Repubs have no respect for animals.

[Steve Savicki]

We have only 24 to 48 hours to try and save the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

The Republicans are trying to sneak legislation through the Senate approving oil drilling and they are incredibly close to winning. We have to stop them.

I am joining with Senator Maria Cantwell (D-Washington) in offering a critical amendment to stop this sneak attack on our environment. We will fight on the floor of the Senate, but we need you by our side.

There are seven key Republican Senators whose votes will decide the future of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Before they vote, we need to make sure they know that their constituents are watching, and that they will not be able to support drilling without anybody noticing.

Here are two critical steps we can take together to support our amendment to protect this National Wildlife Refuge:
1. Join the Citizens' Roll Call

First of all, take part in a massive fast-moving display of citizen support for the Arctic Refuge. Sign our Cantwell-Kerry Citizens' Roll Call now.

http://www.johnkerry.com/RollCall

To make our Citizens' Roll Call impossible to ignore, we have alerted the media, environmental advocates and my fellow Senators to a scrolling display of the names and home towns of the roll call signers. It is posted on our johnkerry.com website, where we hope to soon add your name and a running tally of the number of citizens on our Citizens' Roll Call.
2. Bring the fight to the home states of the seven senators

We need to launch emergency online advertising campaigns in the home states of those seven critical senators: Senator Coleman (MN), Senator Smith (OR), Senator Specter (PA), Senator Martinez (FL), Senator Lugar (IN), and Senators Gregg and Sununu (NH).

We need your help to bring our Save the Arctic Refuge message home in these six states. Help us fund an emergency ad campaign to make sure they know how strongly the people they represent feel about protecting the Arctic. Please make an emergency donation right now.

http://contribute.johnkerry.com/

When Senator Cantwell, myself and other Senators stand up in support of the Cantwell-Kerry Amendment, we will have powerful arguments on our side. (I have recapped some of those arguments at the end of this email message)

But, to win, we need to be able to report directly to our Senate colleagues that massive numbers of citizens around the country - and in their own states - are rising up to demand that the Senate protect the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

That's why your immediate signature is so critical.

http://www.johnkerry.com/RollCall

The Bush Administration and its oil industry allies want to send a message that they can drill for oil wherever and whenever they want to - even if it means targeting a place as striking, pristine and irreplaceable as the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

They don't care about putting America on a genuine path to energy independence. If they did, they'd support efforts to increase energy conservation and to create clean, renewable sources of energy that no terrorist can sabotage and no foreign government can seize.

Let me be very direct with you. It is going to take an immediate and impossible-to-ignore display of grassroots support to stop them. That's why your decision to sign our Cantwell-Kerry Amendment Citizens' Roll Call is so crucial.

Thank you for acting quickly on this vital request.

John Kerry

P.S. Senator Cantwell, who comes from a state in the heart of the Pacific Northwest, has - at considerable political risk - courageously stepped forward to join me in leading this fight. We need you to help us win it.

http://www.johnkerry.com/RollCall
HERE ARE YOUR SAVE THE ARCTIC REFUGE TALKING POINTS

* The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge's 19 million acres comprise one of the last places on earth where an intact expanse of arctic and sub arctic lands remains protected.
* Drilling in the Arctic Refuge can't make even a small dent in meeting America's energy needs. U.S. Geological Survey scientists estimate that there is very likely only enough oil to supply America's needs for six months. And oil companies admit that, even that, won't be available for at least 10 years.
* An irreplaceable natural treasure, the Arctic Refuge is home to caribou, polar bears, grizzly bears, wolves, golden eagles, snow geese and more. Millions of other birds use the Arctic Refuge to nest and as a critical staging area on their migratory journeys.
* Of course, the Arctic Refuge supports more than wildlife. For a thousand generations, the Gwich'in people of Northeast Alaska and Northwest Canada have depended on it and lived in harmony with it. To them, the Arctic Coastal Plain is sacred ground.

If they can't respect humans, what did you expect?

[Warham]

I'm tired of our dependency on foreign oil.

Is this the reason I'm paying $2 a gallon?

[DrMaddVibe]

I'll pay 2 bucks a gallon as long as I can keep clubbing baby seals.

Those daggone things are tricky and elusive.

[BigBadBrian]

The antelope will cope. :gulp:

[Nickdfresh]

They'll get very little oil out of that place. There really isn't much recoverable oil in the refuge and it will hardly make a dent.

[Warham]

Liberals bitch about how the oil we are getting from the Mideast is too expensive and that Saudis are running this country, but when you talk about drilling in the barren wastelands of Alaska...Oh, no no, we can't be harming any polar bears now! We wouldn't want the birds migratory patterns to change.

It's a fucking two way street.

[Big Train]

I hate animals now..FUCK, I'm sooooo evil.

OK Libs on Energy, weigh in RIGHT now. Which way do you want it? Foreign oil or domestic? Alternative energy/technology? Tell me how you want it...


For the record, Republicans dont hate animals...we protected them at the convention, putting them in "cages"...don't want them to hurt themselves :)

[Warham]

We let that beast Michael Moore run loose at the RNC Convention this year. He's scarier than any wild grizzly.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Big Train
I hate animals now..FUCK, I'm sooooo evil.

Which way do you want it?...Alternative energy/technology? Tell me how you want it...

I like the alternative energy idea. Only, I have no idea where it's all going to come from (like as it no one has said where the hydrogen is going to come from so that's hardly the panacea it's been made out to be.)

Here's an idea, how about we no longer subsidize trucks and sport utility vehicles by holding the auto makers to the same gas milage restrictions/penalties they must meet in passenger cars. That's a reasonable start, isn't it?


For the record, Republicans dont hate animals...we protected them at the convention, putting them in "cages"...don't want them to hurt themselves :)

You'd better motherfucker! Or Mr. Pickles will send you a message from the balcony!

[DrMaddVibe]

Mr. Pickles?!?

What a pussy!

[FORD]

I would just like to express my public thanks to Senator Cantwell for casting 2 non corporatist votes within a week.

