefitting our economic competitors. They're at an advantage either way.


And you know, don't always think that the liberal leaders you listen too are free from illicit motives. Not drilling helps some oil companies, companies who already have oil (like the saudis), not mining helps some coal companies, companies who already have coal. Who paid for the clinton presidential library again? Hmmm?

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=285982232964929

Oh ya, clintons are dirty as hell.

I'm no huge fan of the Clintons, but which president is it that was personally involved in oil companies and whose cabinet was largely composed of Enron employees? Oh.. Right. In any case, the US has the largest coal reserves in the world. If this was truly such an outrage, nothing stopped the 6 years of complete Republican control from reversing the executive order, did it?


One final thought for you anti-drilling nazis. Right now millions of acres of brazilian rainforest are being burnt, burnt, to create more cropland for the growing of biofuels.

So, by being against oil drilling, you're literally encouraging rainforest to be burnt down. Environmentalism gone wild. Surely, putting 2000 acres of infrastructure on 19 million acres of frozen wasteland is less of a price?

1) Brazil's decisions are their own.
2) Biofuels are the wrong way to go--at least, with corn and sugarcane. Too energy inefficient, and you're right, require too much of a land sacrifice. Which is why they're not being invested in to the same degree as solar, wind and tidal energy.
3) The most exciting field of biofuel research at the moment is what? Microbes breaking down left-over biomatter from farming, which doesn't require the destruction of any rainforest.
4) Again, you're comparing the size of the equipment and ignoring the actual environmental impact the drilling could have, as well as risks for oil spillage, as has happened in Alaska before, creating even more damage.

http://www.lib.odu.edu/libassist/courseguides/NewPage/anwr.jpg

http://www.triplepundit.com/pages/anwr.jpg

What a frozen wasteland! Let's get drilling!

[TheEschaton]

So, what happened in this thread to make it go 100+ posts? Didn't feel like wading through the bullshit.

[Gan]

http://www.lib.odu.edu/libassist/courseguides/NewPage/anwr.jpg
Perfect spot for a few rigs, a collection station, and a pipe line out of there.


http://www.triplepundit.com/pages/anwr.jpg

What a frozen wasteland! Let's get drilling!
It would be physically impossible to put a rig for drilling into that area. But it is a pretty picture!

[Parkbandit]

The size of the equipment is not the issue. It's the effect it'll have on the surrounding environment.

Actually, in this case... size is everything. What exactly is the effect on the surrounding 192,000 million acres if 2,000 acres are drilled in a responsible manner?




Those inuit you're talking about rely on the animals that would negatively impacted by this. Just because "only brown people will be affected" doesn't mean that we should do it.

Oh look.. a liberal implying that anyone who wants to drill must be a racist. We don't see that all the time. Thanks for that refreshing perspective.




Because the federal government bipartisanly declared it a wildlife preserve? The current oil crisis will not be remembered in the long term, but any damage we do to the environment or ecosystem in ANWR will last hundreds of times longer.


Again.. please show me a valid source of how drilling responsibly in 2000 acres will have such a negative impact on the remaining 192 million acres that it will last hundreds of times longer...



I'm no huge fan of the Clintons, but which president is it that was personally involved in oil companies and whose cabinet was largely composed of Enron employees? Oh.. Right. In any case, the US has the largest coal reserves in the world. If this was truly such an outrage, nothing stopped the 6 years of complete Republican control from reversing the executive order, did it?


You also forgot to include ties to Haliburton and Iraq. I hadn't realized that someone employed by Enron was automatically dirty. Glad to know my uncle must have been a dirtbag as he ran lines for Enron for 15 years.

[DeV]

I'm not against drilling for domestic oil, including Alaska, offshore, and other alternatives. But there are some lingering questions on my mind.

First off, ANWR is going to take a long ass time to develop as it's not an easy place to drill.

Is there a guarantee that drilling in Alaska will lower prices, especially considering the yearly increase in demand? There is discussion about lowering prices, which should most importantly include lowering demand, but nothing serious has been brought to the table and nothing serious will be brought to the table in my opinion. Conservation and alternative energy sources need to be part of any solution to reduce cost and demand, instead of automatically agreeing that a more increased supply should be the only serious solution because it just doesn't make sense in the long run.

This is mainly due to the reasoning that high oil prices are here to stay. Free-market supply and demand dictate that and there are investors to answer to which is completely understandable in an oil fueled capitalist age, which we're living proof. There is enough foreign supply to meet our demands and the oil companies will continue to make huge profits. And why shouldn't they? Why then should we increase supply to lower prices which would then lower profits? Someone make it make sense to me.

The peacemeal approach to energy consumption is simply not enough in my opinion.

[Fallen]

Can anyone post hard data on what the theoretical impact of drilling would have on the environment? Acrage lost, pollution outputs? Honestly, I don't think it will be that bad. Maybe I am wrong, but I don't think so.

It is just a question of if we want to tap into those reserves. Hell, I would rather they put the equipment in place and NOT USE IT so that when we do need it, the infrastructure is in place.

[Warriorbird]

I'd be okay with that myself. That hasn't been proposed so far though.

[Ashliana]

Actually, in this case... size is everything. What exactly is the effect on the surrounding 192,000 million acres if 2,000 acres are drilled in a responsible manner?

Oh, look! A mindless, to-hell-with-the-consequences-I'll-be-long-dead-when-we-feel-them reactionary doesn't care about the planet as long as he gets his precious black gold. The effect on the environment is larger than just the visual presence of equipment.



Oh look.. a liberal implying that anyone who wants to drill must be a racist. We don't see that all the time. Thanks for that refreshing perspective.

Just like you ignoring the actual natives who will be directly impacted by this, or the numerous species in the wildlife preserve.


Again.. please show me a valid source of how drilling responsibly in 2000 acres will have such a negative impact on the remaining 192 million acres that it will last hundreds of times longer...

As you wish.

http://www.gwichinsteeringcommittee.org/gwichinniintsyaa.html


You also forgot to include ties to Haliburton and Iraq. I hadn't realized that someone employed by Enron was automatically dirty. Glad to know my uncle must have been a dirtbag as he ran lines for Enron for 15 years.[/QUOTE]

It doesn't necessarily mean they're dirty. But that, along with the enormous deference to the oil industry and promotion of their goals shows someone else's best interests at heart.


Can anyone post hard data on what the theoretical impact of drilling would have on the environment? Acrage lost, pollution outputs? Honestly, I don't think it will be that bad. Maybe I am wrong, but I don't think so.

It is just a question of if we want to tap into those reserves. Hell, I would rather they put the equipment in place and NOT USE IT so that when we do need it, the infrastructure is in place.

I'll post on this later when I have time to do the proper research and get an answer that he won't mindlessly dismiss as "biased" and "liberally slanted."

[Fallen]

>>> I'll post on this later when I have time to do the proper research and get an answer that he won't mindlessly dismiss as "biased" and "liberally slanted." >>>

I don't need the PB/Gan seals of approval to read anything you have, Ash. Post away.

[Warriorbird]

PB will anyways. Fallen's reasonable.

[RainyDay2080]

Doesn't it make much more sense to drill for oil where no one is.. and where very few animals actually are.. than to drill in places like this:

http://a.abcnews.com/images/Business/nm_oil_la_080509_mn.jpg

No. Drilling in an area already messed up by cutting down all the trees, paving everything over and filling the air with exhaust makes much better sense than going and messing up an entirely new area that hasn't been touched yet. We can't go back and make things pristine again once we interfere. So I'd prefer we keep all our messes in the already messed locations.

RD

[Gan]

http://www.anwr.org/





Top ten reasons to support ANWR development
http://www.anwr.org/images/stories/news/25-Alpine-winter_exploratio.jpg

Arctic Winter Exploration




















1. Only 8% of ANWR Would Be Considered for Exploration Only the 1.5 million acre or 8% on the northern coast of ANWR (http://www.anwr.com/archives/map_of_anwr.html) is being considered for development. The remaining 17.5 million acres or 92% of ANWR will remain permanently closed to any kind of development. If oil is discovered, less than 2000 acres of the over 1.5 million acres of the Coastal Plain would be affected. That¹s less than half of one percent of ANWR that would be affected by production activity.

2. Revenues to the State and Federal Treasury Federal revenues would be enhanced by billions of dollars from bonus bids, lease rentals, royalties and taxes. Estimates on bonus bids for ANWR by the Office of Management and Budget and the Department of Interior for the first 5 years after Congressional approval are $4.2 billion. Royalty and tax estimates for the life of the 10-02 fields were estimated by the Office of Management and Budget from $152-237 billion.

3. Jobs To Be Created Between 250,000 and 735,000 ANWR jobs (http://www.anwr.org/ANWR-Basics/docs/ANWR_jobs_brief.pdf) are estimated to be created by development of the Coastal Plain.

4. Economic Impact Between 1977 and 2004, North Slope oil field development and production activity contributed over $50 billion to the nations economy, directly impacting each state (http://www.anwr.org/ANWR-Basics/STATES/state.htm) in the union.

