House backs oil drilling in Alaskan refuge

[brien]

Quote by: gr8fuldaniel Who do you think should count the votes? The same voting machines who decided we need oil company reps in the white house? The same machines that decided our energy policies should involve Iraq?

Well it is the best system we have, and if you don't like it, then don't vote. Just because you declare the voting system a sham, and you know better than everyone else that voting is crooked, you would deny everyone else their enfranchised right as a citizen of the US.

Furthermore, you seem to blame machines for deciding our energy policy when it is people elected by CITIZENS who cast their votes in those machines. Same goes for the people elected in the White House. Citizens elected these people and just because you, or I, don't like the results of fair and free elections, it doesn't mean you can invalidate those results of votes cast by millions of enfranchised citizens. Because you call into question the integrity of voting, doesn't mean you can deny millions of citizens who proabably disagree with you, their Constitutional right to vote.

You might want to try selling that somewhere else. We are all stocked up here on elitist viewpoints.

[Chris]

Quote by: jbarn19 My only question is; would you rather get hit at 50 MPH by an 8000 lb hummer with a car at 2500 lbs lower to the ground, or a 6000 lb SUV at equal height? That also pertains to a diesel that you won’t ever get off the roads.

No. We have already had this argument in the SUV thread. they tested a Mini in comparison to an F150 that shares the same body as an expedition. Crash test dummies dont lie.

Will have to find the thread... SUVs and trucks are safety rated differently. a mini is much more safer than an F150.

And Matt, thank God for that...

[jbarn19]

Quote by: Pooeypants I would rather that people don't drive around in such preposterously massive cars.

Okay...not the question.

[jbarn19]

Quote by: gr8fuldaniel The point? If you dont offer a reputable source for your claims, dont refer to them as facts. Call them opinions.

Okay you got me, I pulled it out of my butt. I will call them dangleberries if I want.

They are facts based off reputable scientific research. If I post a link as I have in the past you will still dismiss it and I will have wasted my time, plus this is much funner.

[US Independent]

I do not think it is the governments responsibility to tell Alaska what it may or may not do with their land. Enviromentalists in New York and Florida have no clue what Alaska is like they should have no right in saying what should or should not be done. Yes ANWR is a "wildlife" refuge but the only thing living there is grass and migratory caribou. It is land that is untouched by humans but it will not harm the planet by opening it up for oil exploration. We should open ANWR up and encourage everybody to drive less. When it comes to our deficit and dependence on foreign countries every little thing helps alot.

[Matt W]

Tough. It's been blocked.

[Logjam]

Quote by: Apeman81 Time to start reducing our dependence on foreign oil.

Right! Two positive steps:

1. Drill in ANWR, off our coast, and where ever oil can be profitabily produced.

2. Build as at least one nuclear power plant in each state. If there's one already there, build another anyway.

3. Force all liberals to walk.

[Matt W]

3. Force all liberals to walk.

1. Read the whole thread.

2. Go look at a couple of other threads in politics about 'liberalism'.

3. Tough, it got blocked.

Have a nice day...

[Osborn F Enready]

jbarn19 said:
Thank you for the in-depth reasoning…now I don’t want it either.
Sorry, I just had to say it.

I say:
No need to apologize. I didn't expound on my reason because most know my position for the most part I think, and I am often accused of being to long winded or verbose in my posts..

Brien said:
Osborn: I respect your decision. That said, I think it is a matter that should be put up for referendum in the next election. Let every voting American decide whether it is prudent to drill for oil in the preserve.

I say:
I would agree with that 100%.


(edited for spelling error) :confused:

[Matt W]

I am often accused of being to long winded or verbose in my posts..

Mebbe so, Osborn, but each and every one of them is full of content, should people choose to read it. You just carry on.

[Milton Bradley]

I will contribute this much to the debate.


I would much rather have an ugly oil spill on land, than at sea, and blocking drilling in Alaska only garuntees that more exploration, and drilling will occur on the continental shelf.

[Chris]

Quote by: US Independent I do not think it is the governments responsibility to tell Alaska what it may or may not do with their land. Enviromentalists in New York and Florida have no clue what Alaska is like they should have no right in saying what should or should not be done. Yes ANWR is a "wildlife" refuge but the only thing living there is grass and migratory caribou. It is land that is untouched by humans but it will not harm the planet by opening it up for oil exploration. We should open ANWR up and encourage everybody to drive less. When it comes to our deficit and dependence on foreign countries every little thing helps alot.

You live there I presume...