It's so unlike her, but lets hope she keeps it up. And Judas as well.

[Big Train]

Ford...

Your energy choice, sir?

[FORD]

Originally posted by Big Train
Ford...

Your energy choice, sir?

Biodiesel is probably the most practical with current technology. Any existing diesel engine can use it.

Hydrogen fuel cells seem promising. and rapid local transit systems (i.e. light rail) could take a lot of congestion of the roads in metropolitan areas.

As far as home energy, solar and wind power are two great sources, though obviously their effectiveness has a lot to do with climate in any given area. The reason this has been slow to develop is that the corporate world isn't interested. Nobody can own the son or the wind, therefore they can't control the supply and create artificial shortages to raise prices.

[diamondD]

When you look at the size of this refuge, it's not very big compared to the state. The ratio of what they will use with that space is supposed to about the same as putting a piece of newpaper down on a tennis court. As much as we have fucked up the rest of the country with development, I can hardly see why this is such a problem.

[Big Train]

Any other libs brave enough to answer (yes, I'm goading you..). The reason I ask is, as a hardcore neocon, I smell $$ in alt. energy, more than ever before and have no problem breaking off from the mainstream Repub's on oil. Oil I don't give a fuck about, own no stock in and have no personal feelings for either way. With China and Russia coming into the picture and more and more devices everyday coming along gobbling up more energy, traditional (read: oil) will become less and less a plentiful and useful thing we know and love it as.

While I feel there is no shortage or crisis with energy (read a really interesting book recently on resources in general). Energy is everywhere, it is just the manner in which we chose to harness it.

There is a global market for clean, cheap energy. Repubs are entrenched in oil and libs have no fucking clue about business, which is why government grants and studies produce shit. But now that growing numbers of business minded repubs are jumping in, it is time to get serious about it. Which means getting government the fuck out of the way and giving incentives to these companies for their R&D.

Will libs get it? Will Repubs try to block it? No and yes. Will it get done. Absolutely, because the $ speaks louder than all..

[FORD]

Originally posted by diamondD
When you look at the size of this refuge, it's not very big compared to the state. The ratio of what they will use with that space is supposed to about the same as putting a piece of newpaper down on a tennis court. As much as we have fucked up the rest of the country with development, I can hardly see why this is such a problem.

This "not very big area" is the only habitat for the caribou that lives there. Is it worth 6 months worth of oil to permanently damage this portion of the earth and force a species to extinction?

[FORD]

Zogby: 55-60% of American Oppose Arctic Drilling

From December 21, 2004.

A new Zogby International survey shows that Americans oppose opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for oil drilling by a solid 55% - 38% margin. Their opposition is even stronger, 59% - 25%, to a proposed "backdoor maneuver" that would use the annual Congressional budget process to let the oil industry into the Refuge.

Moreover, an overwhelming 80% say that conservation, improved fuel efficiency and the development of renewable energy alternatives are the best ways to reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil. Only 17% say that more drilling on America's public lands is the solution.

[Warham]

So they are willing to pay $2 a gallon then. So be it.

Cars aren't going to be running on solar power any time soon, so drilling in Alaska is the best current solution.

[diamondD]

Originally posted by FORD
This "not very big area" is the only habitat for the caribou that lives there. Is it worth 6 months worth of oil to permanently damage this portion of the earth and force a species to extinction?


There's a lot more than 6 months worth under there and you know it.

Fuck the caribou! I want a new Charger this year!

[Steve Savicki]

6 months... sorry to inconvenience half a year of your life.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by diamondD
There's a lot more than 6 months worth under there and you know it.

Fuck the caribou! I want a new Charger this year!

Not by much. Drilling in the Artic will have virtually no impact on gas prices.

[LoungeMachine]

Alternative energy sources ARE our future. There are no other choices.

The world's demand [read CHINA] is growing faster than our own, and with the rest of the world [read CHINA] owning more and more of our debt, we might have less time than we think.

Two whole dollars a gallon?????????

BIG FUCKING DEAL.

I SAY MAKE IT 3, WITH THE ENTIRE 1/3 GOING TO ALT FUEL RESEARCH. [ not for deisel, jet fuel, and other exemptions

Two fucking dollars a gallon is NOTHING

IT'S CHEAPER THAN BOTTLED WATER

IT'S CHEAPER THAN MILK

QUIT YOUR FUCKING WHINING ABOUT GAS PRICES.

Take the bus if it's such a god damn hardship

This country walks around like the entire world's petroleum resources are OUR FUCKING BIRTHRIGHT.

You've had a Texas "oil man" with saudi "connections" in the whitehouse, and Iraq........ye here we are


GAS IS TOO FUCKING CHEAP IN THIS COUNTRY.

[Warham]

Easy for you to say.

Where's the mercy on the poor who need to drive to work every day making minimum wage?

Some liberal you are,

Bastard.

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Warham
Easy for you to say.

Where's the mercy on the poor who need to drive to work every day making minimum wage?

Some liberal you are,

Bastard.

puh-leeze:rolleyes:

Yeah, The Right cares about showing the poor mercy.

Fucking classic, Warpig.

Fucking Classic.:D

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine



I SAY MAKE IT 3, WITH THE ENTIRE 1/3 GOING TO ALT FUEL RESEARCH. [ not for deisel, jet fuel, and other exemptions

.

Other exemptions being Warpig filling up on his way to his minimum-wage job as the Wal-Mart greeter:D

[Big Train]

Lounge and I are on the same page. Two dollars a gallon is nothing and makes no change. 3-4-5-6-7 Dollars a gallon, making people SCREAM out for something else, that's where the change is. Lounge is the only lib pussy :) I know who actually sees it for what it is.

I'm a neocon and I admit it. I only fucking care about making money. Showing mercy to the poor is low on ANYONE's scale, libs included. So now that we are done bullshitting, lets get serious.

