cary@afone.as.arizona.edu (Cary Kittrell) wrote in
news:d1ctr1$42d$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu:

In news:d4xzdacrr6u$.dlg@sec12-astroblaster.pepsi.com Maaxx
<maaxx@xrs.net> writes:

If you've cruised the net over the last day or so, on the right or
left, you can't help but see ANWR, ANWR, ANWR everywhere. The 51-49
vote in the Senate to open drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge is causing Liberal Democrats to gnash their teeth in grief and
conservative Republicans to get more excited than the kid in that Numa
Numa Dance video.

We can learn a lot about the priorities of conservatives and liberals
by watching their reaction to ANWR.

Conservatives are happy because they believe we're about to start
tapping into a major, new domestic source of oil even if it will take
years to get the crude flowing out of the ground. That means new jobs
for Americans who handle the drilling and build the pipeline to Alaska.
It also means that we're going to acquire more of the substance that
powers our economy without having to pay out our money to less than
friendly countries like Saudi Arabia & Venezuela. Best of all, the oil
is in the absolute middle of nowhere, so we don't have to inconvenience
anyone to drill ANWR. To the right, developing ANWR is all upside, all
positive, an idea that is so fantastic that they can hardly understand
how any rational person could oppose it.

On the other hand, liberals are enraged that it looks like we may be
drilling ANWR. Part of that is because of their free floating hostility
to the oil industry, but their real beef is that ANWR is such a remote
area. Conservatives may consider that a feature, but to liberals it's a
bug. The very fact that it's a godforsaken region that almost no one
visits makes it so rare and valuable to them that it's worth leaving
billions of dollars worth of oil in the ground and forsaking tens of
thousands of jobs just in case someone wants to ever see what the
boonies are like in the future. Oh, and we mustn't forget, they claim
that the pipelines, roads, oilmen and people going back and forth might
-- and I say might because this is heavily disputed -- disturb the
animals. The fact that you could make the exact same argument about
every populated area in North America seems lost on them.

Now you tell me: who's looking out for everyday Americans on this
issue? Conservatives who want more jobs & oil for their fellow
countrymen or liberals who are concerned about future back-packing
trips for an infinitesimal percentage of the population and maybe
happier caribou and polar bears, maybe not. That's not a tough call.

Conservatives woried about this year's bottom line, or ecologists
who realize that once such a thing is gone, it is gone for
all future generations for as long as there is a world?

Only the liberalist thinks that ANWR must be leveled and paved over in
order to drill for oil.

"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@emory.edu> wrote in message
news:d1fbs7$gec$2@puck.cc.emory.edu...

In article <d4xzdacrr6u$.dlg@sec12-astroblaster.pepsi.com>,
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:

If you've cruised the net over the last day or so, on the right or left,

you

can't help but see ANWR, ANWR, ANWR everywhere. The 51-49 vote in the

Senate

to open drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is causing

Liberal

Democrats to gnash their teeth in grief and conservative Republicans to

get

more excited than the kid in that Numa Numa Dance video.

We can learn a lot about the priorities of conservatives and liberals by
watching their reaction to ANWR.

Conservatives are happy because they believe we're about to start tapping
into a major, new domestic source of oil even if it will take years to

get

the crude flowing out of the ground. That means new jobs for Americans

who

handle the drilling and build the pipeline to Alaska. It also means that
we're going to acquire more of the substance that powers our economy

without

having to pay out our money to less than friendly countries like Saudi
Arabia & Venezuela.

The data shows that we now import 62.5% of our oil and even if all the

ANWR

oil came to the US, we'd still import 60%.

=========================

Thanks for proving the argument that we would lessen our dependency on
foreign oil if ANWR was opened.

rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:d1dq1n$7cu$1@bolt.sonic.net:

Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:

If you've cruised the net over the last day or so, on the right or
left, you can't help but see ANWR, ANWR, ANWR everywhere. The 51-49
vote in the Senate to open drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge is causing Liberal Democrats to gnash their teeth in grief and
conservative Republicans to get more excited than the kid in that Numa
Numa Dance video.