5. America's Best Chance for a Major Discovery The Coastal Plain of ANWR (http://www.anwr.com/) is America's best possibility for the discovery of another giant "Prudhoe Bay-sized" oil and gas discovery in North America. U.S. Department of Interior estimates range from 9 to 16 billion barrels of recoverable oil.

6. North Slope Production in Decline The North Slope oil fields currently provide the U.S. with nearly 16% of it's domestic production and since 1988 this production has been on the decline. Peak production was reached in 1980 of two million barrels a day, but has been declining to a current level of 731,000 barrels a day.

7. Imported Oil Too Costly In 2007, the US imported an average of 60% of its oil and during certain months up to 64%. That equates to over $330 billion in oil imports. That’s $37.75 million per hour gone out of our economy! Factor in the cost to defend our imported oil, and the costs in jobs and industry sent abroad, the total would be nearly a trillion dollars.

8. No Negative Impact on Animals Oil and gas development and wildlife are successfully coexisting in Alaska 's arctic. For example, the Central Arctic Caribou Herd (CACH) which migrates through Prudhoe Bay has grown from 3000 animals to its current level of 32,000 animals. The arctic oil fields have very healthy brown bear, fox and bird populations equal to their surrounding areas.

9. Arctic Technology Advanced technology (http://www.anwr.org/ANWR-Basics/techno/drilling.htm) has greatly reduced the 'footprint" of arctic oil development. If Prudhoe Bay were built today, the footprint would be 1,526 acres, 64% smaller.

10. Alaskans Support More than 75% of Alaskans favor exploration and production in ANWR. The democratically elected Alaska State Legislatures, congressional delegations, and Governors elected over the past 25 years have unanimously supported opening the Coastal Plain of ANWR. The Inupiat Eskimos who live in and near ANWR support onshore oil development on the Coastal Plain.

more...

Most geologists agree that the potential of recoverable oil on the Coastal Plain is in the order of billions of barrels and trillions of cubic feet of recoverable gas and that these resources may rival the initial reserves at Prudhoe Bay. The validity of these estimates can only be proved by drilling exploratory wells. Before oil and gas development in the Coastal Plain can proceed, Congress and the President need to authorize leasing and development.

Less than 100 miles west of ANWR lies Prudhoe Bay, North America's largest oil field, located along similar geologic trends. Prudhoe, together with Kuparuk, Lisburne and Endicott, accounts for about 25 percent of U.S. domestic oil production. Millions of dollars of research on wildlife resources and their habitat on Alaska's North Slope have not only immeasurably increased the scientific understanding of arctic ecosystems but have also shown that wildlife and petroleum development and production can coexist.

Each-year thousands of waterfowl and other birds nest and reproduce the Prudhoe Bay and Kuparuk fields and a healthy and increasing caribou herd migrates through these areas to calve and seek respite from annoying pests. Oil field facilities have been located and designed to accommodate wildlife and utilize the least amount of tundra surface.

Experience gained at Prudhoe Bay and Kuparuk along with rapidly evolving drilling and production techniques will further minimize environmental impacts and surface use in future frontier arctic petroleum provinces such as ANWR. Further, there have evolved since the late 1960's, a sophisticated regulatory framework and permitting process at the federal, state, and local (North Slope Borough) level. These require measured, thoroughly researched and planned development activities focused on environmental protection.

The consensus of the geologic community is that the Coastal Plain of ANWR represents the highest petroleum potential onshore area yet to be explored in North America. This potential is believed to be on the order of billions of barrels of recoverable oil and may rival that of the Prudhoe Bayfield. Should leasing be permitted and subsequent commercial discoveries be made, it will be an estimated 15 years or more before oil and gas production from ANWR reaches market. That production will then be urgently required by the United States. Despite the current oil glut and decline in oil prices, the U.S. oil supply picture by the late 1990s could be bleak. Domestic crude oil production, which has already declined from nearly 9 million barrels per day in 1985 to about 6.6 million barrels per day in early 1995, is projected to decline to less than 5 million barrels per day in 2010. Even with only a modest growth in U.S. crude oil demand, the deficit in U.S. supplies will be on the order of 10 million barrels per day, which will have to be made up by new discoveries or imports. ANWR's contribution will therefore be critical to national energy needs.

The issue of oil and gas leasing in the 8 percent of ANWR represented by the Coastal Plain should not be considered, therefore, as an "either/or" decision with respect to preservation of important fish and wildlife resources. The record of other petroleum development on the North Slope supports application of multiple use management concepts in ANWR.

Nevertheless, in issuing its decision with regard to future management of the Coastal Plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, Congress will be faced with the challenge of reconciling diverse goals, national needs for additional domestic energy supplies, the national need and interest in preservation of wilderness or nearly wild lands, and the promise (in ANCSA and ANILCA) to Alaska Natives regarding continued availability of subsistence fish and wildlife resources. These goals are not, however, mutually exclusive. Given the oil and gas exploration and production technology existing today, the ANWR Coastal Plain can be opened to leasing that is consistent with all of these important requirements.

(old article, but still informative)

[Ashliana]

>>> I'll post on this later when I have time to do the proper research and get an answer that he won't mindlessly dismiss as "biased" and "liberally slanted." >>>

I don't need the PB/Gan seals of approval to read anything you have, Ash. Post away.

The mindlessly dismiss comment wasn't directed towards you, but the "will post later" part was. Sorry if that was unclear.

[RainyDay2080]

http://www.anwr.org/
1. Only 8% of ANWR Would Be Considered for Exploration Only the 1.5 million acre or 8% on the northern coast of ANWR is being considered for development. The remaining 17.5 million acres or 92% of ANWR will remain permanently closed to any kind of development.

And why would we believe this?

Currently the entire ANWR is permanently closed to development. But they argue, this is such a teensy amount of the area. It's silly not to allow development on this teensy amount. What kind of idiots won't allow this insubstantial thing? The rest will remain permanently closed.

If the area now is closed and they are willing to discuss and allow opening that teensy part, I say the idiots are anyone who believes the statement that the rest will remain closed. If it's allowed once it will be allowed again. Because look at how much is left! It's still only just a teensy bit, merely an additional teensy bit to the last teensy bit.

It's like protected old growth forests. Thousands of acres of unreplaceable old growth forests are protected against logging and road development. But we need more trees to log and old growth logs are the best, so the goverment caves and allows more acres to be cut. But it's okay because of look at how much we have left! Except that because more protected acres are opened up we don't have nearly as much left now as we used to. When does it stop and the phrase "the rest will remain untouched" becomes a true statement of fact?

RD

[Gan]

And why would we believe this?

Currently the entire ANWR is permanently closed to development. But they argue, this is such a teensy amount of the area. It's silly not to allow development on this teensy amount. What kind of idiots won't allow this insubstantial thing? The rest will remain permanently closed.

If the area now is closed and they are willing to discuss and allow opening that teensy part, I say the idiots are anyone who believes the statement that the rest will remain closed. If it's allowed once it will be allowed again. Because look at how much is left! It's still only just a teensy bit, merely an additional teensy bit to the last teensy bit.

It's like protected old growth forests. Thousands of acres of unreplaceable old growth forests are protected against logging and road development. But we need more trees to log and old growth logs are the best, so the goverment caves and allows more acres to be cut. But it's okay because of look at how much we have left! Except that because more protected acres are opened up we don't have nearly as much left now as we used to. When does it stop and the phrase "the rest will remain untouched" becomes a true statement of fact?

RD

You're right, we should just open up the whole thing for development.

[Parkbandit]

As you wish.

http://www.gwichinsteeringcommittee.org/gwichinniintsyaa.html

I'll post on this later when I have time to do the proper research and get an answer that he won't mindlessly dismiss as "biased" and "liberally slanted."

LOL.. you actually think your above link was unbiased and not liberally slanted?

[Clove]

And why would we believe this?Because oil isn't expected to be located in any large amount in the other 92%.

[crb]

Those inuit you're talking about rely on the animals that would negatively impacted by this. Just because "only brown people will be affected" doesn't mean that we should do it.

The inuit are exactly the people who WANT to drill. Alaskans want to drill, alaskans of all colors. I'm not sure they appreciate liberal elites telling them how they should be living.



First off, ANWR is going to take a long ass time to develop as it's not an easy place to drill.

Actually no. The transalaskan pipeline is already in place. Oil infrastructure just outside of anwar is already in place, and it is coastal so you could even stick it on a tanker instead of loading it up on a pipeline (pipeline is safer though).

http://www.anchorrising.com/barnacles/anwr.bmp
http://www.anchorrising.com/barnacles/anwr.bmp
http://www.anchorrising.com/barnacles/anwr.bmp
http://www.anchorrising.com/barnacles/anwr.bmp
http://www.anchorrising.com/barnacles/anwr.bmp
http://www.anchorrising.com/barnacles/anwr.bmp
http://www.anchorrising.com/barnacles/anwr.bmp
http://www.anchorrising.com/barnacles/anwr.bmp

Excessive? Maybe... but I think half the posters in here could stand to do with a flipping visual aid.

So seriously...



Is there a guarantee that drilling in Alaska will lower prices,

Yes. Even just annoucing it would. The Economist had a report this week about how the psychological affect would depress oil futures markets thus lowering prices.



especially considering the yearly increase in demand?

