digg

Join DiggAbout

Digg Townhall now online!
Check out the latest Digg Townhall, where Kevin and Jay answered the top questions from the Digg Community!

Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate

Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.
See the original image at time.com —

Palin on the Environment: Far Right

time.com — But environmentalists say that Palin's push to open up ANWR to oil exploration would effectively destroy the refuge. Though only a 1.5 million acre coastal plain within ANWR is thought to contain petroleum, drilling would likely wreak havoc with wildlife well beyond that narrow strip of land. "The impact would be cumulative," says Margaret Williams

show profanity settings
expand all
  • MindyB, on 09/03/2008, -27/+63Not only that, she has sued the Federal Government to take polar bears and walrus off the endangered species list. She also launched an illegal areal wolf bounty program, requiring every person claiming the wolf bounty to present the two hind legs of the wolf they killed before getting paid. She is sick! McCain is sicker for hastily choosing someone like her.
    • soupdawg30, on 09/03/2008, -6/+12Polar Bears aren't endangered and shouldn't be on the list.
      • EtherGnat, on 09/03/2008, -2/+1And by what scientific evidence do you make that determination?
      • soupdawg30, on 09/04/2008, -0/+2Here is one of many articles

        http://www.cbc.ca/canada/north/story/2007/01/02/po ...
      • MindyB, on 09/07/2008, -0/+1What verifiable scientific evidence do you have to say such a thing?
      • MindyB, on 09/07/2008, -0/+1Not a story but verifiable scientific evidence. The Fed Gov. must have had scientific evidence to place them in the endangered species list, they don't just do that because some environmentalists say so.
    • nycmac247, on 09/03/2008, -5/+9LOL you might want to spend some time in the out doors and get out of the city sometime.
      Most "environmentalists" rarely get out of the house and merely parrot what they are told the "problems" are.
      • nick111, on 09/03/2008, -6/+5Oh, right... and you're basing that assertion on what exactly?

        What is it with you people and lying? If you can't make a point without lying, why on earth do you think it might be a good point?
    • winnestow, on 09/03/2008, -4/+6Obama wants to raise taxes and kill babies.
      Sarah wants to raise babies and kill taxes."
      • biogears, on 09/03/2008, -0/+2Oh man, that was a beautiful piece of wording.

      • Pstall, on 09/03/2008, -1/+2She has actually been to ANWR when was the last time you visited?
      • winnestow, on 09/04/2008, -0/+1i was in juneau four weeks ago, does that count?
    • joe122370, on 09/03/2008, -1/+4thank goodness for Palin! you act like this is a bad thing
    • biogears, on 09/03/2008, -1/+3I think you libs are secretly hot for her naughty librarian looks.
    • Andysan, on 09/03/2008, -1/+3All this crap about Palin and the environment isn't about the environment at all. It IS all about a bunch of Marxists and left-wing nuts trying to leverage the environment for their twisted political agenda. Palin simply serves to shine the light of public opinion on their efforts. Go Sarah!!!
  • Kizilbash, on 09/03/2008, -10/+48She's far right all over.
    • Kohaxx, on 09/03/2008, -11/+5She's far wrong all over.
    • bobh1234, on 09/03/2008, -9/+9And Obama is far, far, far, far, far left all over. What's your point?
      • apetrie, on 09/03/2008, -4/+11That you have no concept of the political scale, apparently.
      • letherial, on 09/03/2008, -1/+7that the right has ***** up this country
      • benjorino, on 09/03/2008, -0/+5Its odd to view american politics from a european perspective.... The american "left" is still a lot more right wing than the UK's mainstream right wing party, and as for the american right wing.... no such thing exists here really (Thankfully!).
      • nycmac247, on 09/03/2008, -0/+1they should make a little baby
      • nick111, on 09/03/2008, -0/+4No, by the standards of the rest of the world, he's fairly right-wing.
      • chicofaraby, on 09/03/2008, -0/+1In what way is Senator Obama "left?"

        I'm a leftist and I can't find any reason to vote for him.
      • Pstall, on 09/03/2008, -1/+1He is rated the #1 liberal senator in the US senate.... I would say that is pretty far left.
    • cmorriss, on 09/03/2008, -4/+1050% of the U.S. population agrees that we should drill in ANWR. How exactly is that far right? I'd call that mainstream, but then again I'm not an Obama follower.

      Source: http://people-press.org/report/433/gas-prices

      I do agree that we need to move as much of our energy sources to renewable resources as we can and soon, but it's stupid to ignore the need for more domestically produced oil in the mean time. It will be several decades before renewables completely take over and until then, we need to make sure we can keep our economy running.
      • EtherGnat, on 09/03/2008, -0/+1Drilling offshore and in ANWR isn't going to do anything to keep our economy going. It'll increase worldwide production maybe 3%, which isn't going to result in any kind of significant price drops.

        If anybody can prove now is the best time economically to drill I'm willing to change my opinion, but I have my doubts. Republicans wanted to drill in ANWR in the 70s at $25 per barrel (adjusted for inflation). Obviously that would have been a bad move economically. What will oil prices be like in another 30 years? In 60 years?

        I suspect that oil will be more critical to our future needs than our current needs.
      • cmorriss, on 09/04/2008, -0/+1@EthnerGnat - It's not just about increasing worldwide production. It's also about increasing domestic production so we don't have to rely as much on foreign oil. If it allows us to import significantly less from the middle east, then it's going to give us much more autonomy. I.e., our potential enemies won't have a knife at our economic throat anymore.

        Also, as we move to renewable resources, we'll need less oil. Hopefully, we'll be able to completely remove our dependence on oil from the middle east in a shorter time frame than otherwise would be possible.
    • sniffspam, on 09/09/2008, -5/+2Better to be Right the Wrong.
    • nycmac247, on 09/03/2008, -0/+1-
    • benjorino, on 09/03/2008, -1/+2"Palin is a typical Republican. Cheney without the Dick."

      I stole that from a youtube comment. I still can't believe I found a youtube comment worth reading.
      • alaskanassassin, on 09/03/2008, -0/+2lol back to elementary school, recess is over.
  • ImperialRome, on 09/03/2008, -34/+26I guess the Time reporter didnt bother to actually look at the drilling area. Its a barren strip of coastal plain, no trees, no vegetation, no wildlife. Zero.

    Drilling in ANWR isn't going to destroy wildlife, any more than drilling in Prudhoe Bay has. In fact, the heat from the drilling operation, and the heat of the pipeline warm the caribou during winter.

    The drilling site is 2000 acres of that plain, out of the 1.5 million acres of this:
    http://www.nationalreview.com/images/pic_ANWR_144. ...

    The natives want us to drill, Alaskans want us to drill, and the US consumers want us to drill. We arent going to destroy the ANWR region, barren as it is, with a 2000 acre site on the coast and a pipeline through it.
    http://www.nationalreview.com/images/pic_ANWR_142. ...