And hello its ANWR Arctic National Wildlife Refuge... Of course environmentalists across the country should debate it and it should be debated in Washington. :rolleyes:

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: |Chris| And hello its ANWR Arctic National Wildlife Refuge... Of course environmentalists across the country should debate it and it should be debated in Washington. :rolleyes:

Its only national because some President declared it so through Executive Order.


That is hardy a fair criteria by which to Judge something.

[Chris]

Quote by: Milton Bradley I will contribute this much to the debate. I would much rather have an ugly oil spill on land, than at sea, and blocking drilling in Alaska only garuntees that more exploration, and drilling will occur on the continental shelf.

Heh... Where do you think they will move it to? And by what method?

Valdez had a spill cause of the pipeline coming from Prudhoe Bay. The oil that was spilt in Valdez was probably (I am not 100% certain) but I would be willing to bet it came from Prudhoe Bay.

[Rainbow]

Should we allow drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR)?]

No.
U.S. should preserve its natural resources as long as possible.
When a new technology arrives that would replace the oil (or so) as a source for transportation (at least), we may let some guys to go out there and have fun.

[tman_ndsu08]

Quote by: |Chris| And you are supposed to be at university?

What does that have to do with anything?

[tman_ndsu08]

Quote by: |Chris| And you know this for absolute certain?

I lived there.

[Chris]

The part I was asking was whether or not it would be taken to the lower 48, not the Valdez part. I used to live there too.

[brien]

Quote by: US Independent I do not think it is the governments responsibility to tell Alaska what it may or may not do with their land. Enviromentalists in New York and Florida have no clue what Alaska is like they should have no right in saying what should or should not be done. Yes ANWR is a "wildlife" refuge but the only thing living there is grass and migratory caribou. It is land that is untouched by humans but it will not harm the planet by opening it up for oil exploration. We should open ANWR up and encourage everybody to drive less. When it comes to our deficit and dependence on foreign countries every little thing helps alot.

You may consider rethinking your position here. It is not a matter of an enviornmentalist telling anyone anything from anywhere.

The Artic National WIldlife Refuge belongs to the people of the United States. It does not soley belong to Alaska. It does not belong to Congress. It belongs to the people of the United States, and it is their decision to do what they deem fit with the refuge.

Therefore, even if there are only snails there today, if American wants to drill and vote by referendum to drill, then this is their decision to make alone.

One the other hand, if Americans were to vote by referendum, that they wish to preserve the ANWR for future generations that come after them, then so be it also.

But let's allow the people who OWN the refuge to make the decision.

I suppose we could take it by eminent domain and drill or preserve it as we see fit, since the government gets away with that trick it seems now on a monthly basis. But we the people, are "eminently" more fair than that now, aren't we?

The government should have the courtesy and the moral responsibility to put this to a National Referendum in the off year elections. Indeed they have a legal responsibility to allow the people who own the land to determine its future. Let the people, ie the American citizens, who own the land, decide what is best. Nothing more, and nothing less.

[US Independent]

I hate you people. I do not live in Alaska yet I can relate to how they must be feeling. Yes ANWR technically is a national "wildlife" refuge. However anything that happens there affects Alaska and only Alaska. Alaskans want this and the idiots in the East, that have no clue what is going on out there, are saying that Alaskans can't pump oil out of their land.

The land belongs to the people of Alaska it does not belong to the people of the United States. ANWR is in Alaskan territory, this means that anybody in that area follows Alaskan law and is subject to Alaska's government.

The people of the United States have nothing to lose by opening up ANWR. They have everything to gain.

Brien, your argument is, is that the people of the US should decide. Why? Let the people of Alaska decide. It is their land and they should have the right to do whatever they want.

There is no wildlife in the area wanted for drilling. There is grass and migratory caribou and we all know that oil pipelines do not harm caribou. If it did then there would be no spike in the population of caribou throughout the Alaskan region. Caribou are not endangered, the grass that grows there is not endangered, what is the problem?

I think that the Alaskans and Montanans have something in common when it comes to environmentalists in our states. The NPRC here in Montana is ran by people in New York who have no idea what is going on in our state. Yet the NPRC thinks they can tell us what to do with our land and what is good for our economy and what isn't. Alaskans are being told that they can't improve their economy by people who don't have a single clue what is going on in ANWR. It is frustrating and it is wrong.

It is not the federal governments decision to make, it is not the US citizens decision to make, it is not the environmentalists in Florida and New York decision to make, it is the people of Alaska who need to make that decision. They live their they know what the pros and cons are. They know that ANWR doesn't really serve much of a purpose in the first place and they know that they are really getting screwed by the people in Congress.