OT-Very OT-Geen Fruitcakes in action

An email forwarded from an old and dear but green as alge friend

"Dear Friend,

No one voted on Election Day to destroy the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. But President Bush is now claiming a mandate to do exactly that.

Congressional leaders are pushing for a budget bill that would turn America's greatest sanctuary for Arctic wildlife into a vast, polluted oil field. The U.S. Senate has already passed a budget resolution that would open the Arctic Refuge to oil drilling.

But to complete its assault on the refuge, Congress must still pass two different budget measures. We urgently need your help to prevent passage of any final budget agreement that includes Arctic drilling.

Please go to the NRDC Action Fund website

formatting link
right now and send a message telling your U.S. senators and representative to reject this sneak attack on the Arctic Refuge.

And please forward my message to your friends, family, and colleagues. We must mobilize millions of Americans in opposition as quickly as possible.

Don't believe for a second that the president is targeting the Arctic Refuge for the sake of America's energy security or to lower gas prices at the pump.

President Bush knows full well that oil drilled in the Arctic Refuge would take ten years to get to market and would never equal more than a paltry one or two percent of our nation's daily consumption. Simply put, sacrificing the crown jewel of our wildlife heritage would do nothing to reduce gas prices or break our addiction to Persian Gulf oil.

But if the raid on the Arctic Refuge isn't really about gas prices or energy security, then what is it about?

It's the symbolism.

The Arctic Refuge represents everything spectacular and everything endangered about America's natural heritage. It embodies a million years of ecological serenity . . . a vast stretch of pristine wilderness . . . an irreplaceable birthing ground for polar bears, caribou and white wolves.

It is the greatest living reminder that conserving nature in its wild state is a core American value. It stands for every remnant of wilderness that we, as a people, have wisely chosen to protect from the relentless march of bulldozers, chain saws and oil rigs.

And that's why the Bush administration is dead set on destroying it.

By unlocking the Arctic Refuge, they hope to open the door for oil, gas and coal giants to invade our last and best wild places: our western canyonlands, our ancient forests, our coastal waters, even our national monuments.

This is the real agenda behind the raid on the Arctic Refuge and the entire Bush-Cheney energy plan: to transfer our public estate into corporate hands so it can be liquidated for a quick buck.

Please go to the NRDC Action Fund website

formatting link
and tell your senators and representative they have no mandate to destroy the Arctic Refuge. Then please be sure to forward this message to as many people as you can.

And thank you for speaking out at this critical time.

Sincerely,

Robert Redford NRDC Action Fund

"[L]iberals are afraid to state what they truly believe in, for to do so would result in even less votes than they currently receive. Their methodology is to lie about their real agenda in the hopes of regaining power, at which point they will do whatever they damn well please. The problem is they have concealed and obfuscated for so long that, as a group, they themselves are no longer sure of their goals. They are a collection of wild-eyed splinter groups, all holding a grab-bag of dreams and wishes. Some want a Socialist, secular-humanist state, others the repeal of the Second Amendment. Some want same sex/different species marriage, others want voting rights for trees, fish, coal and bugs. Some want cradle to grave care and complete subservience to the government nanny state, others want a culture that walks in lockstep and speaks only with intonations of political correctness. I view the American liberals in much the same way I view the competing factions of Islamic fundamentalists. The latter hate each other to the core, and only join forces to attack the US or Israel. The former hate themselves to the core, and only join forces to attack George Bush and conservatives." --Ron Marr

Reply to
Gunner
Loading thread data ...

If it were up to me we would drill a hole every 5 feet, the Canadians are already drilling sideways.

I thought Robert Redford was moving out of the country after the election? I hope he takes Jane Fonda with him!

Reply to
Tom Gardner

Funny. I wonder why your friend is not concerned about all of the other ecosystems/habitats that are being trashed for the things that he uses every day in his life.

Does he think that all of the other oil fields are somehow earth-friendly, just for starters?