    The impact would not be "cumulative" it would be negligable.
    • neognostic, on 09/03/2008, -11/+29I've worked in the oil patch, have you? My guess is no, since you are so ignorant of anything to do with this issue.
      1. Your pics show lots of vegetation.
      2.The report notes that opening 1002 Area (the Coastal Plain) of ANWR to oil and gas development also opens Alaska Native lands within ANWR to such development -- all 100,000 acres. That fact alone ensures there will be no "small footprint," as it was described by President Bush, in developing oil and gas in the refuge.
      3. In a final insult to the American public, both energy bills would allow the oil from ANWR -- if it is transported via the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System -- to be exported. The president can stop such export only by determining that it is not in the national interest.
      4. Visitors have many opportunities to view and photograph a diverse display of animal and plant life within the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Almost 180 species of birds, 45 species of mammals and 36 species of fish have been seen there. Golden eagles, peregrine falcons, loons, tundra swans, caribou, polar and brown bears, muskoxen, wolves, lynx, arctic char and grayling are some of the many animals one may see in the refuge
      5. http://www.nrdc.org/land/wilderness/artech/farc200 ...
      Now shut up until you learn what is actually going on.
      • cedarbaydave, on 09/03/2008, -2/+3but what about the caribou who are going to shiver all winter...
      • DiggsOnlyJew, on 09/03/2008, -17/+4180 species of birds, 45 species of mammals and 36 species of fish which will never cultivate land, build cities, find cures for diseases, go into space, engineer cars, create museums, make music, etc...

        Reading one of your posts, your stance indicates that you are pro-choice. So you're alright with killing unborn babies but you want to give up your way of life for useless animals that won't even be effected by this... I'm not attacking your pro-choice stance, I am pro-choice as well, but at least I'm not a hypocrit.
      • Arkons24, on 09/03/2008, -1/+1Doesn't matter if the oil is exported or not. We sell oil for the same price we buy it for. Whether or not the logistics make more sense to send to the mainland or ship overseas is the only factor at work.

      • YEEK, on 09/03/2008, -5/+3Hey DiggsOnlyJew... It's nice to know that there are some places on Earth that remain as God made them.

        Why are you so horribly greedy?
      • trizzlelv, on 09/03/2008, -4/+2props to you Neo... you pwned him. That's what I love to see on Digg, FACTS!
      • 26thMARINES, on 09/03/2008, -2/+2Neo, you dont know ***** dude. only drilling you know is from your backside.
        when was the last time an oil rigg caused destruction in the US?
        and that area is a waste. and screw the birds, America will succeed with oil exploration regardless if we export or not. competetion on the market lowers prices...DUH... you dont live in Alaska, so all you know is your readings from the puffington post. its all you liberals out there that wants to bankrupt America... well guess what.... she will be your VP and we will drill there. so just shut up, and take your drilling from the backside liberals. Tonight, Palin will show you what she's made of...
      • DiggsOnlyJew, on 09/03/2008, -1/+2Hey Yeek,
        God doesn't exist. The animals, whom won't be affected anyway, can evolve to survive if necessary.
      • iSkylla, on 09/03/2008, -3/+1What is she made of? Half hypocrite, half idiot.
    • cadmiumpaint, on 09/03/2008, -3/+7you just think they can start a major oil drilling operation and there be no infrastructure that needs to be built? There will be no garbage, no industrial waste, no pollution caused by all that machinery in such close proximity to the ocean? typical neocon fool.
    • mk3k, on 09/03/2008, -4/+5Imperial you sir have been served.
      I'm a US consumer and I don't want us to drill there so you're wrong on that point.
      • 26thMARINES, on 09/03/2008, -6/+2you arent a consumer, you are probably on welfare. i can pay 8 bucks a gallon, doesnt bother me none. and hell, my 4 vehicles get anywhere from 6mpg to 17mpg. i leave a carbon footprint everywhere i go, and i love it! you leftwing enviromorons out there are just trying to destroy the american dollar more. we know this. you cant win. we will drill that baby dry up there, and you can cry all you want.
      • iSkylla, on 09/03/2008, -2/+4You're an idiot.
    • Br3ach, on 09/03/2008, -5/+6"In fact, the heat from the drilling operation, and the heat of the pipeline warm the caribou during winter."

      ...the *****?
      • alaskanassassin, on 09/03/2008, -0/+1the caribou populations have sky rocketed, they had to open up hunting to thin the heards. last I heard it was 4 caribou per day per person.
    • legatus, on 09/03/2008, -2/+1Nice post Imperial, the facts get dug down fast here.
  • WoodenKimono, on 09/03/2008, -16/+35Headline should read "Palin on ANYTHING: Far Right"
    • DeuceDiggalow, on 09/03/2008, -10/+5Or Far Wrong would be more accurate
      • bobh1234, on 09/03/2008, -6/+4Wrong about what? We don't need more oil?
    • winnestow, on 09/03/2008, -1/+3"Obama wants to raise taxes and kill babies.
      Sarah wants to raise babies and kill taxes."
  • pintomp3, on 09/03/2008, -25/+57her daughter was drilled, and is no longer pristine.
    • Mootabolife, on 09/03/2008, -1/+7Evangelicals should love that.
    • bicyclethief, on 09/03/2008, -2/+9How many holes were drilled?
    • DavidYeah, on 09/03/2008, -13/+9Can't we just leave her daughter alone?
      • Munky, on 09/03/2008, -4/+7Now that she's knocked up? Not a problem ;)
      • jeffkee, on 09/03/2008, -3/+8Well that Levi dude definitely did not leave her alone. ;)
      • OliveStreet, on 09/03/2008, -3/+5What? I don't mind sloppy-seconds
    • dexter411, on 09/03/2008, -5/+7You guys hated attacks on Michelle Obama, but only because you didn't have mud to sling back.

      Classy.
    • Jagdhund, on 09/03/2008, -1/+3Wow, just wow. The double standards and vitriol coming against her are remarkable. I suppose it's very painful for you guilty white bastards to see a minority or a woman leave the Democratic plantation?.

      It wasn't ok for anyone to attack an outspoken angry wife of a presidential candidate. One who openly endorses and speaks for the campaign, but it's ok to attack a child who made a stupid decision? Do you honestly think this 17 yr old's vagina has ANY impact on issues whatsoever?

      Change, my ass! If the left is going to attack the daughter of a vice presidential candidate then I have lost even the smallest shred of respect I may have held for them (on the basis of them actually trying to help people)
      • DavidYeah, on 09/03/2008, -0/+1As someone who is probably many yards further to the left than any of the digg "leftist," I have to say they do not speak for me.
      • pintomp3, on 09/03/2008, -0/+1relax, it wasn't an "attack". it was a joke.
  • mywhitenoise, on 09/03/2008, -21/+9Palin can't do or say anything "right". She sucks as a human being.
  • AuditorTux, on 09/03/2008, -18/+33Oh dear Lord, this is just a frakin' rehash of the same debate that's been raging over ANWR for the last twenty years. Palin falls onto the Republican side of the debate. Imagine that, the Republican nominee for Vice Prez falling on that side.

