NationStates Jolt Archive

Don't know if it's on printed news yet, but ABC just announced that they kept the Oil Drilling provision from being attached to the defense spending bill.

They did (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/arctic_drilling;_ylt=ArZLm5cP1kgu6M2imdAuLa6s0NUE)

That's not a problem though. The US doesn't need crude, it needs refining capacity, and that's being steadily expanded. If anything, we should keep ANWR as a last resort for oil drilling and focus on other sources like oil sands/shale.

Yay!!!

defeated once again

weeeeeeeeeee

Don't know if it's on printed news yet, but ABC just announced that they kept the Oil Drilling provision from being attached to the defense spending bill.


Well that just made my day. :)

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,179005,00.html
Can anyone explain why not to drill in ANWAR?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,179005,00.html
Can anyone explain why not to drill in ANWAR?
because it will further our dependence on oil...it will effectively run out one of these days. Oh, and nice job showing conservative views while posting a link to fox news. Thank you.

I think its so that some moose can have a place once a year to get it on with each other.
Another reason is so that we can put up with more Middle East problems and still be a nice target for any radical terrorists who want to see us out of there.
Can I ask you guys (and girls) out there, how many of you are planning to go out to ANWAR, and how many people actually get to see this "perfect wilderness", where anyone can go to and enjoy?

because it will further our dependence on oil...it will effectively run out one of these days. Oh, and nice job showing conservative views while posting a link to fox news. Thank you.

And since when is it illegal to show a conservative view point in an open discussion? I though you libs are suppose to be "tolerant"!

WE need to focus our energy on moving away from oil and into renewable resources. Oil will still be around for a long time and even longer if we diversify our energy consumption, and in that time we can create new markets and perhaps boost the US energy exports to help our own economy. There's no point in drillign in ANWAR and ruining pristine wilderness for the small amount of oil there, when we can get the jump on bio-deisel, hydrogen-fuel, and so on and so forth. There isn't a lack of places to get oil from. We aren't fully dependent on the middle east and we can lessen what dependence we do have by moving towards other methods that are less harmful for the environment.

Why not go this route instead of keeping ourselves tied into a dwindling energy source?

because it will further our dependence on oil...it will effectively run out one of these days. Oh, and nice job showing conservative views while posting a link to fox news. Thank you.
It wouldn't do a thing about our dependance on oil, that's something that has to be solved in other areas of research/development etc.
It might help with our dependance on foriegn oil, at least it couldn't hurt.

And, you don't like the message, so you just dismiss the site out of hand because it's Foxnews? How about debating the points made? Or would that be just too hard?

WE need to focus our energy on moving away from oil and into renewable resources. Oil will still be around for a long time and even longer if we diversify our energy consumption, and in that time we can create new markets and perhaps boost the US energy exports to help our own economy. There's no point in drillign in ANWAR and ruining pristine wilderness for the small amount of oil there, when we can get the jump on bio-deisel, hydrogen-fuel, and so on and so forth. There isn't a lack of places to get oil from. We aren't fully dependent on the middle east and we can lessen what dependence we do have by moving towards other methods that are less harmful for the environment.

Why not go this route instead of keeping ourselves tied into a dwindling energy source?
Why not go both routes? Why tie one hand behind our back when we can do both?

There is absolutely no evidence that it would harm the pristine wilderness in any way let alone ruin it.

Why not go both routes? Why tie one hand behind our back when we can do both?

There is absolutely no evidence that it would harm the pristine wilderness in any way let alone ruin it.


How are our hands tied? What/who is stopping us from getting oil?

You honestly believe that there is no environmental damage where oil drilling is goign on? Where are you getting this information? There is plenty of evidence to the contrary, I shouldn't have to google it for you as it is common knowledge. Ah skrew it here ya go: http://www.american.edu/TED/projects/tedcross/xoilpr15.htm

The faster we move away from oil the better and that isn't going to happen if we keep putting effort into drilling for oil.

I though you libs are suppose to be "tolerant"!

You do know that every time you use that line, you imply that conservatives are intolerant.

You do know that every time you use that line, you imply that conservatives are intolerant.
That's the claim that liberals use. Conservatives are racist, xenophobic, nazi's. By comparison liberals are supposed to be the tolerant ones.