AC

Reply to
Alan Connor

Let me see... The debate on this ultimately involves a trade-off between keeping humans healthy and alive here in the US, or keeping some obscure but endangered species of animal life alive and healthy for a short time longer in the Arctic Wastelands.

Seem to me that this decision is a 'no-brainer', except for someone with a seriously distorted sense of values and who has never personally witnessed unfortunate homeless people sleeping on top of culverts and under bridges just to keep warm in zero-degree winter weather because the local shelter has no heat or space for them.

I've seen oil wells in operation for decades everywhere from Long Beach California to Pennsylvania, but I have yet to see one create any notable environmental hazard, nor have the thousands of miles of oil pipeline that we have criss-crossing the US.

How many polar bears, seals and birds does it take to equal one human life?

Think about it.

Harry C.

Reply to
hhc314

How does a pipe line or an oil rig kill ?

Truth is they don't. The animals do just fine.

n.

Reply to
North

hhc314@yahoo... Tom

Obvious troll aliases.

Piss off.

Say anything you want, I couldn't care less.

Won't be reading your posts, nor any responses to them, anyplace, anytime, anysubject.

Here's your big clue for the decade: As a rule, nobody that I care to talk to reads your posts either.

If they did, and responded, I wouldn't read those posts either.

AC

Reply to
Alan Connor

Yes, oil drilling is so very deadly and destructive that one square mile used for drilling will kill every living thing for thousands of square miles of the Arctic yet it is somehow is safe to drill in a tropical paradise. And the wildlife is fragile that just one drop of oil will kill thousands of animals, yet they are tough enough to survive 40 below winters. And oil spilled ice somehow just goes everywhere and attacks everything even when covered up by the next snowfall.

Environmentally is there a lower impact place on the planet to drill?

Stop letting SeeBS tell you what to think. D'uh.

Reply to
Willcox

Forget the d*@ned polar bears. They will all be dead in a few years anyway at the rate the ice packs are melting.

Think about this. Not one gallon of ANWAR oil is ever going to mean the difference between life and death for anyone. What it will do is avoid the automobile makers having to increase average efficiency by about 0.2 mpg, supply the same amount of gasoline that would be saved if everyone increased the tire pressure by 1 PSI and give the oil companies something to do with their money rather than increase refining capacity so they are free to declare regional shortages and jack up prices whenever they want.

You wingers better face up to the fact that from now on there will never be enough oil and WalMart is shipping all our money to China so they can out bid us for what oil there is. This "energy bill" is just a giant give away to big oil partially financed by cutting research in alternative sources off at the knees.

Reply to
Glenn Ashmore

formatting link
Gunner

"At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child - miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied, demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless. Liberalism is a philosphy of sniveling brats." -- P.J. O'Rourke

Reply to
Gunner

What's your point other than to get us all laughing at your "old and dear friend"?

ral

Reply to
Richard Lewis

Gummer, a lot of your posts just illustrate the fact that you have a 50 caliber mouth and a 22 caliber brain.

Take a look at this link before you start throwing insults.

formatting link
The Cato Institute is not exactly a hotbed of liberal weenies.

Reply to
Glenn Ashmore

All true, if Refiners were still only using thermal cracking like they did 80 years ago. But that gives you too much low octane gasoline and Naptha. during WWII, more High Octane Gasolines were needed, so Alkylation and Catalytic Cracking were added to Refineries

So now your barrel of Crude now gives less Tars, heavy Oils and Naptha, but more useful fuels like Jet Fuel, hi-Octane Gasoline _and_ Diesel are made than straight Thermal does.

Those processes also allow the Refiners to select for more Gasoline or Heating Oil, depending on the season.

However, technology doesn't cover the addition of the 'Magic Dye' that seperate the very similar Home Heating Oil and Diesel into different cost products.

Thats a Government thing.

** mike **
Reply to
mike

I don't follow Gunner's links, but the fact is that the Cato Institute is a hotbed of *libertarian* weenies.