    Oh the horror!
  • Kamacurus, on 09/03/2008, -11/+3I hope she doesn't win that's all that will be on digg
    • 4mytroops, on 09/03/2008, -4/+2you got that right - and rightfully so. Republicans have had to endure the Democratic dominance on this site for far too long. When we win, get ready for digg to take a turn for the better too.
      • EtherGnat, on 09/03/2008, -1/+1"When we win, get ready for digg to take a turn for the better too."

        Why would McCain winning have any impact on Digg? If anything, the last eight years of Republican rule have only served to make Digg more liberal.
      • 4mytroops, on 09/04/2008, -1/+0So you admit that Bush being president has affected digg - but McCain being president won't? MMMkay...
      • EtherGnat, on 09/04/2008, -0/+1I said that Bush had the opposite effect you claimed, if any. The real point is that McCain is basically the same as Bush. How you think McCain being elected is going to make Digg more welcoming for Republicans is a mystery, but understanding cause and effect seems difficult for many Republicans.
      • 4mytroops, on 09/04/2008, -1/+0"I said that Bush had the opposite effect you claimed, if any"

        Hmm....I didn't claim that Bush had any affect on digg, actually, you are the one who made that claim in saying "If anything, the last eight years of Republican rule have only served to make Digg more liberal." It's a pretty typical way of telling lies and blaming someone else for it.

        It's OK, though. I expect no less from you.
      • EtherGnat, on 09/04/2008, -0/+1Except I never claimed you said Bush had an effect on Digg. Reading comprehension for the win. Try and follow the logic. I'm arguing:

        1. Bush had either had no effect on Digg, or only served to incite and encourage liberals on the site. If that wasn't the case the site would be crawling with conservatives right now.

        2. McCain is more or less like Bush. They're both Republicans and agree on almost every issue.

        3. Therefore McCain is likely to have the same impact on Digg as Bush--in other words nothing like what you claim.

        How is it you're claiming McCain will be so different from Bush that it will cause some kind of radical revolution on Digg? Unless you have a good answer for that question the only possible conclusion is your logic is seriously flawed.

        Seriously, fill us in on how you arrived at your conclusion.
      • 4mytroops, on 09/04/2008, -0/+0It makes no sense reasoning with a moron who says something, then claims not to have said it, then follows it up with ***** trying to justify that they didn't say it. Since the neurons in your brain are obviously not synapsing effectively, I will break this down as simply as possible:

        1. Someone made a comment that if Palin wins, it will be all over digg.
        2. I agreed, that if she were to win, it would definately be all over digg - and rightfully so. I also implied that currently digg is mainly liberal/democratic/leftist BS and if McCain were to win - that may change (simply because you would only be beating a dead horse at that point and nobody wants to listen to a bunch of crybabies for the next 4 years)
        3. You then made the claim that the last 8 years of republican rule , (which has been under Bush) served to make digg more liberal.
        4. I then asked how Bush can make such an influence on digg and McCain can not?
        5. That is where your brain quit working because in your head you belive that Bush = McCain = Bush, therefore digg will not change if McCain is elected. That is where you went wrong.
        It is your right to make those assumptions about McCain, but it doesn't make them true.
        6. Now, you are left baffled - asking me to explain my thought proccess to you - when your thought proccess obviously stops generating logically at a certain point. This is an impossible feet and I am very sorry for you - the human brain was not designed to process certain complex functions until it reaches a certain point of maturity. But keep trying, you'll get there someday.
      • EtherGnat, on 09/04/2008, -0/+1I never claimed to say anything I didn't say. You just haven't understood what I was saying.

        "simply because you would only be beating a dead horse at that point and nobody wants to listen to a bunch of crybabies for the next 4 years"

        That's a coherent point, but still wrong I think. You underestimate Diggers of all political persuasions to whine about things ad nauseum. Obviously passions are inflamed right now and discussions will probably cool within six months or so after the election, but that's not indicative of any real shift in opinion.

        "You then made the claim that the last 8 years of republican rule , (which has been under Bush) served to make digg more liberal."

        Actually I just said that *if* there was an effect, it was to make the liberal leanings of Digg more pronounced. Close enough, though.

        "I then asked how Bush can make such an influence on digg and McCain can not? "

        I didn't say McCain couldn't have an effect, I just argue it's not likely to be the opposite or a significantly different effect from Bush. In fact I think if Obama is elected you'd see a lot more criticism of Democrats on Digg, just as we've seen criticism of Democrats in Congress become more popular over the last two years. People like to complain about whomever is in charge.

        "you belive that Bush = McCain = Bush, therefore digg will not change if McCain is elected. That is where you went wrong."

        I don't think they're the same, I just don't think they're significantly different. I asked you to explain how McCain would be different enough from Bush he would somehow win over hordes of Diggers and you haven't done so.

        Certainly you would agree that Diggers are not currently big fans of Bush or McCain, so he would have to do something pretty significant to change people's minds.
    • blakecr, on 09/03/2008, -1/+3Take a turn for the better?

      Does that mean you will hunt down all the Obama supporters and have them burned at the stake?

      I am not going anywhere, especially if by some miracle McCain wins.
      • alaskanassassin, on 09/03/2008, -1/+1now that sounds like a plan I can get behind.
    • yojiffyskippy, on 09/03/2008, -0/+1And that would be different than it is now?
  • destron, on 09/03/2008, -6/+9Um... duh?
  • Labyrinth336, on 09/03/2008, -33/+37I am loving the superliberals getting their vagina's all cramped up about Palin... keep it coming please!
    • chicofaraby, on 09/03/2008, -15/+17So no defense of her position, just whining about imaginary liberals. huh?
      • BrewBeau, on 09/03/2008, -8/+6Yes, we are just so scared of her. She's such an amazing candidate that we need to attack her and discredit her fast before she turns into a juggernaut politician who will rule the world. Or maybe it's just that she's such an easy target.
      • seraph582, on 09/03/2008, -3/+8IMAGINARY LIBERALS?!?!?!?


        AAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

        ... just... wow...
      • QuadZeroRoute, on 09/03/2008, -2/+7ChicoMarxist do you think the "imaginary" liberals posted all the antiPalin materials over the past three days or was it you?
      • radiofrequency, on 09/03/2008, -5/+14Palin's position is right. You moonbats just take it to digg down anybody who details how right she is.

        ANWR is uninhabitable by humans and undesirable to wildlife. A 2000-acre drilling site (that's about 1/4 the size of Stanford U, less than 1/2 the size of Harvard campus, less than twice the size of a state campus like UC Berkeley, 20 times the size of a largish in-city campus like Boston U - a linear campus along one street). The environmental impact is insignificant. The benefit from the economic impact is huge.
      • cmorriss, on 09/03/2008, -4/+10Here's a bit of defense at least for the "far right" label. 50% of the U.S. agree with her:

        http://people-press.org/report/433/gas-prices

        So, if that's your definition of far right, this election should be in the bag for McCain/Palin '08!
      • legatus, on 09/03/2008, -2/+6Defend, she is right. Imperial did a fine job of defending her position, we see how that was recieved.
      • EtherGnat, on 09/03/2008, -0/+2radiofrequency: " The benefit from the economic impact is huge."