So, because prices will go higher, we should do nothing to mitigate them? That is some ass backwards logic.


There is discussion about lowering prices, which should most importantly include lowering demand, but nothing serious has been brought to the table and nothing serious will be brought to the table in my opinion. Conservation and alternative energy sources need to be part of any solution to reduce cost and demand, instead of automatically agreeing that a more increased supply should be the only serious solution because it just doesn't make sense in the long run.

EVERYONE IS SAYING THIS. There isn't a single republican, atleast one I've heard, who is saying "only drill, do nothing else." Everyone wants alternatives (not all alternatives though, ethanol is bullshit). You're saying you haven't seen it, you must have your head in the sand, honestly. Even oil companies are getting into renewables, building solar plants and wind farms and etc etc.



Oh, look! A mindless, to-hell-with-the-consequences-I'll-be-long-dead-when-we-feel-them reactionary doesn't care about the planet as long as he gets his precious black gold. The effect on the environment is larger than just the visual presence of equipment.

Holy hypocrite batman, you think PB doesn't think about consequences. What do you think you're doing? What are the environmental consequences of misguided green policies such as ethanol & biofuels? What are the economic consequences of high oil prices?

[Ashliana]

LOL.. you actually think your above link was unbiased and not liberally slanted?

Wow. I don't think I've ever met anyone as willfully blind and full of shit as you are. You are completely, 100% spoon-fed by propaganda and rhetoric. Congratulations.

The above link is the direct response of the people whom would be directly affected by this. There is no other, more direct source than this. What you've moronically asserted is tantamount to dismissing any complaint that comes directly out of Darfur, because they're somehow "biased" and "slanted" by having been the ones to experience the conflict.

[crb]

And why would we believe this?

Currently the entire ANWR is permanently closed to development. But they argue, this is such a teensy amount of the area. It's silly not to allow development on this teensy amount. What kind of idiots won't allow this insubstantial thing? The rest will remain permanently closed.

If the area now is closed and they are willing to discuss and allow opening that teensy part, I say the idiots are anyone who believes the statement that the rest will remain closed. If it's allowed once it will be allowed again. Because look at how much is left! It's still only just a teensy bit, merely an additional teensy bit to the last teensy bit.

It's like protected old growth forests. Thousands of acres of unreplaceable old growth forests are protected against logging and road development. But we need more trees to log and old growth logs are the best, so the goverment caves and allows more acres to be cut. But it's okay because of look at how much we have left! Except that because more protected acres are opened up we don't have nearly as much left now as we used to. When does it stop and the phrase "the rest will remain untouched" becomes a true statement of fact?

RD
This is a horrible argument.

You're saying that people might see that the small footprint is a success and not an environmental hazard and then be okay with a larger footprint so long as it is the same?

Isn't that democracy? Do you know better than the will of the people?

[Ashliana]

Holy hypocrite batman, you think PB doesn't think about consequences. What do you think you're doing? What are the environmental consequences of misguided green policies such as ethanol & biofuels? What are the economic consequences of high oil prices?

Right! As a representative of "the liberals," I'm responsible for other people's advocacy of ethanol? Makes a lot of sense. As I posted earlier, I don't agree with ethanol or biofuel in general produced from corn or even sugarcane. There is promising biofuel research; especially regarding the microbial breakdown of plant roughage that could be used for non-edible farm products.

The point is that drilling in ANWR isn't going to relieve the world's oil problems; at best, it will provide a slight offset to the current expanding growth, at the cost of harming the ecosystem of a national wildlife preserve and the ecosystem the surrounding peoples rely on for sustenance.

The best solution--the best economic solution--is to develop the technology to break our independence on oil forever.

[TheEschaton]

Funny, I say the same thing about the Patriot Act.

[Ashliana]

This is a horrible argument.

You're saying that people might see that the small footprint is a success and not an environmental hazard and then be okay with a larger footprint so long as it is the same?

Isn't that democracy? Do you know better than the will of the people?

Guess what? This is the same "slippery slope" argument that the Republicans love to mis-use. Except in this case it actually makes sense.

Right now, the land is so-called "permanently" protected. You're saying we should drill a "small part of it" and leave the rest "permanently" protected. If we drill now, that "permanent" notion means absolutely nothing and before you know it, we've lost the entire wildlife preserve for oil that won't offset the continual expansion of oil demand for any significant period of time.

[CrystalTears]

So because it won't solve anything immediately, or be the end-all, be-all of oil production, it shouldn't be done at all? Why does it have to be an all or nothing issue with some people? Why can't we try and tap all of OUR available resources AND look for newer sources?

[Ashliana]

So because it won't solve anything immediately, or be the end-all, be-all of oil production, it shouldn't be done at all? Why does it have to be an all or nothing issue with some people? Why can't we try and tap all of OUR available resources AND look for newer sources?

No. I said that because it won't have much of an effect on oil prices, but it WILL have an effect on ANWR itself, it's not worth drilling. We do have alternatives.

[Clove]

If we drill now, that "permanent" notion means absolutely nothing and before you know it, we've lost the entire wildlife preserve for oil that won't offset the continual expansion of oil demand for any significant period of time.That's a mighty big "if". It sort of reminds me of the "if we allow gay marriage then pretty soon people will be married to donkeys."

[Warriorbird]

I just think it's not worth drilling NOW. We can't exactly inject the ground with crude.

TheE's comment reminded me of that one bit of 'The Departed' where they're all dancing around and happy about the Patriot Act. I bet Alec Baldwin loved that scene.

Hey, Clove.

If we allow gay marriage it will destroy the institution of marriage! We ought to make an amendment to divide the public!

Heard that one before?

[Parkbandit]

No. I said that because it won't have much of an effect on oil prices, but it WILL have an effect on ANWR itself, it's not worth drilling. We do have alternatives.

Please list those alternatives that are immediately available to us. I can't wait to go through this 'list'.

[Clove]

No. I said that because it won't have much of an effect on oil prices, but it WILL have an effect on ANWR itself, it's not worth drilling. We do have alternatives.Stick to law. It will increase potential supply which will relieve speculative pressure on oil (although I'm not sure what your definition of "much" is. You don't see that term amongst oil analysis these days).

[Ashliana]

That's a mighty big "if". It sort of reminds me of the "if we allow gay marriage then pretty soon people will be married to donkeys."

That's the problem with slippery slope arguments. Usually they make absolutely no sense because people make "logical" jumps that don't make sense. Like how allowing two consensual adults to marry somehow translates into someone marrying a life form that is incapable of consent.

However, in the case she was making, it makes perfect sense. Something is currently labeled off-limits. You're saying "we should just take this little area for oil use and leave the rest protected." Yet those same articles have said they're hoping this oil expansion will find another massive reserve. Which would mean what? More drilling, and more destruction of ANWR.

[Warriorbird]

Build a bunch of nuclear plants. Right now.
Cease being dicks in the Middle East.
Diplomacy with Russia.
Diplomacy with Venezuela.

Some of those aren't immediately available because Bush is still President. Others aren't immediately available because of namsy pamsy NIMBY types. All could be done with the proper push.

[CrystalTears]

However, in the case she was making, it makes perfect sense. Something is currently labeled off-limits. You're saying "we should just take this little area for oil use and leave the rest protected." Yet those same articles have said they're hoping this oil expansion will find another massive reserve. Which would mean what? More drilling, and more destruction of ANWR.

Could you use people's handles instead of referring to everyone as "she"? It would make it easier to understand who you're speaking about.

[BigWorm]

Um, isn't this thread about Wesley Clark? Derailment much?

With regard to that, here's the original quotes:


Because in the matters of national security policy making, it's a matter of understanding risk. It's a matter of gauging your opponents, and it's a matter of being held accountable. John McCain's never done any of that in his official positions. I certainly honor his service as a prisoner of war. He was a hero to me and to hundreds of thousands and millions of others in Armed Forces as a prisoner of war. He has been a voice on the Senate Armed Services Committee, and he has traveled all over the world. But he hasn't held executive responsibility.

and

I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president

His point is that while McCain's service, especially as a POW, is commendable, it doesn't really have anything to do with the skills and traits necessary to be president. Clark wasn't saying that McCain was unfit to be president, just that being a POW doesn't automatically qualify him for the position.

Here a link to the original TV interview (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kag0bBJVkIw).

[Ashliana]

Could you use people's handles instead of referring to everyone as "she"? It would make it easier to understand who you're speaking about.


I was referring to RainyDay.

[Clove]

That's the problem with slippery slope arguments. Usually they make absolutely no sense because people make "logical" jumps that don't make sense. Like how allowing two consensual adults to marry somehow translates into someone marrying a life form that is incapable of consent.

However, in the case she was making, it makes perfect sense.In otherwords the argument applies, when you agree with the result. Nice.

[Ashliana]

In otherwords the argument applies, when you agree with the result. Nice.

Again. Reading comprehension. What I said is that people along the same lines as you misuse the argument all the time. She used it properly. The "gay marriage" example mentioned does not make sense.

It's not a matter of using it when convenient. It's a matter of using it properly.

[Clove]

Again. Reading comprehension. What I said is that people along the same lines as you misuse the argument all the time.There's no way to properly use a bad argument (albeit you seem determined to).