I have yet to see a "envoirnmentalist" dare to say the truth. Gas NEEDS to cost 9 dollars a gallon. That's right. NEEDS too..Then all of a sudden all this tech that we have sitting on a shelf will come roaring out of the gate. ROARING..you'll have a 600 horse Charger (very nice choice, I'd love to buy one myself) running on alt. energy, purring like always.

Fuck gas, period. Let the Chinese deal with it. It is a new industry people, one we can and need to dominate. Domination equals jobs...any Microsoft layoffs lately?

[Steve Savicki]

Gentlemen,

I believe gas at $2 a gallon is a sign of the times that the cost of living just increases over time.

If you're going to complain about gas increases, you may as well complain that movies went up from a quarter in your parents' days to $6.50 or $7 for a matenee or the price of CDs went for $14 to $17; $20 in a mall.

People who want more money simply increase the figure which increases every figure in turn in time. Go figure LOL!

Just be thankful you all have a roof over your head.

[Nickdfresh]

The price of gas in this country is nothing compared to Europe. Ask Kentucky or Sesh what they pay?

[FORD]

If merely raising the price of gas would force people to conserve fuel, I would be all for it. Unfortunately, the increase in gas prices effects nearly everything else in this country, because everything ships by truck, by plane, by boat, or by train, all of which currently burn some form of fossil fuel.

Here's an example of how that ends up working.... Because the BCE has totally FUCKED the economy in this state, there haven't been any cost of living raises here in over 4 years. During that same time, my health care costs have risen by at least 400%. Now add on to that the price of everything else damn near doubling since the Chimp was first court appointed, and the reality that it is all tied to fuel prices. End result - consistent pay cuts (in all but name). I won't even go into how it affects retirement and all that shit.


Raising gas prices is NOT the answer. Getting the goddamned oil industry out of the White House and moving the fuck forward with technology is.

And here's a radical solution - no trucks or SUV's unless you can prove that you NEED to drive one. There's this guy who works in my building. Dude's maybe 5'3" really short dude. I got nothing against him, but the motherfucker drives a F-350. You know, 10 feet off the ground, double axle kind of thing.

Why does he need that truck to work in an OFFICE??

THAT is the kind of wasteful bullshit which we don't need.

And the tax break for SUV's has to end. It was designed to help farmers buy equipment, and it's being abused by the rich. Cancel it immediately.

There's a good start.

[Warham]

We should all drive FORD Escorts.

[FORD]

Originally posted by Warham
We should all drive FORD Escorts.

Some of us can't fit in one of those. That's why I left the option of trucks being sold to those who NEED them. However, that doesn't mean that they shouldn't be trying to make more efficient truck engines. Supposedly, Ford, GM, and Toyota are developing hybrid engines for trucks. And the large trucks with diesel engines can switch to biodiesel. The local bus system here has switched over, and it's a great thing to not see the black smoke spewing out of those buses.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
We should all drive FORD Escorts.

I a few years, we might not have a choice.

[Warham]

Sounds like trying to put a limit on personal freedoms to me.

This from a guy who thinks gay marriage should be allowed, but it's not OK for a person who's 5'2" to own a FORD F-150.

[Cathedral]

It's supply and demand, if you eliminate the demand, there is no need for supplying, right?

I hate this issue because in all reality, if you drive a car with a gas engine, you contribute to the problem.
I have 3 vehicles, and they all require gas, so i have no right to complain, and neither does anyone else unless you have an alternative fuel vehicle, or no vehicle at all.

In my opinion this whole alternate fuel issue is bogus. I have heard my entire life how we are persuing or will persue different fuel sources.

I remember the electric car, nobody purchased them in enough numbers to make it successful. Ford (the motor company) has produced alternate fuel vehicles, sales didn't justify the expense of making them.
Is it Honda? They have a line of alternate fuel vehicles and sales aren't doing well at all for those.

People, this is a problem that has to be remedied in the individuals homes, not by what the government does or doesn't do.
If we weren't sucking the shit down like we do there would not be an issue today.

We the people have to change our lifestyle and reduce our dependance on oil all together.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
Sounds like trying to put a limit on personal freedoms to me.

This from a guy who thinks gay marriage should be allowed, but it's not OK for a person who's 5'2" to own a FORD F-150.

Who are you referring too?

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Cathedral


I remember the electric car, nobody purchased them in enough numbers to make it successful. Ford (the motor company) has produced alternate fuel vehicles, sales didn't justify the expense of making them.
Is it Honda? They have a line of alternate fuel vehicles and sales aren't doing well at all for those.


Not true. Toyota can't keep the Prius in stock and there is a waiting list the size of Harley Davidson's.

[Warham]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Who are you referring too?

FORD.

[Cathedral]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Not true. Toyota can't keep the Prius in stock and there is a waiting list the size of Harley Davidson's.

Not in this part of the country. and thanks for the info on who's making it.
They have a bunch sitting on a lot down the street that aren't selling so there is a conflict in that fact somewhere.
Someone needs to tell them that Fairfield Ohio has them to spare.

[Nickdfresh]

Maybe that 'cause people like Honda Insights in Ohio.

[FORD]

Originally posted by Warham
Sounds like trying to put a limit on personal freedoms to me.

This from a guy who thinks gay marriage should be allowed, but it's not OK for a person who's 5'2" to own a FORD F-150.

The BCE isn't invading foreign countries because of gay marriage. And it's an F-350. A 150 would be more reasonable.

[Cathedral]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Maybe that 'cause people like Honda Insights in Ohio.

V8 sales are actually up here, even with the gas prices rising.
I'm too tall for Honda's and Toyotas, and i can't afford the Lexus or Infinity.
Surprisingly though, the Toyota trucks are hard to keep stocked, and the Kia's for some reason have above average sales also.

Pontiac is down, Oldsmobile is down, but Chrysler is up and they're selling the shit out of the HEMI cars.

Ford's have always been great sellers here, just not their hybrid cars.

[Nickdfresh]

But sales of trucks and SUV's are down overall, and that is a good thing. Toyotas are tough and run forever though, and the little Korean cars a cheap and much better than they used to be.