        I always see people say this, but never anything to back it up. ANWR is predicted to increase world oil supplies by 0.6%. That's going to lower gas prices by a few pennies.
    • an0nymous, on 09/03/2008, -9/+3The Republican Party. CATCH THE FEVER
      http://centristvoice.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/e ...
      • QuadZeroRoute, on 09/03/2008, -4/+6That picture was taken during the convention on the first or second day when conventioneers were in the gulf assessing the damage from the hurricane. Or are you a care free liberal....oh that's right the liberals don't manage any of the Gulf states. Sorry.
    • ZenMojo, on 09/03/2008, -3/+1Ha. Liberals complaining. None of it must be true! I wish I could vote for George W. Bush a third time because they blew that ***** WAY out of proportion. (What's that you say? I can? Yippee!)
  • Blasphemous88, on 09/03/2008, -19/+21Let's be honest, McCain could care less about her views or opinions. Her job is to be a woman, draw in Hilary supporters and pretend her views are directly in line with McCain enough to properly support him where necessary.

    Being an opinionated running mate is not on the agenda.
  • VipeNess, on 09/03/2008, -18/+3Palin on Parenting: wait, wait... IT'S A TRAP!
  • JavertHolmes, on 09/03/2008, -23/+40Hey guys! This Palin sounds super mean! She does so many mean things all day long! You know how I can tell? I see all the mean things she does posted to the front page of Digg every day!

    Luckily that Obama man does no mean things! I mean, you can tell he does no mean things at all, otherwise they would reach the front page of Digg too!

    Oh, I love that Nacho Libre too. You know why? There were so many wacky, funny articles about it that made it to the front page every day, it just had to be good!

    Thanks for helping me live my life, Digg. I'd never know how to form an opinion without you!
    • seraph582, on 09/03/2008, -7/+16GO OBAMABOTS, GO!!
    • DeuceDiggalow, on 09/03/2008, -18/+2Go ***** yourself you ***** fascist sheep
      • soupdawg30, on 09/03/2008, -0/+6You ***** yourself you socialist sheep.
      • winnestow, on 09/03/2008, -0/+5duece do you love our country? then don't fail to respect that which made it great - very limited government. The current drive to dependence on the state is socialism, the very thing that reduces our freedom. If you support obama, you support socialism. If you are a socialist, you are unamerican.
      • EntangledPhysx, on 09/03/2008, -0/+3Wow. I think deuceDiggalow needs to open up some history books and learn what America is founded on. HINT: It's what winnestow talked about! Also learn what the fallen Soviet Union was founded on. See any correlations with anything?
    • letherial, on 09/03/2008, -5/+0because you know..without digg nobody would be against anything right


      yep...thats logic for ya
    • 45441, on 09/03/2008, -6/+2Wait...so why are you here?
  • Arkons24, on 09/03/2008, -15/+35Supporting drilling and responsible energy policy isn't what I would call far right. The fact of the matter is that even if global warming is partially man-made we are still going to need oil in the short term. The price of oil increasing so dramatically is leading to rapidly developing technologies that are ever reducing our dependence on oil however we still need it to curb, not reverse, ever increasing oil demand and prices. The only way to do this is to drill, drill, drill. Change is coming and it is happening through market forces (like every economist predicted) the only question now is how much will the price oil negatively affect the global economy? The answer is it depends on how much we can slow the increase in price through drill, drill, drill. We could be in for a global recession the scale of which hasn't been seen since the 1930s or we could be in for a slight dip while the market makes an energy correction (less dependence on oil, more alternatives).
    • ruddy, on 09/03/2008, -4/+4but what about the baby seals
      • Arkons24, on 09/03/2008, -2/+2Can we burn them for energy?
      • amwport, on 09/03/2008, -2/+2and Polar Bears!?
      • alaskanassassin, on 09/03/2008, -0/+2Alaska Natives bash their heads open then sell the fur.
    • MadKennyP, on 09/03/2008, -7/+4The ONLY way to do it is "drill, drill, drill"? How wrong you are.
      • Arkons24, on 09/03/2008, -3/+6and another way to do it would be ... ???? Let's qualify that statement with some back-up shall we? Think about another realistic option to stabilize oil prices in the short term ... let me know what you come up with.
      • nick111, on 09/03/2008, -2/+1@Arkons24 How about not killing people in countries that have oil?

      • byronm, on 09/03/2008, -3/+1@Arkons23

        How about convincing businesses to allow telecommuting, support alternative energy markets such as wind, solar and wave energy production. How about supporting the most abundant energy resource in the universe - the sun?

        If you invest in alternative fuels now, then the price of oil will always be struggling against decreased demand. If you continue to invest in oil, all you do is delay the inevitable for someone else to fit the bill.
      • Arkons24, on 09/03/2008, -0/+3@nick111 - how does that solve energy problems?

        @byronm - if they are efficient solutions then the market will support them. We don't need the government to invest for us ... We do a far better and more efficient job of finding and developing new technologies without their "help".

        Regardless, the point at which those technologies will be viable is still a long way off, regardless of how much money we throw at it. Those are long-term solutions ... I asked for short term solutions. Your argument does not meet my criteria.
      • EntangledPhysx, on 09/03/2008, -0/+3Well spoken, Arkons24. The alternative technology just isn't viable yet. Why is this so hard for the ultra-liberals to understand? We need cheap energy to function as a society. Until alternative energy replaces cheap oil, we need oil to power many things, and get food to the supermarkets at an affordable price.
    • legatus, on 09/03/2008, -3/+4Arkons24 Just owned the lot of you, especially Madkenny.
    • nycmac247, on 09/03/2008, -4/+2oil is sold to highest bidder and also companies do not have allegiances to nation states.
      That's IF you can refine it after the years it would take to get online... drilling would only ***** up the land and not increase production nor lower price.
      • Arkons24, on 09/03/2008, -0/+3Incorrect. Drilling would start far sooner than you think and just the opening of the reserve would send oil lower. Positive initiatives towards increasing energy supply send oil prices down. Also, I don't see what "oil is sold to highest bidder and also companies do not have allegiances to nation states" has to do with anything I said. Regardless, we buy and sell oil for the same price ... it doesn't matter whether we sell it or keep it. Probably depends more on logistics than anything.
      • useraccess, on 09/03/2008, -3/+0You are correct that drilling (ruining the land) would start right away. You are dead wrong that it would drop oil prices. That is just armchair Psychology there.
      • Arkons24, on 09/03/2008, -0/+1No, I'm not. In fact, the lifting of one of the bans on offshore drilling, the president calling for drilling in ANWR and drilling becoming a central issue in the 2008 election have all help send oil prices down. Ta-da ... markets beat emotions every time. It ain't psychology - it's economics; you should learn you some.
    • byronm, on 09/03/2008, -5/+1You can spend billions more on a dead end policy or you can spend billions to get people away from oil today. Your choice.