[Ashliana]

There's no way to properly use a bad argument (albeit you seem determined to).

Rainy was the one using the slippery slope argument. It's a valid argument. The problem is that so-called conservatives mis-use it constantly in cases where it isn't appropriate or simply don't apply. Like gay marriage.

I'm not vested in using it or not using it.

[Clove]

Rainy was the one using the slippery slope argument. It's a valid argument.A slippery-slope argument is NEVER valid. In debate it is considered a fallacy.

[Ashliana]

A slippery-slope argument is NEVER valid. In debate it is considered a fallacy.

Generally, they are. However, what she said technically isn't the same type of fallacious argument that you're referring to. The fallacy is that jumps that have no logical basis are made, whereas hers do.

[BigWorm]

Generally, they are. However, what she said technically isn't the same type of fallacious argument that you're referring to. The fallacy is that jumps that have no logical basis are made, whereas hers do.

There are few situations where a slippery slope argument is the best arugment.

[Clove]

Generally, they are. However, what she said technically isn't the same type of fallacious argument that you're referring to. The fallacy is that jumps that have no logical basis are made, whereas hers do.Not generally. Are. A slippery slope is a fallacious argument. There isn't any more proof that drilling in 8% of ANWR will result in drilling the remaining 92% than there is for allowing gay marriage would result in polygamy. It's a slippery slope argument and it's false. You don't get to validate it because you agree with the point of the argument. Reading comprehension.

[Ashliana]

Not generally. Are. A slippery slope is a fallacious argument. There isn't any more proof that drilling in 8% of ANWR will result in drilling the remaining 92% than there is for allowing gay marriage would result in polygamy. It's a slippery slope argument and it's false. You don't get to validate it because you agree with the point of the argument. Reading comprehension.

Reading comprehension. I said, technically what she said isn't a slippery slope argument. By drilling now in a so-called "permanent" protected area, you're invalidating the notion that "permanent" means anything whatsoever.

The next time we're in an oil crisis, what do you think is likely to happen? Or, if as some of the links YOU'VE provided, they hope to find another enormous source of oil. For what purpose? To leave alone in the still "permanently" protected lands? ..No.

[Clove]

Reading comprehension. I said, technically what she said isn't a slippery slope argument.Is this more of your clarification? Now, technically, it isn't a slippery slope despite repeated posts that RainyDay "correctly" used a slippery slope argument. You're a piece of work.

[Ashliana]

Is this more of your clarification? Now, technically, it isn't a slippery slope despite repeated posts that RainyDay "correctly" used a slippery slope argument. You're a piece of work.

You're trying to argue semantics to get around addressing Rainy's actual concerns, much like you tried to poke a hole in my example rather than addressing my argument.

You're being intentionally evasive because when confronted on the actual issues, you have very little to say.

[Ashliana]

"The heart of the slippery slope fallacy lies in abusing the intuitively appreciable transitivity of implication, claiming that A lead to B, B leads to C, C leads to D and so on, until one finally claims that A leads to Z.

While this is formally valid when the premises are taken as a given, each of those contingencies needs to be factually established before the relevant conclusion can be drawn. Slippery slopes occur when this is not done -- an argument that supports the relevant premises is not fallacious and thus isn't a slippery slope in technical definition of the term."

She didn't make claims that are not factually established. If we drill in ANWR--which becomes a fact--if we drill in a so-called "permanently" protected area, establsihing a PRECEDENT of drilling in "PERMANENTLY PROTECTED AREAS," then there is absolutely no value in the meaning "permanently protected" and nothing to stop us from further expansion. She made no illogical jumps from A->Z. You don't want to address her argument, because it's devastating to yours.

[Clove]

She didn't make claims that are not factually established. If we drill in ANWR--which becomes a fact--if we drill in a so-called "permanently" protected area, establsihing a PRECEDENT of drilling in "PERMANENTLY PROTECTED AREAS," then there is absolutely no value in the meaning "permanently protected" and nothing to stop us from further expansion. She made no illogical jumps from A->Z. You don't want to address her argument, because it's devastating to yours.She implied that because the precedent was established that we had no reason to believe that it wouldn't be expanded. That causality is fallacious. For starters it would depend on whether or not there was actually any profitable oil IN the other 92%. It is a slippery slope argument. I have plenty to say on the subject but unfortunately I have to waste time teaching you how to debate properly.

[Ashliana]

She implied that because the precedent was established that we had no reason to believe that it wouldn't be expanded. That causality is fallacious. For starters it would depend on whether or not there was actually any profitable oil IN the other 92%. It is a slippery slope argument. I have plenty to say on the subject but unfortunately I have to waste time teaching you how to debate properly.

Nothing she said is fallacious. Do you even know what a precedent IS? Setting aside the "permanently protected" status and saying that we can drill in it, renders the status absolutely meaningless, because it doesn't protect it from being drilled in.

That is not fallacious.

There is a definite possibility we'll find more oil. The pro-drillers have been saying this. Links that either you or Gan (I'll go back in a moment and find out) directly stated this. It's not unreasonable to expect that we might. There's also other oil in other protected areas, such as off-shore.

If we're willing to drill in one place that's protected, why not another? It's not a fallacious, logically unsupported jump--the kind that is necessary for it to be called a "slippery slope" argument. I'm sorry. You're wrong.

[Ashliana]

Yep, I was right. Gan posted it.


Top ten reasons to support ANWR development
1. Only 8% of ANWR Would Be Considered for Exploration ...

5. America's Best Chance for a Major Discovery The Coastal Plain of ANWR is America's best possibility for the discovery of another giant "Prudhoe Bay-sized" oil and gas discovery in North America. U.S. Department of Interior estimates range from 9 to 16 billion barrels of recoverable oil.

What happens if we make this discovery? The discovery they're HOPING for, but somehow insist we won't be expanding our drilling past the "8%"? This isn't a fallacy. If you can't see this, you're blind.

[Clove]

If we're willing to drill in one place that's protected, why not another? It's not a fallacious, logically unsupported jump--the kind that is necessary for it to be called a "slippery slope" argument. I'm sorry. You're wrong.Now you're confusing "logical" with "factual". Allowing drilling in one spot while setting a precedent does not necessarily lead to drilling in other spots. It is a slippery slope. You're wrong (I'm sorry).

[Clove]

What happens if we make this discovery? The discovery they're HOPING for, but somehow insist we won't be expanding our drilling past the "8%"? This isn't a fallacy. If you can't see this, you're blind.Um, the hope is that they'll find the reserves in the 8% (you know, the area of exploration). Reading comprehension.

[Ashliana]

Now you're confusing "logical" with "factual". Allowing drilling in one spot while setting a precedent does not necessarily lead to drilling in other spots. It is a slippery slope. You're wrong (I'm sorry).

I'm not confusing anything. Allowing the precedent to be made renders the status of "permanently protected" meaningless. Again.. you're wrong. I'm sorry you have a problem with that.

[crb]

.... last page of posts....

holy grasping at straws batman. Now we're into semantics (it'll hurt the meaning of the word "permanent" rah rah rah).

Acting like Sheila Brovlofski

[Clove]

I'm not confusing anything. Allowing the precedent to be made renders the status of "permanently protected" meaningless. Again.. you're wrong. I'm sorry you have a problem with that.It sets a precedent. We've established that. It does NOT necessarily lead to more drilling in other areas. That's the progression you're arriving at that's fallicious. I'm sorry you're too dense to recognize a fallicious argument and I grieve for your future clients. You're going to cost them much.

[Fallen]

So, there are billions of gallons in this one little 8% piece of this area, and there is a serious argument for there being even more on the rest of it, and some are still completely against drilling there?

I don't get it. From what has been shown here the local people want it, there haven't been any major negative impacts to the environment in similar areas. Even if it doesn't immediately fix the oil problem, it will dramatically aid that part of the country's economy. The oil problem caused other aspects of the economy to fail. Why can't the reverse be true? Addressing one aspect of the economy in an effort to help benefit others.

[Ashliana]

It sets a precedent. We've established that. It does NOT necessarily lead to more drilling in other areas. That's the progression you're arriving at that's fallicious. I'm sorry you're too dense to recognize a fallicious argument and I grieve for your future clients. You're going to cost them much.

Yes, it sets a precedent. I'm glad you can see that. Now, what happens the next time we inevitably reach an oil crisis? Oil consumption and demand will continue to grow. They'll continue to grow while we start to extract the oil to begin with. And if we find this future oil?

That protection offered by that initial barrier stopping it this time--the protected status--is gone. It's not fallacious. Disagree? That's your perogative. But you're the dense one.

[Warriorbird]

For the nth time... all environmental arguments aside... it makes little sense to use up our reserves now. Things are going to get worse but America is still surviving currently. Throw on serious supply disruptions in the future and we'll miss that oil.

[Clove]

Yes, it sets a precedent. I'm glad you can see that. Now, what happens the next time we inevitably reach an oil crisis? Oil consumption and demand will continue to grow. They'll continue to grow while we start to extract the oil to begin with. And if we find this future oil?It's going to be difficult to find this future oil outside the exploration site. Reading comprehension.