Olds is almost dead, so no one will buy that. I don't think Ford really has a hybrid yet, although the Escape? is supposed to be a hybrid and the Jeep Liberty now comes in a diesel.

And never, ever buy a NISSAN TITAN. My brother liked my car, so he bought the new pickup. It's been through two rear differentials, a transmission, and finally his powersteering blew. They're being pricks to him about it so he's suing under the Lemon Law.

[Steve Savicki]

We are hours away from the vote to save the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and the heat is on thanks to your efforts over the last 24 hours. A vote is expected around 1:00 PM EST and floor debate begins at 10:15 AM EST. Tune in and watch live on C-SPAN2.

In the last 24 hours we have seen an amazing display of our johnkerry.com community's ability to quickly mobilize - and a passionate outpouring of commitment to the Arctic Refuge. And you got the attention of the Republicans too. In fact late last night Republican leaders came to the floor of the Senate to complain directly about our Citizens' Roll Call to stop this special interest giveaway.

So far, a quarter of a million citizens - more than 260,000 people, have signed our Citizens' Roll Call in support of the Cantwell-Kerry Amendment to prevent the oil drills from invading one of our greatest natural treasures. With the roll call vote in the Senate fast approaching TODAY, we must keep the pressure on - and our Citizens' Roll Call growing.

Sign the Citizens' Roll Call today:

http://www.johnkerry.com/RollCall

With support from grassroots activists across the nation, we are running an online advertising campaign in six critical states that are home to the Republican senators who now hold the future of the Arctic Refuge in their hands.

If you haven't acted yet, please take ONE minute now to sign the roll call and, if you've already signed, use that minute to forward this message to friends and colleagues.
The vote that could decide the future of the Arctic Refuge is going down to the wire. Let's keep working until we win. Your actions today are making a critical difference.

Sincerely,

John Kerry

P.S. If you can help fund these online ads in the decisive, closing moments of this historic environmental debate, that would be a great help.

http://contribute.johnkerry.com/

[Warham]

Originally posted by FORD
The BCE isn't invading foreign countries because of gay marriage. And it's an F-350. A 150 would be more reasonable.

The BCE isn't invading for oil either.

[FORD]

Originally posted by Warham
The BCE isn't invading for oil either.

Funny how Iraq, with NO weapons but a shit load of oil, was considered a better target for invasion than North Korea, with an active weapons program, but NO oil.

[Warham]

Don't worry, they might be next.

[Warham]

Originally posted by FORD
Funny how Iraq, with NO weapons but a shit load of oil, was considered a better target for invasion than North Korea, with an active weapons program, but NO oil.

No weapons, huh?

Wonder what they were going to do with this stuff they bought from the Chinese? Save it for a rainy day?

Saddam bribed China with oil deals, CIA finds


By Bill Gertz
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

China illegally supplied Saddam Hussein's regime with missile technology and other weaponry and was a major beneficiary of the U.N. oil-for-food program, according to a CIA report.
The report by the Iraq Survey Group also stated that China, along with France and Russia, was bribed by Saddam with oil sales and weapons deals into working to end U.N. sanctions.
One sale took place in 2001 and involved an intelligence officer in Beijing, Abd al-Wahab, who bought 10 to 20 gyroscopes and 20 accelerometers from a Chinese firm that was not identified by name. The equipment was to be used in Iraq's Al-Samud missile program, said a former high-ranking official of Iraq's Military Industrialization Commission, which was in charge of arms procurement.

China was the third-largest recipient of oil vouchers from Saddam's regime, the report said. Russia and France were the two largest.
The Iraqi government used the voucher system to siphon off $11 billion through contracting kickbacks and other corruption in the $64 billion humanitarian program, which operated from 1996 to 2003. The program was designed to get food and medicine to the Iraqi people, despite international sanctions.
China also supplied rocket guidance software to the Iraqi Atomic Energy Commission in 2002 that was labeled "children's software" to mask its military nature, the report said.
The report sought to clear the Chinese government of a direct role in the illicit trade by stating the CIA had "no evidence" suggesting Beijing approved the exports.
However, the report noted that the companies involved were "state-owned" firms that were newly privatized and were willing to circumvent U.N. monitoring in supplying goods illegally.
Chinese Embassy spokesman Sun Weide said China's actions under the oil-for-food program were "totally legal." He also said Beijing complied strictly with U.N. resolutions regarding arms technology transfers to Saddam.
Chinese assistance helped boost Iraq's missile programs, especially in the area of guidance and control systems, the report said, noting that "Chinese companies willingly supplied these types of items to the Iraqi regime."
"In supplying prohibited goods, Chinese companies would frequently employ third countries and intermediaries to transship commodities into Iraq," the report said. "The Chinese-Iraqi procurement relationship was both politically problematic and economically pragmatic in nature, but it ultimately provided Iraq with prohibited items, mainly telecommunication equipment and items with ballistic missile applications."
One of the Chinese front companies named in the report was Siam Premium Products. Other Iraqi intermediaries for the China military sales were identified in India, Turkey, Syria and Jordan.
The CIA identified a major supplier of weapons goods to Iraq as the China North Industries Corp., or Norinco, which has been sanctioned by the U.S. government several times.
Norinco agreed in 2000 to supply 200 gyroscopes for use in Russian and Chinese cruise missiles. It also sold machine tools with missile applications.
The report, quoting documents obtained in Iraq, stated that Norinco agreed to continue selling military goods to Iraq despite Baghdad's debt of more than $3 billion to the company from earlier sales.
The company said it would keep the arms trade secret from the Beijing government, and Iraq agreed to repay Norinco with crude oil and petroleum products, the report said.
Iraq also was in the process of buying chemicals and materials for liquid-fuel missiles from Chinese and Indian companies. The sale may have been stopped by the U.S. military action that began in March 2003, the report said.
The report also provided new details on Chinese assistance to Iraq's fiber-optic communications networks, which were used to "connect static command, control and communications bases."
The report stated that the Chinese company Huawei and two other Chinese firms "illicitly provided transmission switches" for fiber-optic communications from 1999 to 2002.
The equipment was banned under the oil-for-food program, and included more than 100,000 lines and fiber-optic cable, the report said.
Chinese firms also supplied Iraq with graphite, a key component for missile nose cones, directional vanes and engine nozzle throats.
"Recovered documents from 2001 indicated a drive to acquire Chinese graphite-related products such as electrodes, powder and missile-related fuel," the report said.