      That ANWR oil isn't going to be sold to US Citizens anyway. The open market will set the price and if demand continues to peak anywhere else our oil will be sold to that demand.

      Screwing over the environment because its cheap has been proven time and time again the most expensive way to get things done. Billions in tax payer "superfund" cleanups have been spent on prior messes, its time to go green and go clean and F fossil fuels. Anything else is just profiteering or downright WASTE OF MONEY
      • Arkons24, on 09/03/2008, -0/+3You can't throw money at issues and expect them to get fixed. That's typical liberal fallacy. The market is creating new alternatives to oil without the help of government waste.

        "That ANWR oil isn't going to be sold to US Citizens anyway. The open market will set the price and if demand continues to peak anywhere else our oil will be sold to that demand."

        We sell oil for the same price we buy it for. It equals out to 0 because we will import the amount of oil we need regardless of how much we export. It matters for nothing ... the world market sets the price not individual nations.

        "Screwing over the environment because its cheap has been proven time and time again the most expensive way to get things done. Billions in tax payer "superfund" cleanups have been spent on prior messes, its time to go green and go clean and F fossil fuels. Anything else is just profiteering or downright WASTE OF MONEY"

        We "screw" over the environment because there is only one way to get oil. It is a relatively small area comparative to its potential advantages. Want to know how much it will cost us if we allow the price of oil to keep going up? Trillions upon trillions. In fact, it will cost us so much we will have a global recession and possibly a world war over oil. We can't survive without the economy so let's be smart and reduce our dependency on oil while we take effective measures to keep ourselves afloat. The market is already making the change for us ... people are reducing their consumption in response to higher prices, energy companies are putting more and more money into technology and capital and car companies, seeing the trend, is putting out more and more fuel efficient vehicles. This trend will continue and we will have our solution to our addiction to oil.
        Nothing else will fix this problem especially not social engineering or liberal largess.

    • N3tw0rk, on 09/03/2008, -1/+2The Department of Energy believes that offshore drilling “would not have a significant impact on domestic crude oil and natural gas production or prices before 2030.”
      http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/otheranalysis/ongr ...

      About three-quarters of all the oil in public lands in the continental U.S. are already open to drilling – and yet only one quarter of this oil is under production.
      http://resourcescommittee.house.gov/images/stories ...

      Opening the Arctic Refuge would cut gasoline prices by two cents in 17 years. For that, Palin would destroy the home of America’s native polar bears.
      http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/anwr/pdf/sr ...
    • Arkons24, on 09/03/2008, -0/+1Drill drill drill. Drill there too. Drill everywhere. Here's a bet though. Open up all lands to drilling and see which ones are drilled in first. Think ANWR will be at the top of that list? I do. Why? Because drilling there would be cheaper relative to the price that oil/natural gas would demand. If companies aren't already drilling in parts that are available for lease then its because they wouldn't make sense economically. if there was profit to be made by drilling there, then someone would be. You can take that to the bank.

      We aren't talking about gas prices ... we're talking about oil. And from what I understand claiming that this would "destroy the home of Amerca's native polar bears" is conjecture and hyperbole.

      The US has a finite amount of oil. We can't pretend that only drilling is going to save us all. It is simply part of a larger package. It will help. Even those articles you linked admit, that opening up these areas would help. We need help. We need drilling. Case rested. What won't help is throwing billions at useless alternative energy programs or closing off areas that may be more efficient sources of oil in our own country.
  • PEMDAS, on 09/03/2008, -9/+21I'd put my oil derrick in her tundra.
  • CoolHandLuke, on 09/03/2008, -11/+17Why don't we just change the URL to diggPalin.com already.
  • steelersfan7roe, on 09/03/2008, -18/+11I hope a polar bear eats her.
    • amwport, on 09/03/2008, -1/+1but then the right would just hate polar bears even more.. and use it as a talking point for drilling in ANWR.
  • deepthot42, on 09/03/2008, -19/+10"Our main concern with Sarah Palin's positions are that they are based on doing what is best for the oil industry, and not what is best for Americans," says David Willett, national press secretary for the Sierra Club.

    That's the pattern I've been seeing.

    "Jesus send us a pipeline!" Palin

    O'rly?
    • singularityv, on 09/03/2008, -0/+3What's good for big business is good for America. Big business is what made America great.
      • deepthot42, on 09/03/2008, -0/+2Sure.
        I guess Oil production IS one of the big businesses that hasn't already packed operations to a foreign market.
      • letherial, on 09/03/2008, -2/+0accutuly i think that its intent was to have the middle class and small business be what makes america great, you know...anyone can make it, follow your dreams...etc..all big buisness try and do is write the laws, ***** people over, and monoplize everything...i think its big buisness that are destroying this country
      • byronm, on 09/03/2008, -1/+1Yeah, making solar panels, wind farms, wave farms, battery manufacturing, power companies, engineering, manufacturing - they don't create jobs or anything. Only Big oil runs America.

        Again, spend billions on dead end energy or spend billions on alternative energies. When you generate power in America that power stays in America. When you pump oil in America, that oil is sold to highest bidder.
      • nick111, on 09/03/2008, -2/+1Big business has stolen your democracy. It is emphatically NOT what is good for America, or anyone else for that matter.
    • Rakuseki, on 09/03/2008, -0/+2The Sierra Club, an environmental organization, against drilling in a national refuge? Surely you jest.
  • jabberwolf, on 09/03/2008, -15/+29Actually most of the Alaskans know what ANWAR looks like and it isnt much out of a 1.5 million acre reserve.
    http://www.nationalreview.com/images/pic_ANWR_144. ...
    http://www.nationalreview.com/images/pic_ANWR_142. ...

    And no I dont think the place would warm the caribou but it would have very little affect on their migration.
    It would be a small airfield size and caribou have thousands on either side to go around.
    And its not like they are drilling on a coastal shore or mountain.

    Good god, this is just retaded the way liberals are saying anything.

    The one thing that I DO disagree with Palin on is the aerial hunting of wolves. You dont need to hunt wolves if you are shooting caribou. predator population maintains itself by the amount of prey population - it doesnt need man's intervention unless they start attacking human dwellings.

    But other than that, she's got valid points on everything else.
    • seraph582, on 09/03/2008, -2/+11why are you being buried. For the love of god, liberal retards - put your money where your mouth is. Burying this person because he's showing you logic is just like the church labeling Galileo a heretic for showing proof that the world isn't the center of the universe/creation.
    • Jontalbain, on 09/03/2008, -4/+1I disagree with your assessment of of ANWAR but your spot on about the issue with wolves.
      • arcticsoft, on 09/03/2008, -0/+2Why have the herds around Prudoe Bay accually increased by more than 20% after the pipeline went in? A large majority of Alaskans including Natives want to drill because they see the advantages and that previous drilling has had little or even positive impacts on wildlife. Outsiders should not really have a say, its not like most of you have seen this barren wasteland anyway.
      • arcticsoft, on 09/03/2008, -0/+1One more thing. No one ever mentions the good that drilling in Prudoe Bay did. Not only for the caribou herds and the oil, but the native alaskan population. Most of them want drilling because it funds their lives. Once the pipeline went in they then had funding for schools and medical care that did not exist before. But hey, dont drill in a barren wasteland no one ever goes to, because we might get oil from it, fund schools and hospitals, and might even increase tundra herds. But just remember what they show you on TV, its all mountains and trees.
    • byronm, on 09/03/2008, -3/+1"libtards" that really supports your argument huh? ANWR oil is already produced. They just want access to build cheaper pumps directly on the fields rather than drill into it. BTW, the reduction of cost for production is usually never passed down to consumers in lower fuel prices but rather passed to shareholders as increased profits.