[Ashliana]

It's going to be difficult to find this future oil outside the exploration site. Reading comprehension.

..Unless it's part of a huge deposit site, the kind they're looking for, that expands far beyond the 8%? Independent thought. The point is that it's undiscovered and they don't what or which area any potential discovery is located in.

[Clove]

..Unless it's part of a huge deposit site, the kind they're looking for, that expands far beyond the 8%? Independent thought. The point is that it's undiscovered and they don't what or which area any potential discovery is located in.They're pretty sure they won't find it in an area they aren't looking in. I'll bet everything you find is always in the last place you look, amirite?

[Ashliana]

It's going to be difficult to find this future oil outside the exploration site. Reading comprehension.


Originally Posted by Gan
Top ten reasons to support ANWR development
1. Only 8% of ANWR Would Be Considered for Exploration ...

5. America's Best Chance for a Major Discovery The Coastal Plain of ANWR is America's best possibility for the discovery of another giant "Prudhoe Bay-sized" oil and gas discovery in North America. U.S. Department of Interior estimates range from 9 to 16 billion barrels of recoverable oil.

They say it's the best possibility of another Prudhoe Bay sized oil field. Do you even know how large Prudhoe Bay's oil field is? 200,000+ acres. Look it up. And yet you think a discovery like that, once discovered, would be confined to the 2,000 acre drilling point, or "8%" that's mentioned? You are an idiot.

[Kembal]

The oil problem caused other aspects of the economy to fail. Why can't the reverse be true? Addressing one aspect of the economy in an effort to help benefit others.

Actually, not so much. Outside of airlines, there aren't parts of the economy that are getting hammered by fuel increases that the companies in those sectors are just shutting down left and right. What it is doing is pushing non-core inflation to pretty high levels. (and core inflation is rising as well, but since fuel isn't included in that basket, it's not as sharp of a rise) Inflation eats up any real GDP growth that might be occuring.

Inflation becomes an even worse issue than usual because with the housing bust and all the banks suffering liquidity problems, there's a massive credit crunch that's restricting economic growth. Usually, you'd loosen up the money supply by lowering the interest rate to solve this problem (as the Fed has done) The problem is that it makes inflation worse, and even worse this time around is that the banks need all the liquidity they can get, and so they're not passing on the lowered interest rates on loans to clients (commerical or individual), which means no credit for growth.

So we're taking a double whammy on inflation and we're not growing. Reducing the price of oil will help, but there are fundamental liquidity issues that need to be addressed. The problem is, I don't think anyone knows how to address them, and if so, we're going to see a major bank fail. (my guess is Citigroup. Their balance sheet is so far down the toilet that it might as well be in the septic tank.)

[diethx]

Up until recently I was working to take care of my family by taking the train into Boston to work, so I'm not sure what the fuck you are talking about.

And what does me being fat have to do with anything we are discussing here at all? Is it supposed to hurt or something? (waaah)

Angela

No, of course being called a giant slimy fatass doesn't hurt you. You've clearly proven that in the past by NOT deleting threads that make fun of how you're fat, and how other women are fat.

Oh, wait.

[DeV]

it makes little sense to use up our reserves now.
I'm not against domestic drilling, but I agree with this.

Someone has yet to explain in detail how drilling in Alaska will aid in the decrease of the global cost of oil. I also wonder if people honestly believe we'll ever be independent of foreign oil; I certainly don't. And who's to say that the oil will stay in the US. Does exportation to Asia really seem all that far off...

[Ashliana]

I'm not against domestic drilling, but I agree with this.

Someone has yet to explain in detail how drilling in Alaska will aid in the decrease of the global cost of oil. I also wonder if people honestly believe we'll ever be independent of foreign oil; I certainly don't. And who's to say that the oil will stay in the US. Does exportation to Asia really seem all that far off...

Not at all. It's been directly stated that this oil would be sent off to be sold in the global market at the current, ridiculous prices. Supposedly, this would somehow lower the price of oil globally by increasing the supply, except that absolutely NOTHING stops the OPEC cartel from reducing their supply in order in order to jack up the prices, much as they've been doing since OPEC was created.

[Clove]

They say it's the best possibility of another Prudhoe Bay sized oil field. Do you even know how large Prudhoe Bay's oil field is? 200,000+ acres. Look it up. And yet you think a discovery like that, once discovered, would be confined to the 2,000 acre drilling point, or "8%" that's mentioned? You are an idiot.Tell me something, when you drink your protein water what is the area of the straw's volume in proportion to the bottle?

[Keller]

For the nth time... all environmental arguments aside... it makes little sense to use up our reserves now. Things are going to get worse but America is still surviving currently. Throw on serious supply disruptions in the future and we'll miss that oil.

Yup.

[Ashliana]

Tell me something, when you drink your protein water what is the area of the straw's volume in proportion to the bottle?

What exactly about the prospect of finding either a vast, wide oil field that extends beyond the current proposed limit (the kind they're saying they're the most likely to find, compared to any other prospects in the US), or a vast, interconnected network of deposits, can't you grab your brain around?

[Ashliana]

I'll be back later this evening to respond to any more of your ill-thought out objections.

[CrystalTears]

I must say, for a relatively new poster, you've really grasped the art of insults quite well.

[Clove]

What exactly about the prospect of finding either a vast, wide oil field that extends beyond the current proposed limit (the kind they're saying they're the most likely to find, compared to any other prospects in the US), or a vast, interconnected network of deposits, can't you grab your brain around?What is it about:

1) You can't find something where you're not looking
2) Drilling operations don't cover the same area as the reserve

can't you grab your brain around?

[Gan]

Tell me something, when you drink your protein water what is the area of the straw's volume in proportion to the bottle?

LOL

Superbly put. This made me laugh out loud.

[Gan]

They say it's the best possibility of another Prudhoe Bay sized oil field. Do you even know how large Prudhoe Bay's oil field is? 200,000+ acres. Look it up. And yet you think a discovery like that, once discovered, would be confined to the 2,000 acre drilling point, or "8%" that's mentioned? You are an idiot.

I suggest you look up how oil is extracted from the ground before you make such idiotic statements. And see the quote from Clove I reposted, it would reinforce your lack of knowledge in oil extraction and production. Now if we were talking about trees or Al Gore - you would have all the credit in the world... but we're not.

[Warriorbird]

Once again, Gan, the Al Gore references really make you sound good when you're debating with her.

[Gan]

For the nth time... all environmental arguments aside... it makes little sense to use up our reserves now. Things are going to get worse but America is still surviving currently. Throw on serious supply disruptions in the future and we'll miss that oil.

I could abide by this as long as we have the opportunity to verify whats there, whats needed to get at it, and time to prepare for it should the time come in the future to utilize it.

As it stands now, we cant even verify its existence.

[Gan]

Once again, Gan, the Al Gore references really make you sound good when you're debating with her.

As if sounding good to you is really something I shoot for? Seriously?

[Warriorbird]

Of course not. You usually try to not come off like Archie Bunker though.

I'd be perfectly fine with


the opportunity to verify whats there, whats needed to get at it, and time to prepare for it should the time come in the future to utilize it

Look! We're more efficient than Congress!

(not that that's hard)

[Fallen]

I still say it is stupid to have a "strategic oil reserve" that everyone universally accepts wouldn't directly aid an oil crisis for years AFTER drilling was oked, and not have any damned plans to put derricks in the ground.

As I said before, build the damn thing and don't use it, but at least build it.

[Clove]

Hmmmm.

:thinking:

I don't think that word means what you think it means.

[DeV]

I still say it is stupid to have a "strategic oil reserve" that everyone universally accepts wouldn't directly aid an oil crisis for years AFTER drilling was oked, and not have any damned plans to put derricks in the ground.

As I said before, build the damn thing and don't use it, but at least build it.Good point, but one major problem with that; the shortage of oil rigs, ships, and manpower to begin the process.

[Parkbandit]

So, there are billions of gallons in this one little 8% piece of this area, and there is a serious argument for there being even more on the rest of it, and some are still completely against drilling there?

I don't get it. From what has been shown here the local people want it, there haven't been any major negative impacts to the environment in similar areas. Even if it doesn't immediately fix the oil problem, it will dramatically aid that part of the country's economy. The oil problem caused other aspects of the economy to fail. Why can't the reverse be true? Addressing one aspect of the economy in an effort to help benefit others.

I can summarize Assliana's points for you:

1) It's fucking a pristine paradise, you fucking idiot.
2) There are black people there.. and drilling there means you are a racist.
3) If you drill in 2,000 acres, you end up destroying 19 million acres. Size doesn't matter.
4) If we don't protect the term "Permanent", who will!? Who will stand up for Permanent.. it has rights!

[Parkbandit]

I'm not against domestic drilling, but I agree with this.

Someone has yet to explain in detail how drilling in Alaska will aid in the decrease of the global cost of oil. I also wonder if people honestly believe we'll ever be independent of foreign oil; I certainly don't. And who's to say that the oil will stay in the US. Does exportation to Asia really seem all that far off...


It's not JUST ANWR or JUST off shore drilling or converting shale to oil or using coal... but a combination of everything. Increasing the supply will have a positive impact on cost of energy.