At least that's the claim I keep hearing from the "liberals" on these forums :rolleyes:

It wouldn't do a thing about our dependance on oil, that's something that has to be solved in other areas of research/development etc.
It might help with our dependance on foriegn oil, at least it couldn't hurt.

And, you don't like the message, so you just dismiss the site out of hand because it's Foxnews? How about debating the points made? Or would that be just too hard?


Itwon't even make a major dent in U.S. Oil purchasing. It will have next to no effect on Gas prices, it will increase the chance of oil spills, it will take away more land from Polar Bears which are already short on land (see "Polar Bears are Drowning" in the news), it is not so "low damage" as the Heritage Foundation would claim, and it wastes perfectly good money that could be put towards developing a Green Industry (which the U.S. trails on).

And Faux is full of shit. They spin more than they actually tell the truth.

That's the claim that liberals use. Conservatives are racist, xenophobic, nazi's. By comparison liberals are supposed to be the tolerant ones.

At least that's the claim I keep hearing from the "liberals" on these forums :rolleyes:

That's fine by me. I'm just letting you know you say a lot more than you think you do.

And I personally think you're just making assinine generalizations, but I won't ask you to provide some examples to back up your allegation.

http://www.studip.uni-goettingen.de/pictures/smile/party.gif

I agree by the way about the Refining Capacity. There's plenty of Crude for the time being...it's the fact that some firms prefer to restrict supply of processed oil that hurts the everyday person (and don't give me that "regulations did it"-rant, if they really wanted, they would've done it - fact of the matter is that a product with low demand elasticity will make more money when less of it is around).

Itwon't even make a major dent in U.S. Oil purchasing. It will have next to no effect on Gas prices, it will increase the chance of oil spills, it will take away more land from Polar Bears which are already short on land (see "Polar Bears are Drowning" in the news), it is not so "low damage" as the Heritage Foundation would claim, and it wastes perfectly good money that could be put towards developing a Green Industry (which the U.S. trails on).

And Faux is full of shit. They spin more than they actually tell the truth.
Again, why can't both drilling and developing green be done at the same time?

As for Foxnews.... to use your own phrase, you are full of shit. You spin more than you actually tell the truth.

hmmm doesn't make either true does it?

Again, why can't both drilling and developing green be done at the same time?

As for Foxnews.... to use your own phrase, you are full of shit. You spin more than you actually tell the truth.

hmmm doesn't make either true does it?


again... because drilling for oil causes environmental damage: http://www.american.edu/TED/projects/tedcross/xoilpr15.htm


Also, there is no need for more oil, there is plenty of it. The price isn't so expensive because it costs so much to get out of the ground and besides gas prices will hardly be affected so whats the point?

If we put more energy into alternative enrgies, we can move away from oil much faster which is the ideal situation.

That's fine by me. I'm just letting you know you say a lot more than you think you do.

And I personally think you're just making assinine generalizations, but I won't ask you to provide some examples to back up your allegation.

other than it being objectively false and an obious lie largely spread by people with ties to xenophobic and neo-nazi groups, at least.

illegals pay sales taxes, property taxes, and payroll taxes - and despite the fact that most of them would actually get a refund on those, they never claim it.

not all people who complain about illegal immigration are nazis, but those that that actually make a big deal out of it, and actually organize efforts against it tend to be. for example, the minuteman project is largely an outgrowth of the earlier explicitly xenophobic border militias, which grew out of the white supremacist 'patriot' militias.
That's just the thread I was reading at the time I posted on this thread

Again, why can't both drilling and developing green be done at the same time?

Because the Oil companies that we pander to will resist green reform for a long time (basically because it annhialates their market now that most Green sources are or are close to being cheaper than expendable ones), as long as we pander to them. That's why they fund Right wing nutjobs campaigns. The right wingers refuse to fund green research.

As for Foxnews.... to use your own phrase, you are full of shit. You spin more than you actually tell the truth.