      I guess if you own oil company stocks you would keep on pushing to have them rape America at all costs.

      "libtards" however just proves how much of a dumbass you are.
    • Drecoll, on 09/03/2008, -0/+1Yo byronm I accident pressed the report button sorry about that, they shouldnt make the button so close to the show. However I did disagree with you, I guarantee oil fields in texas and everywhere else harmed the environment in some way its stupid to suggest alaska shouldn't take advantage of the riches that everyone else takes without worrying about because of the fact that people think alaska is pretty and want to keep it clean. I wouldn't use libtard to describe people protesting alaskan oil fields i would just use the term retard. It doesn't matter though money talks protests don't its only a matter of time till we tap into all the oil we can in alaska.
    • N3tw0rk, on 09/03/2008, -0/+2Valid points? Are you serious?

      The Department of Energy believes that offshore drilling “would not have a significant impact on domestic crude oil and natural gas production or prices before 2030.”
      http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/otheranalysis/ongr ...

      About three-quarters of all the oil in public lands in the continental U.S. are already open to drilling – and yet only one quarter of this oil is under production.
      http://resourcescommittee.house.gov/images/stories ...

      Opening the Arctic Refuge would cut gasoline prices by two cents in 17 years. For that, Palin would destroy the home of America’s native polar bears.
      http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/anwr/pdf/sr ...
  • Buavesy, on 09/03/2008, -7/+13Hmm, they said they same thing about the pipeline and look what that did to the wilderness!?!? Oh that's right nothing. And I wonder how many environmentalists have actually been to ANWR. And WWF has the nerve to say the polar bear is endangered of becoming extinct when nothing has happened to the population. Hmmm maybe they will move to Greenland where the Ice mass is constantly expanding as the Arctic Circle continues to melt
  • Chahrlie5, on 09/03/2008, -14/+35Blah blah Palin is evil etc etc

    Digg me up plz k thx
  • killroyisaloser, on 09/03/2008, -7/+19As an Alaskan, drilling in ANWR would be great. They are looking at drilling in 2000 acres out of 19 MILLION acres of the whole Refuge. Seriously, we have so much wilderness in Alaska that 2000 acres isn't going to make the slightest difference.
    • Jontalbain, on 09/03/2008, -7/+2More than 44 Million Acres under Lease for Oil and Gas in U.S.
      http://www.wilderness.org/NewsRoom/Release/2008052 ...
      • cmorriss, on 09/03/2008, -1/+3And uh, how much of that contains *recoverable* oil??? Hmmm?? Very ***** little. I'm so tired of this statistic being thrown around. Why the hell would all of the oil companies be screaming for new places to drill if they had zillions of barrels of oil just waiting to be sucked out of already available lands. You do realize that they are in the business of making money. Would they just sit there and wait for ANWR to open up? No, they would be drilling the ***** out of that land if it were profitable. It'd look like Swiss cheese dripping with oil.

        So just shut up already about the "44 Million Billion Zillion ACRES AVAILABLE NOW....ZOMG!!???? It's not TRUE!
      • useraccess, on 09/03/2008, -1/+144 million acres. It would be nice if there was enough oil there to make a tank of gas for Sarah Palin's Ford Expedition. Facts people...facts!
    • TBombadil, on 09/03/2008, -4/+0you need to look beyond your wallet, and your shallow greed.
      • TinternAbbot, on 09/03/2008, -0/+3This isn't Middle Earth, hippy.
      • Pstall, on 09/03/2008, -0/+1Yes... because most middle class and lower class americans can afford to look beyond their wallet and support their families when gas prices skyrocket, which in turn causes the price of everything else to rise.
  • Homerr, on 09/03/2008, -9/+2Palin's rise to power: http://www.crosscut.com/politics-government/17341
  • lnxfi, on 09/03/2008, -9/+8Let's just knock it off and let me put it in her butt. That's all I really want out of her. Well, plus a little titty time.
  • ftx437, on 09/03/2008, -3/+9http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/08050 ...
    ScienceDaily (May 10, 2008) — Research done by the U.S. Department of the Interior to determine if global warming threatens the polar bear population is so flawed that it cannot be used to justify listing the polar bear as an endangered species, according to a study being published later this year in Interfaces, a journal of the Institute for Operations Research and the Management Sciences.


  • Xeku, on 09/03/2008, -9/+2why is it everytime I refresh or visit digg theres a new useless ass story attacking this person aside from being really annoying who gives a flying ***** about some hick ass governer from ***** alaska seriously!
  • shauntacular, on 09/03/2008, -11/+20I can't wait until they find out that any or all of the following on Palin:
    she was a crack dealer
    she was a hooker
    she clubs baby seals
    she kicks puppies/kittens
    she eats human flesh
    she does hardcore porn with animals
    shes a Cowboys fan
    she hated The Dark Knight
    she liked Hancock
    she was on some committee that took Arrested Development of the air
    she didn't think Michael Phelps accomplished anything
    she hasn't played Guitar Hero 3 yet
    shes a Warrant fan
    she punches nuns




    • brstilson, on 09/03/2008, -1/+9Sarah Palin is well on her way to be the second most-hated woman on Digg.com, only surpassed by Ariana Huffington.
      • Arkons24, on 09/03/2008, -0/+11uhhh... I think she *is* the most hated person on digg.com. Just look at the front page since the announcement. Even Hillary didn't get this much hate. I wish Fluffington got the hatred she deserves.
      • brstilson, on 09/05/2008, -0/+1Maybe, but how many Huffington Post articles make it to the front page? Every single one of them inevitably has that comment, "arrrgggh more Huffington Post spam" and "Ariana Huffington feeds on the unborn fetuses of crack-addicted welfare mothers."
    • Dalhectar, on 09/03/2008, -0/+7She told Fox to cancel Firefly.
    • morepowerr, on 09/03/2008, -4/+2Still looking for the porn she was in.
    • benjorino, on 09/03/2008, -1/+3Dugg for "she hated The Dark Knight"
    • TBombadil, on 09/03/2008, -4/+0she doest mind killing beluga whales, idk thats kind of heartless. But then most republicans are. money money money.
    • neosinn, on 09/03/2008, -0/+1go back to your video games and movies... better yet go smoke some pot and become an even bigger loser...

      video games lol what your like 12 right?
  • vanashk, on 09/03/2008, -10/+3I may not like her politics and opinions. I certainly won't vote for her...

    but I'd do her. Oh yeah.