Granted, this is merely a band aid. Without real progress and investment in alternative energy, we will be in the same exact place some 30 years down the road. Problem is.. once gas prices start to drop, people will go back to their own little problems and it will once again be forgotten.

[Parkbandit]

I still say it is stupid to have a "strategic oil reserve" that everyone universally accepts wouldn't directly aid an oil crisis for years AFTER drilling was oked, and not have any damned plans to put derricks in the ground.

As I said before, build the damn thing and don't use it, but at least build it.


Not everyone universally accepts. That's the liberal spin on things so we can keep our pristine paradise safe from those bad and evil oil companies (and probably Haliburton somehow)

[Clove]

Problem is.. once gas prices start to drop, people will go back to their own little problems and it will once again be forgotten.QFT. Refinery expansion also needs to occur.

[Clove]

The Strategic Oil Reserve is not the collective untapped resource. It's a storage facility of 800ish million barrels of oil. Opening it up won't effect oil prices either.

[DeV]

Increasing the supply will have a positive impact on cost of energy.I have serious doubts, but keep in mind I am not against domestic drilling. Increased production equates to increased profit in my mind. In any case, if you have supporting information to provide a factual basis to this position, feel free to post it.


Without real progress and investment in alternative energy, we will be in the same exact place some 30 years down the road. Agree.


Problem is.. once gas prices start to drop, people will go back to their own little problems and it will once again be forgotten.I personally hope gas prices contine to rise primarily for this reason and countless others.

Reversing the trend of energy dependence and increasing energy costs is years off and needs to begin with us, the consumers.

[Parkbandit]

Our economy can't handle this rise in oil much longer. Vital industries like airlines, vehicle manufacturing, trucking, etc.. are already on the breaking point. When airlines go, then hotels go.. and it steamrolls from there.

[Clove]

I personally hope gas prices contine to rise primarily for this reason and countless others.

Reversing the trend of energy dependence and increasing energy costs is years off and needs to begin with us, the consumers.Alternative energy won't be developed until oil is more expensive than the alternative (pun intended). The technology has been here for decades, but not the demand. Demand won't arrive until oil becomes expensive enough for consumers to be interested in substitutes, period.

In the meantime we need to supply our needs locally or failing that, eliminate dependence on OPEC oil.

[Parkbandit]

I have serious doubts, but keep in mind I am not against domestic drilling. Increased production equates to increased profit in my mind. In any case, if you have supporting information to provide a factual basis to this position, feel free to post it.


I'm not saying that you increase supply, the price automatically goes down. That's just not the case with oil. The supply would have to dramatically increase if it's going to have a big impact. Just drilling in ANWR isn't the answer.. it has to be a combination of all domestic supplies to make a dramatic difference in supply.

[Clove]

Our economy can't handle this rise in oil much longer... vehicle manufacturing...Unless you're manufacturing Prius'. Tsa'ah will survive, don't you worry.

[DeV]

Demand won't arrive until oil becomes expensive enough for comsumers to be interested in substitutes, period.Yup. Hence my comment about increasing oil costs, which I hope continue to impact the economy. Americans haven't begun to experience the wake up call that will produce that kind of demand. For now, everything, including our discource, is nothing but "blah, blah, blah", but necessary nonetheless.

[DeV]

I'm not saying that you increase supply, the price automatically goes down. That's just not the case with oil. The supply would have to dramatically increase if it's going to have a big impact. Just drilling in ANWR isn't the answer.. it has to be a combination of all domestic supplies to make a dramatic difference in supply.That makes a ton more sense as oil supply and demand certainly dictate otherwise, and it's the reason I asked for your elaboration.

[Latrinsorm]

Perhaps you should slow down a little so next time you'll get the factiousness when you come across it.Assuming this meant facetiousness, I am quite confident it was not the primary motivation for PB's not subjecting you personally to his image array.
Where they want to drill is the shitty scrub PB showed, not pretty glacial mountains.How pretty a location is is not related in any way to the environmental impact caused by its perturbation.
Who are we to not let them?I suppose you would be against JFK ordering troops into Ole Miss too, or is that too gosh darned far in the past for you to notice that it's the exact same argument you're making now?

[BigWorm]

Our economy can't handle this rise in oil much longer. Vital industries like airlines, vehicle manufacturing, trucking, etc.. are already on the breaking point. When airlines go, then hotels go.. and it steamrolls from there.

People are still buying cars, but they are buying different types of cars. This is bad for the Detroit car makers because they haven't bothered to focus on increasing fuel economy, but with high gas prices people have changed buying preferences and I'm sure their new models improve on this area.

For someone with such a big boner for capitalism, I would think you would at least understand how supply and demand works.

[Parkbandit]

People are still buying cars, but they are buying different types of cars. This is bad for the Detroit car makers because they haven't bothered to focus on increasing fuel economy, but with high gas prices people have changed buying preferences and I'm sure their new models improve on this area.

For someone with such a big boner for capitalism, I would think you would at least understand how supply and demand works.


Who said I didn't understand how it works, simpleton? I didn't discuss WHY car sales are slumping.. I simply said they were slumping. And when people are paying more and more for gas, how much do you think they will have left over for a new car?

For someone with such a small boner, I'm surprised you even read it.. because it's clear you fail at comprehension on most posts.

[Gan]

Interesting article/video on Shale Oil.

http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=122733

[crb]

How pretty a location is is not related in any way to the environmental impact caused by its perturbation.

So why do liberal douches post pretty pictures of Alaska when trying to deflect calls for drilling?

[Ashliana]

So why do liberal douches post pretty pictures of Alaska when trying to deflect calls for drilling?

In response to the douchebag conservatives that tried to use ugly pictures to justify calls for drilling?

Thanks, Parkbandit, for spitting out Rush's member long enough to contribute); look at posts #77, #111, #112 of this thread and ask your question again.

[crb]

We're not using ugly pictures out of propaganda. We're using pictures of the actual location.

I get the impression you know almost nothing about this topic. There was this special on CNN a few months ago where they went up there, showed the land, showed were a test well was drilled before, interviewed the people who live there (and want drilling). I wish I could send your ass back in time to watch it.

It is one thing to argue with someone who understands the facts and just has a different opinion. It is a whole other thing to argue with someone who has no clue and who worse, makes up things.

[Stanley Burrell]

For someone with such a small boner, I'm surprised you even read it.. because it's clear you fail at comprehension on most posts.

Not say words about other men-people's boner, dirty boy.

[Ashliana]

We're not using ugly pictures out of propaganda. We're using pictures of the actual location.

I get the impression you know almost nothing about this topic. There was this special on CNN a few months ago where they went up there, showed the land, showed were a test well was drilled before, interviewed the people who live there (and want drilling). I wish I could send your ass back in time to watch it.

It is one thing to argue with someone who understands the facts and just has a different opinion. It is a whole other thing to argue with someone who has no clue and who worse, makes up things.

You are just absolutely full of shit. You stick to mindless, Republican-spewed rhetoric. Like "the people who live there want drilling." Except that I've already linked to an indigenous group of people who live there and vehemently oppose it. So either you're full of it, or you don't know the whole story. So your impressions don't really mean a lot to me.

[Stanley Burrell]

Let me ask you this. Does anybody here know how the moon was formed?

Congress!

Yeah, that's, that's, that's... Ding!

And, uh, what about the oceans?

Congress.

Ding!

Ding!

Ding!

Ding!

Ding!

Ding!



Edited very seriously to add: Those YouTube motherfuckers took down each episode of Perfect Hair Forever. Argh. Too early for this.

[Warriorbird]

We're not using ugly pictures out of propaganda. We're using pictures of the actual location.

So is she...

...and the idea that you're not using it for propaganda is hilarious.

(not, mind you, that I oppose this on environmental grounds)

[Ashliana]

So is she...

...and the idea that you're not using it for propaganda is hilarious.

(not, mind you, that I oppose this on environmental grounds)

The level of just.. willful blindness and hypocrisy with his stating that is just absurd.

[Daniel]

I was becoming very fond of the term "willful ignorance" to describe the conservatives on this board for a while. Then I realized it was redudent.

[Stanley Burrell]

I was becoming very fond of the term "willful ignorance" to describe the conservatives on this board for a while. Then I realized it was redudent.

Pwwwwwwwwwwwnnnnnnnnnnnnnnd.

[Gan]

We're not using ugly pictures out of propaganda. We're using pictures of the actual location.

I get the impression you know almost nothing about this topic. There was this special on CNN a few months ago where they went up there, showed the land, showed were a test well was drilled before, interviewed the people who live there (and want drilling). I wish I could send your ass back in time to watch it.

It is one thing to argue with someone who understands the facts and just has a different opinion. It is a whole other thing to argue with someone who has no clue and who worse, makes up things.

Careful, she'll put you on ignore once she realizes that your right and she's not. ;)

[Ashliana]

Careful, she'll put you on ignore once she realizes that your right and she's not. ;)

You're right! The realization just kicked in! Oh, wait. It's gone. I almost had it, though! Keep trying, Gan! Maybe someday insisting the same bullshit over and over again is true will become reality, and you'll be able to let go of your reassurance blanket.