[Big Train]

Originally posted by FORD
If merely raising the price of gas would force people to conserve fuel, I would be all for it. Unfortunately, the increase in gas prices effects nearly everything else in this country, because everything ships by truck, by plane, by boat, or by train, all of which currently burn some form of fossil fuel.

Raising gas prices is NOT the answer. Getting the goddamned oil industry out of the White House and moving the fuck forward with technology is.

And here's a radical solution - no trucks or SUV's unless you can prove that you NEED to drive one. There's this guy who works in my building. Dude's maybe 5'3" really short dude. I got nothing against him, but the motherfucker drives a F-350. You know, 10 feet off the ground, double axle kind of thing.

Why does he need that truck to work in an OFFICE??

THAT is the kind of wasteful bullshit which we don't need.

And the tax break for SUV's has to end. It was designed to help farmers buy equipment, and it's being abused by the rich. Cancel it immediately.

There's a good start.

Ford, your contradictions at times astound me. You say we went to war in Iraq for oil and killed thousands of our own for it. Yet you feel simply removing the president from the white house is going to change all of this magically? The BCE Congress would still be there.

First, raising oil prices IS the best approach precisely BECAUSE it affects larger markets. It creates an overwhelming demand for a cheaper source of energy. As long as gas is relatively cheap, people are willling to go along wih the program (as obviously you yourself are).

Restricting people's choice of vehicle isn't the right answer. THere is no reason to limit someone's freedom of choice. THey should just have to pay for their choice. You can buy a new Silverado Hybrid for roughly the same price as a regular Silverado. It's your choice how many miles per gallon you want to pay for. Keeping it cheap influences nobody...

[Nitro Express]

There are good oil companies. Shell oil being one of them. I went to one of their oil fields in Paupua New Guinea and you would have no idea it was an oil field at all.

We are going to run out of the cheap oil though, alternative fuels are eventually going to be a neccessety but they won't happen as long as oil is cheaper and electricity is too expensive.

The key to alternative fuels like hydrogen is cheap electricity. This is possible but the environmentalists won't let new power plants be build. The Dept of Energy has developed new low emissions coal burning technology. The US is awash in coal. Did you know they can't even build a prototype at the Idaho Nuclear Engineering Labratory because of the envioronmentalists?

We can't run everything on natural gas, so don't blame the Republicans for all the ills, the Democrats have some blame too.

This country will go to shit and become a third world country with the current stalemate. No electrical generating plants that burn clean coal and cheap nuclear plants, no alernative fuels like hydrogen.

Biodiesel actually makes more sense and can be delivered in the current pipeline infastructure. I'm sure the environmentalists will get in the way of doing that too because to get biodiesel, you have to have a shit load of agriculture and they hate that industry too.

[Big Train]

Which is why I ask libs "How do you want it"??

[Nitro Express]

I hate the term SUV. Let's call the 4x4's. I live where the normal snowfall in winter is 6 feet. The snowplow doesn't always come when you need it and I need a big ass, tall, powerful, 4x4 to get out of where I live. My wife drives a Suberban that get's 15-18 MPG. We try to carpool and we not only bus our kids around but the nieghbors kids. All three rows of seats are full a lot of the times. Now our big gas guzzler in real terms is getting better mileage/person than if we drove two sepparate rice burners. Public transportation is not an option where I live nor is riding a bike. I drive my Harley a ton in the summer and it gets around 60MPG.

I was in Los Angeles not too long ago. The 405 freeway is horrible now. I was thinking while I was stuck in traffic that people in LA could actually get where they were going faster by riding bicycles on the freeways than cars. No shit.

[Nitro Express]

Doing business with China will only weaken the US longterm. They are using the greed of our business leaders to ruin our capacity to produce by having our plants shut down here, people laid off and the technology and equipment exported there. Meanwhile CEO's run the strategy of slapping US brandnames on Chinese goods and pocket the difference. Executive pay in the US has never been higher.

If we were smart, we would capture our own business leaders and send them to the gulag or have their heads removed and take our businesses back. LOL!

[FORD]

Those of you who have the opportunity to see ANWR in it's natural God-given state had better do so immediately. The ammendment to stop this raping and pillaging of Mother Earth failed 51-49 thanks to the actions of 3 DLC shitbag traitors :mad:

Thanks to Republicans John McCain and Olympia Snowe who tried to do the right thing in voting for the Cantwell ammendment.

This is beyond sickening :(

[Angel]

Originally posted by Warham
Liberals bitch about how the oil we are getting from the Mideast is too expensive and that Saudis are running this country, but when you talk about drilling in the barren wastelands of Alaska...Oh, no no, we can't be harming any polar bears now! We wouldn't want the birds migratory patterns to change.

It's a fucking two way street.

Actually, in January you bought more oil from Canada than you did from Saudi. :D

Barren wastelands of Alaska? Damn, you need a trip up North to open your eyes! They are far from Barren, and drilling does major damage to the ecology - stay away from north of 60 - it's the one place you guys own that you haven't destroyed yet, why don't you keep it that way for a change? All you'll do is destroy the ecology, and still keep on buying your oil from us, because there isn't enough up there to make it worth your while.

[Angel]

Originally posted by FORD
Those of you who have the opportunity to see ANWR in it's natural God-given state had better do so immediately. The ammendment to stop this raping and pillaging of Mother Earth failed 51-49 thanks to the actions of 3 DLC shitbag traitors :mad:

Thanks to Republicans John McCain and Olympia Snowe who tried to do the right thing in voting for the Cantwell ammendment.