    • shauntacular, on 09/03/2008, -1/+1I hope she comes out to "Hot for Teacher" by Van Halen tonight.
  • ftx437, on 09/03/2008, -11/+11THIS JUST IN!
    From a trust worthy news source. Palin was found to have/been

    a crack dealer
    a hooker
    clubs baby seals
    kicks puppies/kittens
    eats human flesh
    does hardcore porn with animals
    a Cowboys fan
    hated The Dark Knight
    she liked Hancock
    was on some committee that took Arrested Development of the air
    didn't think Michael Phelps accomplished anything
    hasn't played Guitar Hero 3 yet
    a Warrant fan
    punches nuns
  • jmantra, on 09/03/2008, -9/+11Mccain/Palin 08 ya!!
  • davidg11, on 09/03/2008, -7/+6Heyyyy...an actual issue with Palin.

    Not crap about babies, car washes, father's myspace page, troopergate...wow, an actual issue we can debate.

    Did the summer interns leave and digg full time employees finally return?
    • bffoley, on 09/03/2008, -2/+2You dont think firing someone for not firing your sister's ex-husband is not a real issue? That's abuse of power and after the past eight years I'd find that a pretty big issue.
      • Rakuseki, on 09/03/2008, -0/+1You say it like they've got undeniable EVIDENCE beyond a shadow of a doubt that she did it. She's under investigation - no more, no less. Quit jumping to conclusions. If she did it and they can prove it then she'll deal with consequences. If they can't and/or she didn't, then it's a non-issue. Try posing something a little more concrete next time instead of sensationalist crap?
      • useraccess, on 09/03/2008, -1/+2Abuse of power is the hallmark of the Republican party! They see no problem with it.
      • EtherGnat, on 09/03/2008, -0/+1"You say it like they've got undeniable EVIDENCE beyond a shadow of a doubt that she did it."

        Well, there is some undeniable evidence. They originally said they never contacted Monegan about the issue. Now they admit at least a dozen calls, and there's even audio of one of the calls where the legality is questioned during the call.
  • DarkoSharko, on 09/03/2008, -10/+2one SCUM-***** of a human if you ask me...

    ugh....

    every time I so much as SEE McCain or Palin I quiver all over for fear of my child's future...

    ***** REPUBLICANS

    ALL OF THEM..

    EVERY LAST ONE OF THEM
    • fwertz, on 09/03/2008, -0/+4I bury you with huffpost.
    • Arkons24, on 09/03/2008, -0/+1So you're voting for McCain then, right? *chuckle*


      .... and here we have the rednecks of the left side of the spectrum. See, they are more plentiful than you think.
    • kbud, on 09/03/2008, -0/+3You're right, stupid republicans! Expect us to work for everything, those bastards. The government should steal, er, excesivly tax the rich and give to my poor lazy ass.
    • bobh1234, on 09/03/2008, -0/+2It's this immaturity that plagues the Democratic party and it's supporters. But then, the immature often hate the mature.
    • dexter411, on 09/03/2008, -0/+2I quiver all over for fear of your child's future for having such a moron for a parent.
  • seraph582, on 09/03/2008, -4/+10hahaha you guys obviously have never seen pictures of the ANWR region :)

    go ahead, believe your television set. You're all acting like good little pawns
    • byronm, on 09/03/2008, -1/+1I've been there. IF they do anything like they did in Prudhoe Bay, then ANWR is *****. In a tundra its sort of like a desert for most of the year, animals survive by grazing over hundreds, if not thousands of acres. Putting rigs in anwr means putting house, means building roads, means putting in pipelines.

      It means oil spills, in means dumping tons of chemicals, it means producing hundreds of thousands of pounds of air pollutants and so much more.



  • sarahbara, on 09/03/2008, -7/+3this lady and her family are doing wonders for Obama
  • hamobu, on 09/03/2008, -7/+4Denying that global warming is man made is almost as stupid as denying evolution. Oh wait...
    • Arkons24, on 09/03/2008, -2/+6There isn't an real proof to how much of global warming is man-made and how much is natural. That's coming from someone who believes that we do need to curb our emissions. It seems to be likely but scientists have no way to conclusively prove it. We only know the connection between CO2 and warming and that it seems to make sense. But with as little as we know about things this could just be part of earth's cycle. We just don't know. Since we know the connection however, and we can surmise that humans are at least contributing, with our population booming like it is, we better figure out how to cut this problem before it becomes even more of a problem. Part of that is not allowing the economy to collapse by overreacting. We still need to economy for society to function and we still need oil for that economy to function. So while we need to be developing new technologies, like is happening now due to market forces, we still need oil in the short term to prevent, oh say, the complete destruction of civilization. You think that's an exaggeration but if oil hits $300 a barrel we will have WWIII ... maybe at a lower price point even. Who knows?
      • hamobu, on 09/03/2008, -2/+2sooo, you basically disagree with Sarah Palin that global warming is probably not man made.
      • Arkons24, on 09/03/2008, -0/+4Did you even read what I posted?

        Global warming is a natural cycle. CO2 being released into the atmosphere causes global warming. Man releases CO2 into the atmosphere and therefore does contribute to global warming. Does this mean that global warming is man made? Absolutely not. Man is definitely contributing but whether or not we are the major contributing factor is unknown.
      • legatus, on 09/03/2008, -0/+3Arkons24 must be banned immediately from digg, how dare you insert rational thought and insight civil debate.
        Next Arkons24 is rumored not to have given birth to a down syndrome child but was covering for his daughter. Huffington in 3...2....1
        This is the proper way to discredit on digg is it not?
  • colmatteus, on 09/03/2008, -2/+7See, now THIS is news... more issues, less Bristol!
  • numbnuts, on 09/03/2008, -6/+14Digg-tards are still poudning the Plain drum ... ha ha ha ..... good lord people ... what is this .. the 300th Palin story in the past 3 days




    =
    =
    =====
    =
    =
    =
    ====
    =
  • fishlore, on 09/03/2008, -9/+16Let's be irresponsible and instead of using OUR resources for OUR addiction to oil, let's let some other nation defile their lands so THEY can pay the price for OUR addiction to oil. Of course the premise that oil exploration destroys environments is a fallacy, but I digress...

    Dems are against new nuke facilities
    Dems are against new oil refineries
    Dems are against expansion to existing oil refineries
    Dems are against domestic oil and natural gas exploration
    Dems are against domestic oil and natural gas production

    Yet Dems scream from the rooftops at the top of their lungs about the evils of foreign oil dependancy. F-ing hypocrites.
    • DeuceDiggalow, on 09/03/2008, -12/+1GO ***** YOURSELF
    • bobh1234, on 09/03/2008, -1/+7It's the truth and bulletproof. C'Mon diggers. Whadaya say to that?
    • useraccess, on 09/03/2008, -1/+0I am a Democrat and for...