Does running shows like the "no spin" zone or Hanity and Sock Puppet mean a thing to you? All the while declaring that they are "fair and balanced"

Yeah... Right..

again... because drilling for oil causes environmental damage: http://www.american.edu/TED/projects/tedcross/xoilpr15.htm


Also, there is no need for more oil, there is plenty of it. The price isn't so expensive because it costs so much to get out of the ground and besides gas prices will hardly be affected so whats the point?

If we put more energy into alternative enrgies, we can move away from oil much faster which is the ideal situation.
Actually the price is so high because the refining capacity in this country is abysmal. No new refinerys build since the 1970's.

Drilling does not cause damage by itself. It has caused damage due to spills but as shown in the other places that have drilling in Alaska now, due to technology and increased awareness, that damage isn't being done anymore.

Why do people keep trying to handicap us? There is no reason we can't do both, increased oil drilling/discovery and research/development in green energy.

That's just the thread I was reading at the time I posted on this thread

Well,

A: I have no idea what thread that is, but Free Soviets is hardly the model of normalcy.

B: He did not say that all conservatives are intolerant or xenophobic. Just people like those involved in the Minuteman project.

Because the Oil companies that we pander to will resist green reform for a long time (basically because it annhialates their market now that most Green sources are or are close to being cheaper than expendable ones), as long as we pander to them. That's why they fund Right wing nutjobs campaigns. The right wingers refuse to fund green research.
:rolleyes:

Does running shows like the "no spin" zone or Hanity and Sock Puppet mean a thing to you? All the while declaring that they are "fair and balanced"

Yeah... Right..
Do you understand the difference between news and commentary?
Thought not.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,179005,00.html
Can anyone explain why not to drill in ANWAR?


Already explained in great detail here: http://www.nrdc.org/land/wilderness/arcticrefuge/facts2.asp

Well,

A: I have no idea what thread that is, but Free Soviets is hardly the model of normalcy.

B: He did not say that all conservatives are intolerant or xenophobic. Just people like those involved in the Minuteman project.
Sorry, the thread was "Mexico outraged at US attempts to stop crime on US soil"
And what I got was that he implied that anyone opposed to illegal immigration was xenophobic.

Actually the price is so high because the refining capacity in this country is abysmal. No new refinerys build since the 1970's.

Drilling does not cause damage by itself. It has caused damage due to spills but as shown in the other places that have drilling in Alaska now, due to technology and increased awareness, that damage isn't being done anymore.

Why do people keep trying to handicap us? There is no reason we can't do both, increased oil drilling/discovery and research/development in green energy.


Then increase refining capacity instead.
I Still don't see the need to drill in ANWAR.
You didn't read the link did you? It shows several studies where drilling does cause environmental harm

Already explained in great detail here: http://www.nrdc.org/land/wilderness/arcticrefuge/facts2.asp
Ok, I have to call BS on that site. No sources, no studies.

Just alarmist "facts".

:rolleyes:


Do you understand the difference between news and commentary?
Thought not.

I suppose if Al Franken had his own liberal TV show on a liberal TV channel thats ok, but if a conservative commentary show is on a conservative TV channel, well thats wrong! Once again, they have proven my idea, that liberals are not as tolerant of others as they claim! Especially when someone goes against their beliefs.

Ok, I have to call BS on that site. No sources, no studies.

Just alarmist "facts".


uh huh - just like your Fox news link with it's "facts" (devoid of studies and sources) on an opinion piece written by a conservative form the Heritage Foundation.

You get out what you put in my friend. What about my other link based directly on studies?

Then increase refining capacity instead.
I Still don't see the need to drill in ANWAR.
You didn't read the link did you? It shows several studies where drilling does cause environmental harm

Would you like to know why there hasent been a single refinery built in the US for 20 years? Same reasons as to why we shouldnt drill in ANWAR.
It could destroy habitats, pollute the environment, and could cause major catastrophies if they should explode! So once again, the environmentalists have blocked any attempts at building new refineries in the US. And here we go again!

[ cheers, stamps feet, claps ] Yayyy! :D

Would you like to know why there hasent been a single refinery built in the US for 20 years? Same reasons as to why we shouldnt drill in ANWAR.
It could destroy habitats, pollute the environment, and could cause major catastrophies if they should explode! So once again, the environmentalists have blocked any attempts at building new refineries in the US. And here we go again!