[DeV]

rofl

[Parkbandit]

You are just absolutely full of shit. You stick to mindless, Republican-spewed rhetoric. Like "the people who live there want drilling." Except that I've already linked to an indigenous group of people who live there and vehemently oppose it. So either you're full of it, or you don't know the whole story. So your impressions don't really mean a lot to me.

You are just absolutely full of shit. You stick to mindless, Liberal-spewed rhetoric. Like "We have to protect this pristine paradise." So either you're full of it, or you don't know the whole story. So your impressions don't really mean a lot to me

See what I did there toots?

[Warriorbird]

Had a flashback to third grade?

[Ashliana]

You are just absolutely full of shit. You stick to mindless, Liberal-spewed rhetoric. Like "We have to protect this pristine paradise." So either you're full of it, or you don't know the whole story. So your impressions don't really mean a lot to me

See what I did there toots?

I see exactly what you did, and it's just what I'd expect from a neocon. You identify anything that's not Republican rhetoric as "Liberal" or "biased." No. You respond to everything with an ideological spin, whereas--believe it or not--other people don't do the same.

You're so full of shit you identified an indigenous people of Alaska's assertion that the drilling would negatively impact them as "liberally slanted" and "biased."

[Parkbandit]

Had a flashback to third grade?

That's exactly it.

Nice one liner though.. really.

We never get tired of them from you in every thread.

Really.

Then again, having the mental capacity to do more than simple one liners is probably asking too much from you.. isn't it.

[Parkbandit]

I see exactly what you did, and it's just what I'd expect from a neocon. You identify anything that's not Republican rhetoric as "Liberal" or "biased." No. You respond to everything with an ideological spin, whereas--believe it or not--other people don't do the same.

Hey dumb cunt.. aren't you doing the SAME EXACT THING?

I always thought that there was no way anyone could be a bigger hypocrite than Backlash.. but you may have just trumped him.

[Warriorbird]

Well... you get to a certain point and you give up on some folks having rational thought. You'll never believe in a single environmental cause unless you are part of it. You just don't possess the capacity to care for anything in that regard unless it effects you or your family right now. I could try to write something eloquent but it wouldn't matter. Thus I find it a lot more fun to follow your bullshit responses with one liners.

You'd rather pound on a conservative talking point (anti environmentalism) than see any other reasons why we might not want to drill in the ANWR either. Why should I bother?

[Ashliana]

Hey dumb cunt.. aren't you doing the SAME EXACT THING?

I always thought that there was no way anyone could be a bigger hypocrite than Backlash.. but you may have just trumped him.

Hello, unreasonably hostile neocon. No, I'm not doing the same thing. You're so blind you can't tell when something is genuine, or neutral. Everything that's not pro-your cause instantly becomes "biased" or "slanted."

That's why you're a fucking idiot.

[Parkbandit]

Well... you get to a certain point and you give up on some folks having rational thought. You'll never believe in a single environmental cause unless you are part of it. You just don't possess the capacity to care for anything in that regard unless it effects you or your family right now. I could try to write something eloquent but it wouldn't matter. Thus I find it a lot more fun to follow your bullshit responses with one liners.

You'd rather pound on a conservative talking point (anti environmentalism) than see any other reasons why we might not want to drill in the ANWR either. Why should I bother?

Why should you bother? I don't give two shits about you, so please.. stop.

And it's funny you claim I don't believe in one environmental cause.. well, except the two businesses I created 3 years ago. You know so much though, don't you simpleton.

[Ashliana]

Why should you bother? I don't give two shits about you, so please.. stop.

And it's funny you claim I don't believe in one environmental cause.. well, except the two businesses I created 3 years ago. You know so much though, don't you simpleton.

He's right. Why should he bother? You made your decision before looking at the facts and any source of information that contradicts your predetermined stance is immediately dismissed as "biased" or "liberally slanted."

You're an ignorant, neocon troll--worse than the other two lurking around here.

[Warriorbird]

I sure don't do it for you, Parkbandit. Your degree of not caring is evident. It makes you a great Republican.

Let's see... you loudly proclaim how you're taking advantage of "idiots" with carbon offsets. You true believer!

You give your evidence here... acting like a retrograde fucking non-beating heart conservative. Perception is reality on the Internet.

Tell us of your serious environmental works! I'm not holding my breath.

[Parkbandit]

Hello, unreasonably hostile neocon. No, I'm not doing the same thing. You're so blind you can't tell when something is genuine, or neutral. Everything that's not pro-your cause instantly becomes "biased" or "slanted."

That's why you're a fucking idiot.

I just wanted to quote this for posterity... what a dumb little hypocritical cunt you've quickly turned out to be.

You haven't posted ONE neutral thing on this board in the month you've been a member... at least in a political topic.

Seriously, you've just beaten Backlash as Queen Hypocrite.. because at least Backlash was smart enough to know when he was being one.

[Warriorbird]

I somehow don't think that's quite as potent from somebody who throws down anti-environmentalism as much as you do and then goes,

"But what about my businesses! I love the Earth guys! Okay!"

[Ashliana]

I just wanted to quote this for posterity... what a dumb little hypocritical cunt you've quickly turned out to be.

You haven't posted ONE neutral thing on this board in the month you've been a member... at least in a political topic.

Seriously, you've just beaten Backlash as Queen Hypocrite.. because at least Backlash was smart enough to know when he was being one.

Again, you're incapable of determining what's neutral or not. I've posted neutral sources of information which you've dismissed as "biased" in this very thread. Right, so the people directly impacted by this who don't agree with you, are biased. But the American citizens of Alaska who would be somewhat, but less directly impacted by this who agree with you are not biased.

You are a fucking idiot.

[CrystalTears]

It's unfortunate that it would affect a small number of people, but it stands to reason that the majority of Alaskan citizens are encouraging and all for the drilling. The caribou aren't going to be harmed in this endeavor, which is what it seems the loud few were concerned about anyway.

[Warriorbird]

A much more reasoned argument. The only environmental response I see on it is this. Letting go on this opens up every single wildlife preserve in America. Why should we want to do that? Are we China?

[Ashliana]

It's unfortunate that it would affect a small number of people, but it stands to reason that the majority of Alaskan citizens are encouraging and all for the drilling. The caribou aren't going to be harmed in this endeavor, which is what it seems the loud few were concerned about anyway.

The environmental effects are debatable, if they stick to the proposed area; but he outright dismissed the concerns of the people who actually live there as "liberally slanted" and "biased." That's what I'm talking about when I call him willfully blind.

[CrystalTears]

The environmental effects are debatable, if they stick to the proposed area; but he outright dismissed the concerns of the people who actually live there as "liberally slanted" and "biased." That's what I'm talking about when I call him willfully blind.
Well in the sense that it's a biased source from the people upset about it. It helps to see something as unbiased when discussed from a neutral ground who is not going to be negatively impacted by it. And even then, I think they're not going to be affected negatively either for it to be enough of an issue to not continue with the drilling.

[Parkbandit]

Again, you're incapable of determining what's neutral or not. I've posted neutral sources of information which you've dismissed as "biased" in this very thread. Right, so the people directly impacted by this who don't agree with you, are biased. But the American citizens of Alaska who would be somewhat, but less directly impacted by this who agree with you are not biased.

You are a fucking idiot.

So if I find a site where some Alaskans (and maybe even some 'brown' ones) want to drill, will you agree then that we should automatically drill? Because at that point, I've done exactly what you've done. Find a site that agrees with my viewpoint.. so obviously that MUST be a neutral and unbiased source... and POOF! I can then claim that anyone who disagrees with me must be sucking Rush's cock or is a racist or hates Mother Earth...

In one short month, you've surpassed what it took Backlash years to accomplish.. being laughed at by everyone... regardless of party affiliation.

Congrats!!

[Warriorbird]

I dunno. Some of us laugh at people when they deserve it. I admit to cracking a grin over that Recycling thread.

Right here she isn't the one I'm finding funny.

"But what about my businesses! My environmental businesses!"

[CrystalTears]

I guess my question for people who are against it is: If Alaska is okay with it, why are people who don't live there so concerned about it?

[Warriorbird]

Because our fuel reserves are the whole country's. We have a Federal government.

[CrystalTears]

And you wouldn't want more available for our reserves? And I was speaking primarily about ANWR since that's what turned this thread off topic in a hurry.

[Ashliana]

So if I find a site where some Alaskans (and maybe even some 'brown' ones) want to drill, will you agree then that we should automatically drill? Because at that point, I've done exactly what you've done. Find a site that agrees with my viewpoint.. so obviously that MUST be a neutral and unbiased source... and POOF! I can then claim that anyone who disagrees with me must be sucking Rush's cock or is a racist or hates Mother Earth...

In one short month, you've surpassed what it took Backlash years to accomplish.. being laughed at by everyone... regardless of party affiliation.

Congrats!!

Your delusional perception aside, there are a multitude of factors to consider. These indigenous peoples of Alaska opposing the drilling are just one aspect that you've chosen to ignore. There are other factors to consider, which other people have mentioned, such as the strategic importance of preserving this for a true emergency, the value of keeping the preserve intact for the reasons it was initially declared a wildlife preservation, weighed against the value of the potential gain of drilling it, etc.

