Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Do you believe endangered species have intrinsic value ?
Do you believe it is wrong to kill hundreds of thousands of marine creatures
such as whales, dolphins, turtles and many others ?
Do you believe that oil is an overexploited 19th century technology which
lost its value as a mode of progress for human civilization, while far more
advanced technologies are available but are being suppressed out of callous greed
by our industrialist elites and their brown-nosing political puppets ?
Do you believe that endangering the eastern seaboard of the United States
to a catastrophic oil spill, or sea floor earthquake is unnecessary, and that there
were and still are valid reasons why this ban existed and should still be enforced ?
Do you believe that agenda-driven elites keep us enslaved with promises of jobs,
regardless of what the jobs actually are doing, and that jobs for jobs sake alone
is not moral; that humanity should rise above this form of economic abuse ?
Do you believe that it is our responsibility as stewards of this Earth to care for
this precious, perhaps totally unique world and preserve what's left of its former
glory for future generations and for the sake of our animal friends ?
Well, that's really too bad. If you believe these things, you lost.
And if you live from Florida to Delaware, enjoy the carnage and perhaps
the destruction of your coastline some day.
Thank Obamination.
Do you believe endangered species have intrinsic value ?
Do you believe it is wrong to kill hundreds of thousands of marine creatures
such as whales, dolphins, turtles and many others ?
Do you believe that oil is an overexploited 19th century technology which
lost its value as a mode of progress for human civilization, while far more
advanced technologies are available but are being suppressed out of callous greed
by our industrialist elites and their brown-nosing political puppets ?
Do you believe that endangering the eastern seaboard of the United States
to a catastrophic oil spill, or sea floor earthquake is unnecessary, and that there
were and still are valid reasons why this ban existed and should still be enforced ?
Do you believe that agenda-driven elites keep us enslaved with promises of jobs,
regardless of what the jobs actually are doing, and that jobs for jobs sake alone
is not moral; that humanity should rise above this form of economic abuse ?
Do you believe that it is our responsibility as stewards of this Earth to care for
this precious, perhaps totally unique world and preserve what's left of its former
glory for future generations and for the sake of our animal friends ?
Well, that's really too bad. If you believe these things, you lost.
And if you live from Florida to Delaware, enjoy the carnage and perhaps
the destruction of your coastline some day.
Thank Obamination.
First of all, Obama had absolutely nothing do with it. In fact, if Obama had a clue what some of his Executive Branch agencies were doing, he would most certainly put a stop to it. The very last thing Obama, and the rest of the Democrats, want is for the US to increase domestic oil production. Thankfully in this particular case Obama is as ignorant as he is inept.
If you had actually read the article, instead of just the title, you would know that it was a decision made by the US Bureau of Ocean Energy Management.
If Obama, Clinton, and all the other Democrats had not blocked opening up ANWR for oil development, there might not have been a need to open the eastern seaboard for oil development. At least not yet. After all, there is between 6 and 8 billion barrels of oil and more than 50 trillion cubic feet of natural gas in ANWR.
However, Obama, Clinton and all the other Democrats did block ANWR, and the US economy is suffering as a result. So now they have access to 4.7 billion barrels of oil and 37.51 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. While I know we can do considerably better, it is at least an increase in domestic oil production, and that is better than the alternatives.
First of all, Obama had absolutely nothing do with it. In fact, if Obama had a clue what some of his Executive Branch agencies were doing, he would most certainly put a stop to it. The very last thing Obama, and the rest of the Democrats, want is for the US to increase domestic oil production. Thankfully in this particular case Obama is as ignorant as he is inept.
If you had actually read the article, instead of just the title, you would know that it was a decision made by the US Bureau of Ocean Energy Management.
If Obama, Clinton, and all the other Democrats had not blocked opening up ANWR for oil development, there might not have been a need to open the eastern seaboard for oil development. At least not yet. After all, there is between 6 and 8 billion barrels of oil and more than 50 trillion cubic feet of natural gas in ANWR.
However, Obama, Clinton and all the other Democrats did block ANWR, and the US economy is suffering as a result. So now they have access to 4.7 billion barrels of oil and 37.51 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. While I know we can do considerably better, it is at least an increase in domestic oil production, and that is better than the alternatives.
When we consume over 6 billion barrels a year of oil, those two sources would do nothing to solve our problems long term. When the oil supply is no longer able to meet demand, people are going to be more thankful for a healthy environment that can support life than that we burned up all that oil in a single year without any good reason.
First of all, Obama had absolutely nothing do with it. In fact, if Obama had a clue what some of his Executive Branch agencies were doing, he would most certainly put a stop to it. The very last thing Obama, and the rest of the Democrats, want is for the US to increase domestic oil production. Thankfully in this particular case Obama is as ignorant as he is inept.
If you had actually read the article, instead of just the title, you would know that it was a decision made by the US Bureau of Ocean Energy Management.
If Obama, Clinton, and all the other Democrats had not blocked opening up ANWR for oil development, there might not have been a need to open the eastern seaboard for oil development. At least not yet. After all, there is between 6 and 8 billion barrels of oil and more than 50 trillion cubic feet of natural gas in ANWR.
However, Obama, Clinton and all the other Democrats did block ANWR, and the US economy is suffering as a result. So now they have access to 4.7 billion barrels of oil and 37.51 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. While I know we can do considerably better, it is at least an increase in domestic oil production, and that is better than the alternatives.
1. Ocean Energy Management is a beaurocratic subsidiary of the Department of the Interior.
Sally Jewell is the Secretary. In that position she serves at the direct, expressed pleasure
of the President, and can be removed at any time and for any reason; thus if Obama was
against this, he alone possesses the highest authority to stop it immediately. Obama was
involved in the Pebble Mine controversy which his EPA quashed and in Keystone debate.
2. There was no reason for you to be so condescending as to say that I did not read the
article. Is that what you do, go around telling original posters that they "didn't read the article" ?
3. Disagree on ANWR, no reason to "open" that up.
4. You seem to be under the illusion that "domestic" oil and gas production will lower
prices for the consumer, or "make this country stronger". These canards are demonstratably
false and are mere rhetorical demogoguery used by oil and gas lobbies to sway public opinion.
Meanwhile, Florida lawmakers are getting the resistance going.
When we consume over 6 billion barrels a year of oil, those two sources would do nothing to solve our problems long term.
So we should do nothing instead? That is a rather stupid position to take. It is like telling a starving man that the roasted turkey in front of his face will not satisfy his hunger in the long term, so he should just ignore the turkey and starve to death in the short term.
Quote:
Originally Posted by arctichomesteader
When the oil supply is no longer able to meet demand, people are going to be more thankful for a healthy environment that can support life than that we burned up all that oil in a single year without any good reason.
Our oil supply can easily meet demands, if Democrats were not hell-bent on destroying the US and returning us to the stone-age. The National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska is about the same size as the State of Indiana, and only 10% of it has been explored. There are also huge reserves of oil under the Chukchi Sea that is only just now being tapped. As long as the oil is left in the ground, it will never meet demands, which is precisely what the anti-American liberal freaks want.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