There are several refineries that have been closed down that could be re-opened. Whats the deal with those places?

- Please show me sources where environmentalists are opposing the re-opening of refineries.

uh huh - just like your Fox news link with it's "facts" (devoid of studies and sources) on an opinion piece written by a conservative form the Heritage Foundation.

You get out what you put in my friend. What about my other link based directly on studies?

How do we know that what they wrote down isnt also a bunch of crap either? I mean, how can I be sure they are not spinning their ideas out of their asses? thats why I cant take these eco-nazis seriously, cause most of it is also scare tactics! I suppose what you are trying to say is:
LIBERAL talk = GOD'S TRUTH
CONSERVATIVE talk = nothing but bullshit.

just go out and say it. Stop pretending and just say it. You just hate it when someone from the right opens their mouth with facts and ideas that contradict your own.

Would you like to know why there hasent been a single refinery built in the US for 20 years?
http://www.quickmba.com/econ/micro/elas/ped.shtml
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_elasticity_of_demand

Having less of something means the price goes higher - ie, less refined oil makes it more expensive. Can people simply switch to another good? No - the demand is very inelastic.
Therefore, demand stays pretty much the same, while price is higher - ergo, revenue for the firm is higher. Do the maths outlined in the above links, and you'll find that with inelastic demand, you should always cut supply in order to increase revenue.

Why not go both routes? Why tie one hand behind our back when we can do both?

There is absolutely no evidence that it would harm the pristine wilderness in any way let alone ruin it.

Bullshit. :headbang:

There are several refineries that have been closed down that could be re-opened. Whats the deal with those places?

- Please show me sources where environmentalists are opposing the re-opening of refineries.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0921/p11s02-usec.html

[ cheers, stamps feet, claps ] Yayyy! :D

My feelings exactly.

There are several refineries that have been closed down that could be re-opened. Whats the deal with those places?

They're too old to refurbish in to profitable facilities that comply with modern environmental laws; many of them are also heavily contaminated, making it extremely expensive to reopen them, if at all.

It's cheaper for companies to expand existing facilities than to build new ones; usually you can get the same amount of capacity as a new refinery but without the high costs or time delays.

- Please show me sources where environmentalists are opposing the re-opening of refineries.

Well, there was that one Pat Robertson wanted to reopen, but...

Generally, environmentalists stop the construction of new ones and infrastructure, not reopening old ones since that's a pretty rare occurence.

How do we know that what they wrote down isnt also a bunch of crap either? I mean, how can I be sure they are not spinning their ideas out of their asses? thats why I cant take these eco-nazis seriously, cause most of it is also scare tactics! I suppose what you are trying to say is:
LIBERAL talk = GOD'S TRUTH
CONSERVATIVE talk = nothing but bullshit.

just go out and say it. Stop pretending and just say it. You just hate it when someone from the right opens their mouth with facts and ideas that contradict your own.

Where did I say that? I said you get what you give, meaning you give me a conservative source with no supporting info and I give you liberal source with no supporting info. It was there to make a point about his source and nothing more.

I also provided a link to a non-partisan source with studies to prove drillign causes environmental harm. How about a non-partisan source with studies to show otherwise? I'll be waiting a while me thinks.

You sure do generalize alot. BTW - Weren't you just generalizing all liberals a intolerant?? And I should take you seriously after that why?

why dont we just go nuclear?
It seems to be working in France.
Oh wait, right....
we could always have another Chernobyl or Three Mile Island.
I say lets focus on building more nuclear plants!

Where did I say that? I said you get what you give, meaning you give me a conservative source with no supporting info and I give you liberal source with no supporting info. It was there to make a point about his source and nothing more.

I also provided a link to a non-partisan source with studies to prove drillign causes environmental harm. How about a non-partisan source with studies to show otherwise? I'll be waiting a while me thinks.

You sure do generalize alot. BTW - Weren't you just generalizing all liberals a intolerant?? And I should take you seriously after that why?

Yes, I am intolerant to those who are intolerant of others!

I say lets focus on building more nuclear plants!
Seconded.