They're not particularly good on research or writing, either. They write papers in a publish-or-perish environment, in which they have to say

*something* to keep their incomes flowing.

Heritage Foundation is a lot better, in terms of the quality of thought behind their writings.

-- Ed Huntress

Reply to
Ed Huntress

"Ed Huntress" wrote

Well, I think Gunner claims to be a Libertarian and for sure his research, while prolific, is not particularly good, he should fit right in.

Reply to
Glenn Ashmore

Cato is political and economic theory for the simple-minded. If you hear someone say, about some aspect of economics or society, politics international or domestic, "it's all very simple...what part of it don't you get?," they're a natural for Cato Institute white papers.

In my job now I often have to dumb-down consumer medical information to the level of 6th-grade readers (not for physicians, so far -- thank God ), using the FRY readability scale. When I read a Cato paper, it looks to me like the editor has FRY'd it. It's dumbed-down politics, sociology, and economics.

-- Ed Huntress

Reply to
Ed Huntress

Noted.

One should also note that a lot of your posts appear to come from the febril brain of a deranged Liberal with delusions of importance.

Shrug. I strongly suggest keeping your Aluminum Deflector Beanie handy. As far as I can tell, your not wearing it as allowed significant brain damage to already occur.

Gunner

"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."

- John Stewart Mill

Reply to
Gunner

Tell your handlers in the DNC that I said they need to improve your style.

Gunner

"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."

- John Stewart Mill

Reply to
Gunner

The problem is with the Rock generation that's bringing us closer to the stone age and is so adamantly scared of nuclear power, that they will resist building power plants until they are all replaced by the next generation. The job would be to start educating our grandchildren and removing the scary nuke fantasy from their brains now.

cheerst T.Alan

Reply to
T.Alan Kraus

I suggest you read about three-mile island and Chernobl. I wound rather rather more to a farm and cut my own wood for heat than build a potentail time bomb that could kill the entire world with one accident.

Reply to
Chuck Sherwood

The problem is that nuclear power plants are another huge subsidy to corporations as well as a way to bilk investors (look up WPPSS). Just a paragraph from one site:

Several factors combined to ruin construction schedules and to drive costs to three and four times the original estimates. Inflation and design changes constantly plagued all the projects. Builders often got ahead of designers who modified their drawings to conform to what had been built. Safety changes imposed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission increased costs too, but the biggest cause of delays and overruns was mismanagement of the process by the WPPSS. The directors and the managers of the system had no experience in nuclear engineering or in projects of this scale. System managers were unable to develop a unified and comprehensive means of choosing, directing, and supervising contractors. One contractor, already shown to be incompetent, was retained for more work. In a well-publicized example, a pipe hanger was built and rebuilt 17 times. Quality control inspectors complained of inadequate work that went unaddressed.

Nuclear itself is probably a good way to go if waste disposal problems and such can be addressed. The real problem with our whole energy policy is that it relies on massive scale at a source-point rather than comprehensive sourcing at localities. Investments into smaller scale localized energy sourcing as well as efficiency technologies would be FAR better in the long run than massive subsidies to keep old technologies profitable. If this means bio-diesel on a more localized scale of sourcing and production, "mini" nuclear, wind technologies, localized water cracking, or something we haven't even envisioned yet, it would still be a better energy policy than continuing to subsidize oil companies to suck wherever they want. Last I heard, in the Midwest it was cheaper to buy every (coal based) electricity user a new energy efficient refrigerator than it was to increase capacity to cover continued use of older refrigerators (and use growth). They opted to increase capacity instead and bilked consumers for the costs.

Drilling in ANWAR is just stupid policy because it doesn't accomplish anything except keeping current technologies profitable for another couple of years. It's typical short-sighted policy of both the Democrats and Republicans. Short term profits before long term sensibility (just like the American busness model). There is no gain to the American public, only a gain in temporary profits to already large and profitable corporations.

Koz

Reply to
Koz

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.