But you don't want to hear any of that, because you're a neocon mouthpiece. And for the record, you've been being laughed at for all fifteen thousand of your trolling posts, long before I showed up.

[Warriorbird]

It doesn't quite work like that, CT. The stuff stays in the ground just fine. If it came up it would be sold to the world market. We wouldn't even get benefit out of it. Asia would. It's a really dumb idea to 'lower fuel prices.'

[CrystalTears]

It doesn't quite work like that, CT. The stuff stays in the ground just fine. If it came up it would be sold to the world market. We wouldn't even get benefit out of it. Asia would. It's a really dumb idea to 'lower fuel prices.'And I believe it was never intended to be used as the main source for lowering fuel prices since it wouldn't.

[Sean]

Originally Posted by CrystalTears
And I believe it was never intended to be used as the main source for lowering fuel prices since it wouldn't.

But isn't that what's motivating this whole conversation. I'm not really concerned about gas prices right now but I don't think we'd really be having such a heated conversation right now about ANWR if gas prices were $2/gal.

[CrystalTears]

It might help some of the speculation with oil prices. I just don't believe it will be the main or only contributing factor for lowering gas prices.

[Warriorbird]

If it won't lower oil prices... why not use it for America when we really need it? There's a 50/50 chance we'll be in Iran.

[crb]

You are just absolutely full of shit. You stick to mindless, Republican-spewed rhetoric. Like "the people who live there want drilling." Except that I've already linked to an indigenous group of people who live there and vehemently oppose it. So either you're full of it, or you don't know the whole story. So your impressions don't really mean a lot to me.
all the brownskinned people on the CNN (I know, that conservative soapbox network it is) were for it. And the Alaskan Legislature is for it, which is voted for and representative of the people.

Sure, not 100%, and obviously you can find small groups against any and every change. There were large groups against the emancipation of the slaves and yet Lincoln still freed them.

The fact that you've found one small group is not indicative of a majority opinion.

ANWR is baby out with the bath water environmentalism. Too many are too quick to act without thinking about the consequences, (yes, this includes Bush in Iraq, but also most environmentalists). Sometimes the solution causes more harm than the problem. DDT was made illegal despite relatively weak environmental scientific evidence, but the greens pushed for it, and made the US refuse aid to countries that use it, so poor countries in Africa don't use it and millions of people die each year from preventable malaria. Incandescent light bulbs use more energy, which produces more CO2, and despite what people might say, there is not yet conclusive scientific proof that human CO2 production warms the planet in any extent greater than a natural occurence, you can't even prove the planet is warming, at all, on a large scale.... and yet there are these big pushes to use lower electricity using CFL bulbs, which contain mercury and which, when thrown away, have the potential to pollute our environment and cause real verifiable harm to humans and wildlife. People hate oil, people wanted ethanol. Despite the fact that it takes tons of land, fertilizer, water, soil, and yes, energy running tractors, to farm it. Despite the fact that it provides lower MPG ratings and overall the net energy gain is almost nil. Despite the fact that it creates food inflation which contributes to worldwide hunger. Despite the fact that the lost of forest to cropland is a worse blow to the environment in terms of CO2 than all the emmissions from all the cars on the road.

The supposed solution is often worse than the problem (this also applies to socialized healthcare) and you really need to think things through before jumping in head first. Environmental zealots regularly fail to do this.

Instead they listen to the greedy lawyers & entrepreneurs (http://www.tipdiva.com/2008/07/01/tipsy-tuesday-gardening-edition/) who run enviromental activist groups and act like parrots.

There is no big moustached Texan in a 10 gallon hat out there jumping up and down pouring cans of oil on a baby unicorn. No one hates the environment, we all like the environment. We like clean air, and clean water. Some people just take a more practical standpoint, try to make sure the trees don't get in the way of the forest, and want to make sure we're not costing people their jobs and a way to support their family by unnecessary regulations.

Don't think that tree hugging is a noble pursuit. Oil companies are billion dollar companies, they stand to benefit from increased drilling, although not as much as one may think. But you realize there are billion dollar solar panel manufacturers that benefit like crazy from government subsidies and renewable energy mandates. Same with wind turbine companies, and geothermal companies. The makers of CFL lightbulbs more or less paid for all the public aware advertisng for those things. Huge agribusiness is benefiting from the ethanol mandate, the Ag sector has been one of the hottest in the stock market for the last couple years. You have oilmen like T Boone Pickens buying up water rights & building wind farms... not for social reasons, but because he knows which way the political winds are blowing.

Money taints everything, you may want to call pro-drilling people shills for the oil companies, but you're just a shill for others.

Get this, I don't own stock in a single oil company, though I do have some oil service companies (companies that provide equipment/construction for the oil industry). Most of my portfolio is alternative energy companies and ag. Nevertheless, I'm against ethanol and pro drilling and pro mining, despite the fact that I do directly materially benefit from ethanol subsidies and alternative energy mandates. How do you like them apples?

[Warriorbird]

Relatively weak scientific evidence about DDT? Ha ha ha. God damn.

Wildlife preserves exist for a reason.

Why would I have a problem with people making money in a way that's healthy for the environment? I guess that's the thrust of your whole stream of consciousness ramble.

Why do you think that everybody who's environmentally conscious is somehow for ethanol?


Too many are too quick to act without thinking about the consequences

Yep. That'd be drilling in the ANWR.

[Parkbandit]

I dunno. Some of us laugh at people when they deserve it. I admit to cracking a grin over that Recycling thread.

Right here she isn't the one I'm finding funny.

"But what about my businesses! My environmental businesses!"


I never implied that she was the ONLY one being laughed at.. but more discounted by both sides for her crazed liberal stand.. then claiming she's being neutral.

And the "But what about my businesses" is almost as funny as "YOU HATE THE ALL ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS!" claim that some dipshit posted.

Oh wait, that was you.

[Parkbandit]

Because our fuel reserves are the whole country's. We have a Federal government.

You are confused... we don't have any fuel reserves in ANWR. We have untapped resources that we believe to be enormous.. but they aren't considered reserves.

[Warriorbird]

Why would they not be? They're potential. You're just playing semantics. This oil would not go into the Strategic reserves either. What's the benefit here?

[Gan]

You're right! The realization just kicked in! Oh, wait. It's gone. I almost had it, though! Keep trying, Gan! Maybe someday insisting the same bullshit over and over again is true will become reality, and you'll be able to let go of your reassurance blanket.

Let me guess, you speak from experience right?

[Parkbandit]

Your delusional perception aside, there are a multitude of factors to consider. These indigenous peoples of Alaska opposing the drilling are just one aspect that you've chosen to ignore. There are other factors to consider, which other people have mentioned, such as the strategic importance of preserving this for a true emergency, the value of keeping the preserve intact for the reasons it was initially declared a wildlife preservation, weighed against the value of the potential gain of drilling it, etc.

But you don't want to hear any of that, because you're a neocon mouthpiece. And for the record, you've been being laughed at for all fifteen thousand of your trolling posts, long before I showed up.

Have you actually found a source where every one of these indigenous people of ANWR are asked, or are you taking a biased source and extrapolating it to speak for the entire state?

And how would you know I've been laughed at for 15K posts if you just got here last month? Really? All 15K? Do you have that sourced or are you once again pulling bullshit from your gigantic ass and claiming it to be a fact?

[Warriorbird]

She's got a number of sources that she could ask.

:D

[Parkbandit]

Why would they not be? They're potential. You're just playing semantics. This oil would not go into the Strategic reserves either. What's the benefit here?

It's not semantics.. it's understanding terms like resource and reserve.

And the benefit here is to increase supply of oil. I thought that was obvious.

[Parkbandit]

She's got a number of sources that she could ask.

:D

And by using her logic, she could take those "sources" and extrapolate it out to equate to every member of the PC ever.

[Warriorbird]

Increasing the supply of oil by putting this onto the market would have negligible effect. Keeping this oil in case your new hero McCain invades Iran could save us amidst an oil embargo.

[Daniel]

Have you actually found a source where every one of these indigenous people of ANWR are asked, or are you taking a biased source and extrapolating it to speak for the entire state?


Is this worse\same\better than your "I only saw one hippy protest at a condo board meeting, thus no environmentalists care about the environment anywhere but Alaska"?



And how would you know I've been laughed at for 15K posts if you just got here last month? Really? All 15K? Do you have that sourced or are you once again pulling bullshit from your gigantic ass and claiming it to be a fact?

The above mentioned quote and I can vouch for this statement.

[Parkbandit]

Increasing the supply of oil by putting this onto the market would have negligible effect. Keeping this oil in case your new hero McCain invades Iran could save us amidst an oil embargo.

Have you become so intellectually bankrupt that you have to now just make things up to make a point? Show me where I ever considered McCain a hero (except his military service). I think I've been crystal clear on my political stance on McCan't. I don't like him.. I think he's wrong for America and I disagree with most of his bullshit. The only reason I even consider voting for him is because I think Obama is 10x worse for America.

Nice try though chump. So far, you are batting 0-2 in your retarded assumptions. And no, that's not batting 1000.