But I'm afraid that doesn't power our cars, or heat our homes either.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0921/p11s02-usec.html


okay - I see they oppose refineries that are in violation of clean air laws. I can see how they woudl oppose that. Still I personally think they shoudl reopen the old closed down refineries. You think I am just going to tow a talking point cuz iit's liberal? Nope. I promote ideas that I think make the most sense.

Therefore, demand stays pretty much the same, while price is higher - ergo, revenue for the firm is higher. Do the maths outlined in the above links, and you'll find that with inelastic demand, you should always cut supply in order to increase revenue.

That's what happened during the 1990's; the price of oil plunged after the USSR collapsed (and later the Asian crisis) which drove down refining margins. Companies cut capacity and halted expansions, but when demand began to recover from 2000 onward, there was little capacity coming on which drove up prices.

At present, margins are high enough to encourage expansion and that is why there have been multiple major US projects announced. Oil companies have an interest in keeping prices low enough not to crimp growth (or threaten legal action/windfalls against them) but high enough to maximize profit. It's a delicate but highly profitable balance.

okay - I see they oppose refineries that are in violation of clean air laws. I can see how they woudl oppose that. Still I personally think they shoudl reopen the old closed down refineries. You think I am just going to tow a talking point cuz iit's liberal? Nope. I promote ideas that I think make the most sense.

well, I was just pointing out why they closed those refineries down.
Of course it costs more to clean up than to tear down.

why dont we just go nuclear?
It seems to be working in France.
Oh wait, right....
we could always have another Chernobyl or Three Mile Island.
I say lets focus on building more nuclear plants!


I'm all for that. OH wait, I can't be for that because all liberals are the same.

Yes, I am intolerant to those who are intolerant of others!


This is a liberal line. Quit stealing our talking points. To me it sounds like you are just intolerant of all liberals because you paint them all with the same brush.

Seconded.

But I'm afraid that doesn't power our cars, or heat our homes either.
well, I wasnt about to say lets have a small nuclear reactor in every home, lol! although can you just imagine that?
I wouldnt mind seeing more solar panels being used.

This is a liberal line. Quit stealing our talking points. To me it sounds like you are just intolerant of all liberals because you paint them all with the same brush.
and vice versa.
I just dont like hearing how much Fox sucks just because its really the only conservative news media source out there.

They're too old to refurbish in to profitable facilities that comply with modern environmental laws; many of them are also heavily contaminated, making it extremely expensive to reopen them, if at all.

It's cheaper for companies to expand existing facilities than to build new ones; usually you can get the same amount of capacity as a new refinery but without the high costs or time delays.



Well, there was that one Pat Robertson wanted to reopen, but...

Generally, environmentalists stop the construction of new ones and infrastructure, not reopening old ones since that's a pretty rare occurence.

So refineries are highly contaminating? Well I can see why environmentalists would be against opening new ones too. Why clean up an old refinery if it's just going to get contaminated again? I think there should be more refineries open still. We need more supply.

Seconded.
But I'm afraid that doesn't power our cars, or heat our homes either.

Building new nuclear plants would reduce natural gas consumption, which is a start on heating prices. But there's pretty much nothing nuclear power would do for cars unless they ran on only electricity.

Building new nuclear plants would reduce natural gas consumption, which is a start on heating prices. But there's pretty much nothing nuclear power would do for cars unless they ran on only electricity.
once again, we should also try using more solar panels and get these gas milages up. 30mpg is pretty good, but lets get it up higher! Why is it so hard?

and vice versa.
I just dont like hearing how much Fox sucks just because its really the only conservative news media source out there.

Vicer versa? You saw me paint all conservatives with the same brush?

I'm fair about it... I think any news source that only shows one side of the story sucks be them liberal or conservative because they have an agenda. I like my news to actually include more than one side of the story.

So refineries are highly contaminating? Well I can see why environmentalists would be against opening new ones too. Why clean up an old refinery if it's just going to get contaminated again? I think there should be more refineries open still. We need more supply.

Old refineries are contaminated because when they were built there wern't any laws against the different pollutants the dumped or put in to the air.

The new ones, like the Arizona Clean Fuels project near Yuma, are very environmentally friendly and more than exceed the government's requirements. That project is in fact underway and should be started soon.

once again, we should also try using more solar panels and get these gas milages up. 30mpg is pretty good, but lets get it up higher! Why is it so hard?