This is beyond sickening :(

FUCK! That's all I can think of to say. :(

[Warham]

Originally posted by Angel
Actually, in January you bought more oil from Canada than you did from Saudi. :D

Barren wastelands of Alaska? Damn, you need a trip up North to open your eyes! They are far from Barren, and drilling does major damage to the ecology - stay away from north of 60 - it's the one place you guys own that you haven't destroyed yet, why don't you keep it that way for a change? All you'll do is destroy the ecology, and still keep on buying your oil from us, because there isn't enough up there to make it worth your while.

If we bought oil from you, then your country is fucking up it's ecology.

Hypocrites.

[Nitro Express]

You guys need to see some of the high tech more environmentally friendly oil fields. If you want to see real pollution in the wilderness, go to Russia. All the streams and rivers are polluted. Beautiful Lake Baikal is a pollution basket case. Hell in Irkusk vodka is cheaper than imported botlled water.

The last time I was in China, I could taste the air. It had a nice flavor of diesel emmisions and industrial oil.

[Nickdfresh]

March 17, 2005
http://a1022.g.akamai.net/f/1022/8158/5m/images.latimes.com/media/photo/2005-03/16729242.jpg
Senate Votes for Drilling in Arctic Refuge
# Both sides see the action as a larger move toward oil and gas sources off California's coast and elsewhere. Legislative hurdles remain.

By Richard Simon, LA Times (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-anwr17mar17.story) Staff Writer

WASHINGTON — The Senate voted Wednesday to open part of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil and gas drilling, marking a turning point in one of the most contentious environmental issues in the country.

Both proponents and critics of the drilling saw the action as opening the door to other areas currently off limits to energy exploration, including areas off California's coast.

The vote in support of drilling was close — 51 to 49. Further approvals will be required before exploration can begin.

But Republican Alaska Gov. Frank H. Murkowski, a former senator, said he was "more optimistic than ever" that the drilling would occur.

The vote also was a key victory for President Bush, who has pressed for energy exploration in the refuge since first taking office.

Environmentalists for decades have thwarted proposals to drill in the area, saying it would endanger one of the nation's natural treasures and have a negligible effect in fulfilling America's energy needs.

But Bush has portrayed the exploration as crucial to reducing dependence on foreign oil and stabilizing gasoline prices.

Pro-drilling forces seized on the current upward pressure on crude oil prices, which hit a record high of $56.46 a barrel Wednesday. Gasoline nationwide is nearing the record average for regular of $2.064 a gallon, set last May, according to Energy Department figures. In California, according to the American Automobile Assn., regular gas averaged $2.32 a gallon Wednesday.

"How high do gas prices have to get, and how over-a-barrel does OPEC have to get us, before we realize what the American people have realized a long time ago: that we have an energy crisis here in America today," said Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.).

Thune was one of four Republicans elected to the Senate in November who favored drilling in ANWR; each replaced a Democrat opposed to opening the refuge to exploration.

Displaying large pictures of polar bears and caribou on the Senate floor, opponents argued that the drilling could harm wildlife in an area they call America's equivalent of the Serengeti wildlife refuge in Africa.

"Have we reached the point when it comes to America's energy security where we have no choice but to go into these areas that are so important and so pristine and engage in drilling and production techniques that will leave scars on the landscape forever?" asked Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.).

Drilling foes contended that tougher vehicle fuel-efficiency standards and other conservation measures would do more to reduce imports.

Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) said that opening the refuge to drilling was "not good environmental policy. But equally important to our nation, it is far from necessary to our energy policy."

In 1995, a drilling measure passed Congress but was vetoed by President Clinton. Although the House has continued to support energy exploration in the refuge, legislation has been blocked in the Senate in recent years by Democrat-led filibusters.

Senate GOP leaders — who previously could not get the 60 votes needed to end a filibuster — this year attached the drilling proposal to a budget measure that can be approved by a simple majority of 51 votes. They justified the maneuver by including in the budget legislation a projected $2.5 billion in revenue from leasing a portion of the refuge for energy exploration.

Wednesday's vote defeated a Democrat-led effort to strip the drilling provision from the budget measure.

The ANWR proposal still must survive a Senate vote on the overall budget resolution, followed by House-Senate negotiations on that measure. Other controversial items on spending and tax policy could derail the budget resolution, as happened last year.

Environmentalists have been encouraged by comments from some members of the House Budget Committee that passing the budget resolution could be difficult. But the addition of the drilling proposal is expected to provide a major incentive for GOP leaders.

Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) acknowledged the hurdles still facing the drilling plan, but called Wednesday's vote "a big step" toward its ultimate approval.

Stevens and other drilling proponents have said that the refuge offers the single greatest prospect for onshore domestic oil production. But the amount of petroleum that can be economically recovered is in dispute.

Proponents say there could be as much as 16 billion barrels of oil beneath the tundra; opponents say that figure is exaggerated and that the oil would take years to reach markets.

The United States uses about 7 billion barrels of oil a year.

Wednesday's vote was the latest legislative triumph for Bush. He recently signed into law a measure aimed at limiting class-action lawsuits, and is awaiting expected approval of a bill overhauling bankruptcy laws.

Roger Berliner, a Washington energy lawyer, said the vote "reaffirms the strength of the Republican majority and their commitment to take full advantage of that strength while they have it, through every means available to them."

Environmental groups and their congressional allies called the vote a setback, but vowed to continue the fight.

"They may have cleared the first hurdle by the skin of their teeth, but this thing isn't over — not by a long shot," said Rodger Schlickeisen, president of Defenders of Wildlife.

Robert Dewey, the group's vice president of government relations, said drilling opponents would redouble their efforts to rally the public — and in turn put pressure on Congress — to kill the measure.

"The American public overwhelmingly supports protecting the refuge," Dewey said. A Zogby International poll taken in December found that Americans favored keeping drilling out of the refuge, 55% to 38%.

Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), a leading drilling opponent, sent an e-mail Wednesday to more than 3 million supporters of his failed presidential bid, urging them to step up their efforts to fight the drilling.

