View Single Post
Old Dec 24, 2005, 03:17 pm   #19 (permalink) (top)
tman_ndsu08
BANNED
 
Posts: 5,021
Quote:
Quote by: |Chris|
1) it is a national treasure that regardless of whoever can or cannot afford to visit is besides the point
That's one of the main points.

Why bother protecting nothing?

Oh hey look a stupid rock sitting in the middle of a wasteland with no animals or plant life in sight for a 100 miles. Oh hey lets protect it and call it a "national trasure".

Oh shoot, there's a ton of oil in that rock but we can't drill it out because it's a "national treasure".

Darn, I guess we'll have to keep buying oil from the arabs and support terrorism.


Quote:
2) you dont know no animals will be harmed. Opening up this would set a dangerous precedent. Whats next allowing development in Yellowstone, Glacier National Park?
You have to love how adorable dems are.

They have to compare Yellowstone and Glacier National to a wasteland with nothing in it to try and make an argument.
tman_ndsu08 is offline   Reply With Quote