I'm not so sure solar panels will do much good for cars, but hybrid vehicles are getting like 60 MPGs aren't they?

Old refineries are contaminated because when they were built there wern't any laws against the different pollutants the dumped or put in to the air.

The new ones, like the Arizona Clean Fuels project near Yuma, are very environmentally friendly and more than exceed the government's requirements. That project is in fact underway and should be started soon.

well there you have it. Are environmentalists tryign to block this one? if so I say shut the hell up unless you want ANWAR to be spoiled.

I'm not so sure solar panels will do much good for cars, but hybrid vehicles are getting like 60 MPGs aren't they?
yeah they are which is great.
But why cant they make the cars look cooler
and cheaper too?
Well, I know that it is a new technology, but they should also make
the cars look more pleasing to the eye!
Solar panels for homes I meant!

well there you have it. Are environmentalists tryign to block this one? if so I say shut the hell up unless you want ANWAR to be spoiled.

I haven't really heard anything. On their website it says they've got the air permits, the money, and Mexico's allowed the construction of the pipeline/terminals/etc., so it seems there isn't any real opposition.

The refinery's on the cutting edge of environmental regulations and technologies, so opposition would be nothing more than irrational.

yeah they are which is great.
But why cant they make the cars look cooler
and cheaper too?
Well, I know that it is a new technology, but they should also make
the cars look more pleasing to the eye!
Solar panels for homes I meant!


but you said to use solar panels to get gas mileage up.

well I can see how that might help slightly, they should also use the wind resistance and the spinning wheels as a power source for when the car is moving.

but you said to use solar panels to get gas mileage up.

well I can see how that might help slightly, they should also use the wind resistance and the spinning wheels as a power source for when the car is moving.
sorry I ment it the other way. Panels for homes and other good ideas for better gas mileage
I actually also had an idea for having the wheels to do double duty as an extra generator or something for more power. I dont see how hard that would be!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/main.jhtml?xml=/motoring/2005/12/03/mfeco03.xml&sSheet=/living/2005/12/03/ixlivingtop.html

VW builds a little roadster that returns 80mpg.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/main.jhtml?xml=/motoring/2005/12/03/mfeco03.xml&sSheet=/living/2005/12/03/ixlivingtop.html

VW builds a little roadster that returns 80mpg.
nice!
but will it survive a direct hit by a bus?

nice!
but will it survive a direct hit by a bus?
Does it matter? Better still...does a Hummer survive a direct hit by a bus? Is that enough of a reason to buy one?

The Safety features are of absolutely no concern to the fuel consumption. SUVs are no more safe than any modern sedan car, all of which you can buy with small turbodiesels (the European ones can now also run on biodiesel if you can find a petrol station that has it).

Does it matter? Better still...does a Hummer survive a direct hit by a bus? Is that enough of a reason to buy one?

The Safety features are of absolutely no concern to the fuel consumption. SUVs are no more safe than any modern sedan car, all of which you can buy with small turbodiesels (the European ones can now also run on biodiesel if you can find a petrol station that has it).
A Hummer H1 probably will!
Not an H2 or H3!
The H1 was designed to be parachuted onto a battlefield! Plus I have seen a Hummer slam into a semitruck and literally demolished the truck!
Hell yeah its as good of a reason to buy one! Now if only it could get its MPG up!

A Hummer H1 probably will!
Not an H2 or H3!
The H1 was designed to be parachuted onto a battlefield! Plus I have seen a Hummer slam into a semitruck and literally demolished the truck!
Hell yeah its as good of a reason to buy one! Now if only it could get its MPG up!

Perhaps you should just take a defensive driving course and make the roads safer for all of us.

Perhaps you should just take a defensive driving course and make the roads safer for all of us.
Seconded.

Perhaps you should just take a defensive driving course and make the roads safer for all of us.
No thanks,
I would prefer driving a tank to take on the dipshits who cant drive. especially those idiots in those "riced out" pieces of crap they call "race cars." I tend to see more idiots in those little cars than in those big ones!
And what wrong with a Hummer H1? Just because I can crush a Hinda civic and that VW cant? lol! ;)

Building new nuclear plants would reduce natural gas consumption, which is a start on heating prices. But there's pretty much nothing nuclear power would do for cars unless they ran on only electricity.