Right up until the roll call, lobbying for and against the Arctic exploration was fierce.

Former President Carter and actor Robert Redford contacted senators, urging them to oppose the drilling. Interior Secretary Gale A. Norton and representatives of the Teamsters union called on senators to support the drilling. The pro-exploration U.S. Chamber of Commerce advised senators that their votes would be highlighted on a report card sent to its 3 million business members.

Three Democrats — Daniel K. Akaka and Daniel K. Inouye, both of Hawaii, and Mary L. Landrieu of Louisiana — joined 48 Republicans in supporting the drilling.

Inouye, explaining his vote, said: "I've heard many of my colleagues suggest the war in Iraq is a war on oil. If they feel so, why don't we produce our own oil?"

California Sens. Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein, both Democrats, were among those voting against exploration.

Seven Republicans also opposed the drilling: Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, Norm Coleman of Minnesota, Susan Collins and Olympia J. Snowe of Maine, Mike DeWine of Ohio, John McCain of Arizona and Gordon H. Smith of Oregon.

[Steve Savicki]

"Yesterday, we saw a relentless Republican attack on one of our most treasured natural wonders sneak through the Senate on a 51 to 49 vote. But, we also saw more than 260,000 Americans act in less than 24 hours to add their names to our Citizens' Roll Call in favor of protecting the Arctic Refuge.

It was the first time ever that I or anyone else could stand on the Senate floor and announce that, in a day's time, a quarter of a million Americans had gone online to express their passionate support for a given course of action.

That awesome display of grassroots power rattled our opponents. They even railed against my e-mail message on the Senate floor and entered its text into the Senate record. So, think of it this way. The Republican leaders of the Senate have 51 reasons to celebrate today, but you and I have 260,000 reasons to do the same.

If we keep working together - committed pro-environment Senators and a powerful grassroots movement all pulling in the same direction - we can still stop the plan for drilling in the Arctic from making it the rest of the way through Congress. And we can win the larger battle over two very different visions of America's energy future.

George W. Bush and the Washington Republicans have a plan to sell off our public lands to powerful special interests. As a result of their ruthless drive to undermine America's most beautiful natural treasures, the oil rigs are closer to the Arctic Refuge than they have ever been. But, the Bush administration's own scientists and economists admit that the Republicans' plan will not make us less dependent on foreign oil and will not lower prices at the pump. We have to put America's energy future in the hands of Americans - by inventing our way to real energy independence and having energy sources that create jobs and lower prices.

With your help, we will continue to wholeheartedly resist their special interest-funded partisan agenda. And, if we act with the same energy and determination as we have on this critical Arctic Refuge vote, sooner than later, our power and commitment will carry the day. I know you will be with me every step of the way and I thank you for the passion and energy that you bring to our work together.

Sincerely,

John Kerry

P.S. I told you that more than a quarter of a million people signed our Citizens' Roll Call in the first 24 hours after we launched it. Actually the news is even more impressive. As of this moment, there are over 400,000 signers to our Roll Call, including tens of thousands who signed after the vote to express their determination to keep fighting. Let's keep working."

[Angel]

Originally posted by Warham
If we bought oil from you, then your country is fucking up it's ecology.

Hypocrites.

We don't drill in protected areas, or wildlife refuges.

[Big Train]

Why doesn't this hypocrite shut the fuck up? Once he "gets to work" on one if his boats with twin 500 horse motors (something like 28 gallons an hour), his numerous cars, trucks and airplanes, perhaps I could take him a bit more seriously..

[Warham]

Originally posted by Angel
We don't drill in protected areas, or wildlife refuges.

Well, I don't think there's much desert up there in Canada, is there?

[FORD]

Originally posted by Warham
Well, I don't think there's much desert up there in Canada, is there?

You would be surprised. ;)

[Angel]

Ford, you've been to Kamloops area then? How about Drumheller? or, even better, how about the Alberta Oil Sands (Second only to the Saudi Arabia reserves)! ;)

[FORD]

Originally posted by Angel
Ford, you've been to Kamloops area then? How about Drumheller? or, even better, how about the Alberta Oil Sands (Second only to the Saudi Arabia reserves)! ;)

Never been to Alberta at all. But I love the BC Southern Interior. It's like Arizona with water & trees :cool:

And you shouldn't mention how much oil Alberta has. The BCE monitors this board!

[GAR]

Originally posted by FORD
I would just like to express my public thanks to Senator Cantwell for casting 2 non corporatist votes within a week.

It's so unlike her, but lets hope she keeps it up. And Judas as well.

Dear FORD,

On behalf of the Senator she would like to thank all...

(oh fuck that, it's started out funny but this whole thread smells of Ben Gay)

[LoungeMachine]

Hey, I finally found something I can DISAGREE with FORD on.......

The Dawgs.

I say HUCK THE FUSKIES.

I hate the UDUB.

The whole fucking program still reeks of Hedges.

Always hated that pussy Don James too. Took the coward's way out.



It's just nice to finally differ from FORD.

[Guitar Shark]

Originally posted by FORD
And you shouldn't mention how much oil Alberta has. The BCE monitors this board!

Have they hacked your PC lately? :argh:

[Satan]

Originally posted by Guitar Shark
Have they hacked your PC lately? :argh:

Not since I helped him set up a FIREwall :D

[Angel]

Originally posted by FORD
The BCE monitors this board!

Guess I'm not allowed in your country anymore then. ;)

[Big Train]

Yea, but that had nothing to do with the BCE...we just all naturally agreed :)

[Angel]

Love ya, too doll! :tits:

[BrownSound1]

You know what's funny about solar cells? The process used to manufacture them is about as nasty for the enviroment as you can get.

[Big Train]

I bet they don't "Recylce" well either..

[monkeythe]

Let's not forget that the price of gas includes tax. I live on the border of NY/NJ. It is at least 50 cents a gallon cheaper in NJ where I am forced to have full service as opposed to NY where I pay 50 cents more for self-service. I wish that we knew what the real price of gas was and how much are hidden taxes.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by monkeythe
Let's not forget that the price of gas includes tax. I live on the border of NY/NJ. It is at least 50 cents a gallon cheaper in NJ where I am forced to have full service as opposed to NY where I pay 50 cents more for self-service. I wish that we knew what the real price of gas was and how much are hidden taxes.