We can learn a lot about the priorities of conservatives and liberals
by watching their reaction to ANWR.

And about Republicans, who would rather sell off America's natural
resources to oil companies than come up with a long-term energy
strategy.

The oil isn't doing any good sitting in the ground.

Conservatives are happy because they believe we're about to start
tapping into a major, new domestic source of oil even if it will take
years to get the crude flowing out of the ground.

Think of all the money to be made!

That's a good thing.

That means new jobs for Americans who handle the drilling and build the
pipeline to Alaska.

LOL! A few hundred jobs in a country the size of the US is nothing.
Who really will win are the oil companies.

Your point?

It also means that we're going to acquire more of the substance that
powers our economy without having to pay out our money to less than
friendly countries like Saudi Arabia & Venezuela. Best of all, the oil
is in the absolute middle of nowhere, so we don't have to inconvenience
anyone to drill ANWR. To the right, developing ANWR is all upside, all
positive, an idea that is so fantastic that they can hardly understand
how any rational person could oppose it.

Other than the risk of rendering a few species extinct for a little
oil that will have almost no effect on the economy.

Only an idiot liberal would make such a claim. It's like you believe that
the oil companies must destroy an area the size of South Carolina to get
the oil.

You people whined about the oil pipeline too and it turned out that it
actually increased wildlife poppulation.

rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:d1dq1n$7cu$1@bolt.sonic.net:

Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:

If you've cruised the net over the last day or so, on the right or
left, you can't help but see ANWR, ANWR, ANWR everywhere. The 51-49
vote in the Senate to open drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge is causing Liberal Democrats to gnash their teeth in grief and
conservative Republicans to get more excited than the kid in that Numa
Numa Dance video.

We can learn a lot about the priorities of conservatives and liberals
by watching their reaction to ANWR.

And about Republicans, who would rather sell off America's natural
resources to oil companies than come up with a long-term energy
strategy.

The oil isn't doing any good sitting in the ground.

Conservatives are happy because they believe we're about to start
tapping into a major, new domestic source of oil even if it will take
years to get the crude flowing out of the ground.

Think of all the money to be made!

That's a good thing.

That means new jobs for Americans who handle the drilling and build the
pipeline to Alaska.

LOL! A few hundred jobs in a country the size of the US is nothing.
Who really will win are the oil companies.

Your point?

It also means that we're going to acquire more of the substance that
powers our economy without having to pay out our money to less than
friendly countries like Saudi Arabia & Venezuela. Best of all, the oil
is in the absolute middle of nowhere, so we don't have to inconvenience
anyone to drill ANWR. To the right, developing ANWR is all upside, all
positive, an idea that is so fantastic that they can hardly understand
how any rational person could oppose it.

Other than the risk of rendering a few species extinct for a little
oil that will have almost no effect on the economy.

Only an idiot liberal would make such a claim. It's like you believe that
the oil companies must destroy an area the size of South Carolina to get
the oil.

You people whined about the oil pipeline too and it turned out that it
actually increased wildlife poppulation.

rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in

Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:

If you've cruised the net over the last day or so, on the right or
left, you can't help but see ANWR, ANWR, ANWR everywhere. The 51-49
vote in the Senate to open drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge is causing Liberal Democrats to gnash their teeth in grief and
conservative Republicans to get more excited than the kid in that Numa
Numa Dance video.

We can learn a lot about the priorities of conservatives and liberals
by watching their reaction to ANWR.

And about Republicans, who would rather sell off America's natural
resources to oil companies than come up with a long-term energy
strategy.

The oil isn't doing any good sitting in the ground.

Conservatives are happy because they believe we're about to start
tapping into a major, new domestic source of oil even if it will take
years to get the crude flowing out of the ground.

Think of all the money to be made!

That's a good thing.

That means new jobs for Americans who handle the drilling and build the
pipeline to Alaska.

LOL! A few hundre