I'm talking through my hat here, but a friend of mine, who is more up on this sorta thing than I said that within the decade we would be able to use breeder reactors to pull CO2 out of the atmosphere to make feul.

Like I said, I don't know shit about it, but it sounds like that might help.

riced out? that seems more than a little racist. :confused:

I live in a city with some of the worst drivers I've ever seen (L. Vegas) and I am not afeared of them because I can actually drive liek a sane persona nd know what defensive driving actually means. I have avoided more accidents than I can count in the year that I have lived here.

Itwon't even make a major dent in U.S. Oil purchasing. It will have next to no effect on Gas prices, it will increase the chance of oil spills, it will take away more land from Polar Bears which are already short on land (see "Polar Bears are Drowning" in the news), it is not so "low damage" as the Heritage Foundation would claim, and it wastes perfectly good money that could be put towards developing a Green Industry (which the U.S. trails on).

And Faux is full of shit. They spin more than they actually tell the truth.


Ok lemme ask you something, what was the damage done after we installed the pipeline back in the 70's, I seem to recall that the caribou population increased, because they liked the warmth of the oil field.

riced out? that seems more than a little racist. :confused:

I live in a city with some of the worst drivers I've ever seen (L. Vegas) and I am not afeared of them because I can actually drive liek a sane persona nd know what defensive driving actually means. I have avoided more accidents than I can count in the year that I have lived here.

i'm sorry that is the term that they use them selves, although we call them rice-burners. Thats because they are usually Hondas or other crappy cars that have four cylinders, and they usually add lights and big wings and loud mufflers that sound like they stuck a kazoo up their ass, and nitro into them so they can go faster and usually end up causing a lot of accidents or near accidents here, especially when they try to drag race down busy streets. And I am from Chicago and I see this everyday. Plus, it doesnt matter how safe of a driver you are, when some idiot out there isnt, and runs into you. Plus this was not ment to be racist or anything.

Ok lemme ask you something, what was the damage done after we installed the pipeline back in the 70's, I seem to recall that the caribou population increased, because they liked the warmth of the oil field.

I heard abou that too. They also liked to come by the oil rigs as well.

Ok lemme ask you something, what was the damage done after we installed the pipeline back in the 70's, I seem to recall that the caribou population increased, because they liked the warmth of the oil field.


Ok.

A) I refer you to the link someone posted earlier about the number of toxic releases.

B) See we had this pretty big environmental disaster because of oil drilling in Alaska. You may have heard of it. Do the words Exxon Valdez ring a bell?

defeated once again

weeeeeeeeeee

It will be back...

They did (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/arctic_drilling;_ylt=ArZLm5cP1kgu6M2imdAuLa6s0NUE)

That's not a problem though. The US doesn't need crude, it needs refining capacity, and that's being steadily expanded. If anything, we should keep ANWR as a last resort for oil drilling and focus on other sources like oil sands/shale.
Keen. That is PRECISELY why they created ANWR in the first place.
*bows*

That's the claim that liberals use. Conservatives are racist, xenophobic, nazi's. By comparison liberals are supposed to be the tolerant ones.

At least that's the claim I keep hearing from the "liberals" on these forums :rolleyes:
You got them by name, then, it's safe to assume?

Yes, I am intolerant to those who are intolerant of others!
That just makes me want to tolerate you. :gundge:
Might be a long thread ....

Does it matter? Better still...does a Hummer survive a direct hit by a bus? Is that enough of a reason to buy one?

The Safety features are of absolutely no concern to the fuel consumption. SUVs are no more safe than any modern sedan car, all of which you can buy with small turbodiesels (the European ones can now also run on biodiesel if you can find a petrol station that has it).
Dirty Jobs on the Discovery Channel just had a segment where the main guy worked at a biodiesel concocting facility, the first step being a grease bin from a mexican restaurant. The car, when it burns it, of course smells like tacos.

loud mufflers that sound like they stuck a kazoo up their ass.
Source, please?

*taps foot*