Not nearly as much as in Europe.

[DrMaddVibe]

.

[FORD]

http://notanothervaldez.org/

[LoungeMachine]

How Much Oil Is Under the Arctic Refuge?

According to a study updated by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) in 2000, using the newest data available, there is a 95% chance of finding only 1.9 billion barrels (BBO) of economically recoverable oil and a 50% chance of finding 5.3 billion barrels of oil. This sounds like a lot, until you consider that Americans use 19 million barrels of oil each day, or 7 billion barrels of oil per year. The USGS concluded that -- given America’s current rate of usage -- there is in all likelihood a 180-day (6-month) supply of oil lying beneath the Arctic Refuge’s coastal plain.

Solving any current energy problems will be difficult with Arctic Refuge oil, because it would take more than a decade to bring the new wells on line. At no time would oil taken from the coastal plain of the Arctic Refuge be expected to amount to more than 2 percent of the current U.S. demand.

And there’s no guarantee that oil extracted from the Refuge would flow to American refineries and pumps. The same multi-national corporations that want to drill into the Arctic Refuge successfully lobbied Congress to repeal of a decades-old ban on exporting Alaskan oil overseas. They have already sold Alaskan oil to China and other foreign countries. If the Arctic Refuge is drilled, whatever oil is found there could very well be shipped overseas to meet the energy demands of foreign nations.



FROM FORD'S LINK

[FORD]

Wilderness Preservation

Parks, Forests & Wildlands: Wilderness Preservation: In Brief: Fact Sheet

The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge
Oil Development Damages Air, Water and Wildlife



Toxic spills and air pollution from permanent, year-round operations are destroying Alaska's fragile North Slope.

Once part of the largest intact wilderness area in the United States, Alaska's North Slope now hosts one of the world's largest industrial complexes, spanning some 1,000 square miles of once-pristine Arctic tundra. Prudhoe Bay and 26 other oilfields include the following:

* 28 oil production plants, gas processing facilities, and seawater treatment and power plants
* 38 gravel mines
* 223 production and exploratory gravel drill pads
* 500 miles of roads
* 1,800 miles of pipelines
* 4,800 exploration and production wells

All of this activity is taking place in an exceptionally fragile region. Because of the very short summer growing season, extreme cold at other times of the year, and nutrient-poor soils and permafrost, vegetation grows very slowly in the North Slope. Any physical disturbance -- bulldozer tracks, seismic oil exploration, spills of oil and other toxic substances -- can scar the land for decades. The National Academy of Sciences concluded it is unlikely that the most disturbed habitat will ever be restored and the damage to more than 9,000 acres by oilfield roads and gravel pads is likely to remain for centuries.

A close look at how four decades of this sprawling oil development has destroyed Prudhoe Bay dispels the myth that drilling can take place in the nearby Arctic National Wildlife Refuge coastal plain without permanently damaging the landscape and the wildlife that depends on it.


A toxic spill every day

Each year, the oil industry spills tens of thousands of gallons of crude oil and other hazardous materials on the North Slope. In fact, every day there is on average at least one spill either in the oil fields or at the Trans-Alaska Pipeline. From 1996 to 2004, there were some 4,530 spills of more than 1.9 million gallons of diesel fuel, oil, acid, biocide, ethylene glycol, drilling fluid and other materials. In the Arctic, the environmental damage from oil spills is more severe and lasts longer than in more temperate climates. Diesel fuel, for instance -- the most frequently spilled substance on the North Slope -- is acutely toxic to plants. Even after decades have passed, tundra vegetation has been unable to recover from diesel spills.


Oil operations pollute the air with tons of emissions

Each year, oil operations on Alaska's North Slope emit more than 70,000 tons of nitrogen oxides, which contribute to smog and acid rain. (That's three times more than Washington, D.C.'s annual NOx emissions, according to the Environmental Protection Agency.) Plumes of pollution from Prudhoe Bay have been detected in Barrow, Alaska, nearly 200 miles away. And pollutants from drilling operations, natural gas facilities and incinerators also have been detected in snow in the Prudhoe Bay area.

Although the overall impact of these air pollutants on Arctic ecosystems remains largely unknown, some Arctic species are known to be especially sensitive to air pollutants at levels below national air quality standards. North Slope oil facilities also release greenhouse gases, which are a major contributor to global climate change. Each year, they emit 7 million to 40 million metric tons of carbon dioxide and 24,000 to 114,000 metric tons of methane. Emissions climb even higher as North Slope oil is transported by tanker, refined, and eventually burned in engines or power plants.


Hazardous waste contaminates water and wetlands

For years, old reserve pits holding millions of gallons of drilling and other wastes pocked the North Slope. The pits typically contained a variety of toxic metals, as well as petroleum hydrocarbons and other harmful substances. Thanks partly to litigation by the Natural Resources Defense Council, handling methods for the waste in these reserve pits have improved.

While the oil industry has closed many of the pits, more than 100 remain to be cleaned. And, despite advances in disposal methods -- in which most drilling wastes are ground up and re-injected into wells -- problems remain. In 2000, for instance, British Petroleum (BP) was ordered to pay $22 million in civil and criminal fines and establish a new environmental management program because its contractors had illegally disposed of hazardous wastes containing benzene and other toxic chemicals. These crimes only came to light because a whistle-blower reported them to the EPA.

The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation still lists more than 100 contaminated sites associated with oil industry operations on the North Slope. These sites contain a variety of toxic materials, including acids, lead, pesticides, solvents, diesel fuel, caustics, corrosives and petroleum hydrocarbons. Leakage from some sites has contaminated the surrounding tundra wetlands and waterways, which likely will be ruined for decades.

http://www.nrdc.org/land/wilderness/arcticrefuge/facts2.asp