      -New Nuke Facilities (I would hope this will be part of Obama's strategy to broaden capabilities)
      -New Oil Refineries (We need some place to process those billions of gallons of oil from Alaska...law of supply and demand)
      -Expand (or rather upgrade) existing refineries that the oil companies have neglected to squeeze more cash out of.)
      -I am not against exploration...wait, I thought you knew for sure there there is oil in Alaska. Why is additional exploration needed? Just go ahead and drill a couple hundred holes.

      Bite me!
    • byronm, on 09/03/2008, -1/+1Why does it have to be oil & nuclear?

      Why not lower energy consumption, wind, wave, solar power? Why is alternative energies so wrong? I don't get people like you. Its like you have to have your head up someones ass to give you a creative idea or else everyone else's ideas don't matter.

      Hate to break it to you buddy, but putting more money into Oil is dumping money down the drain.
    • TBombadil, on 09/03/2008, -1/+0uhhhh....your dumb.
  • Mokole, on 09/03/2008, -11/+7This lady is the Cruella Devil of all wild Alaskan wolves.

    She supports the slaughter of the states wolves.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6T85cOGc8L0
    Alaska voted twice to ban the practice shooting wolves from the air, yet she continues to support it.

    Palin Paid $150 to Murder Wolves:
    http://www.defenders.org/newsroom/press_releases_f ...

    Wildlife biologists kill 14 wolf pups on Alaska Peninsula:
    http://www.adn.com/wildlife/story/469720.html

    More info here: http://www.grizzlybay.org/SarahPalinInfoPage.htm
    • Shinbatsu, on 09/03/2008, -1/+0how is that story not on the front page?

      Poor wolves
    • nycmac247, on 09/03/2008, -0/+2You are out of touch - they are overpopulated, yes?
      Pehaps when one steals your child since there are too many ... then you'll realize their population should be controlled?
      Or are you another "environmentalist" who really makes nature into a Disney cartoon?
      Next you're going to tell me that you aren't wearing LEATHER shoes?

  • YEEK, on 09/03/2008, -8/+8Quit criticizing all the Palin news...

    We're all just vetting her.

    It's about time somebody does.
  • radiofrequency, on 09/03/2008, -3/+8You city boys always freak out about the environment. Get out there, take a drive. The majority of land area in America is vast expanses of untouched wilderness. If people can live 600sqft to a person (at a cost of over $500k in inflated urban areas), there's certainly no emptiness of space for polar bears and caribou. The environmental problems are those of cities and should be covered by city/local governments - not the nation at large.
    • Dalhectar, on 09/03/2008, -0/+2Some environmental changes affect everyone. Climate change for example is a global issue, and it doesn't matter where the carbon comes from, it'll end up in the atmosphere that we all share, and it's indistinguishable to tell the difference between Alaskan Carbon vs San Fran Carbon. Yet both places will be affected by Climate Change, albeit in different ways.

      The very nature of environmental impact is that your neighbors (on a local or global scale) are adversely affected by the choices you as an individual make. If you put CFCs into the air, that'll eat everyone's ozone, and while you might feel your hair style is worth the elderly being greater at risk for skin cancer... the elderly might disagree.

      The coal power plant that puts sulfur into the air can cause acid rain over a thousand miles away.

      That said, some issues like land management and wildlife population control/management should involve local decision makers, yet other times there is a national interest and that also should be reconciled along with local concerns and preference. ANWR is a national treasure, one of the few places in our country that's the same now as it was when the country was founded. Why f**k it up?
      • radiofrequency, on 09/03/2008, -0/+1You guys are loony.

        So how much climate change is a 2000sqft oil rig going to cause? When are the eco-facists going to start blocking development of apartment complexes for fears of global environmental impact?
      • radiofrequency, on 09/03/2008, -0/+1Sorry, not 2000sqft 2000 acre.
    • EtherGnat, on 09/03/2008, -0/+1"If people can live 600sqft to a person (at a cost of over $500k in inflated urban areas), there's certainly no emptiness of space for polar bears and caribou."

      Actually it requires 24 acres per person to support the average American lifestyle.
  • mugupo, on 09/03/2008, -6/+1No surprise since she was grow up live like a hunter lifestyle.
  • kyssk, on 09/03/2008, -3/+3I like nachos with some marinara Sauce ..

    //Yeah Palin stories are that boring
    • useraccess, on 09/03/2008, -0/+0You like mixing Mexican and Italian food?
  • davidg11, on 09/03/2008, -5/+14For the record, Palin is going to rock the RNC tonight.

    Completely, utterly rock it. And thanks to liberal blog crap the number of people watching this speech will be far greater than what it would have been. The blogs have at least DOUBLED the number of people who will watch. So when americans fall for Palin's charms, thank those liberal blogs...lol!
    • DeuceDiggalow, on 09/03/2008, -6/+1*****
      • radiofrequency, on 09/03/2008, -0/+1She's such a sweetheart. And a Sarahcuda! Regardless of what happens in November, I'm going to be keeping an eye on her work.
    • neosinn, on 09/03/2008, -0/+1heh and they don't even know it.

      Obama doesn't have a chance in hell to will this election without the south! (we told you the south would rise again) Without the south you can not win the pres power seat.

      Sorry, but you guys just had to use fed force to keep us in the union. Remember.....
  • TSK05, on 09/03/2008, -3/+2Let women decide what to do with their bodies and let Alaska decide what to do with their lan- ..... oh, wait... nevermind, that doesn't fit into my agenda.
  • DeuceDiggalow, on 09/03/2008, -7/+2You stupid selfish hypocrite republicans are ruining the ***** world!!
  • drmangrum, on 09/03/2008, -2/+4This article seems a bit hypocritical. On the one hand, it assumes that humans are in fact the primary cause of global warming, which has never ( no, never ), been proved. As has been said many times, "correlation is not causation." According to latest studies, there is evidence the earth may be hitting a cooling trend. So yeah, global warming is still firmly up in the air.

    On the flip side, the author seems to think it impossible for oil to be recovered without tearing ANWR to pieces. I think even Big Oil would take any opening of ANWR with light touch, it wouldn't take much to set the public off and get it closed off again. You can bet the EPA, various wildlife associations, etc would be tapped for input on how to best to minimize drilling impact if for no other reason than to show Big Oil "cares."
  • Nordjak, on 09/03/2008, -1/+2The existing drilling at Prudhoe Bay a few miles to the west of ANWR didn't devastate the environment, there isn't even any proof that it impacted any wildlife negatively.
  • compcarp, on 09/03/2008, -3/+3Anyone but me catch the tie in to the story of the person who can put stories on DIGG's main page for a fee? All I see is the Obama campaing filling up a good tech new site with their propoganda. If we ignore them, bury them (even if you hate McCain/Palin) - let's not feed the political machine - and let's get back to the old DIGG.
  • Ricemanstm, on 09/03/2008, -2/+4The left LOVES to scream about Republican scare tactics, about how we use terrorism as an election tool. "It's fear mongering to support the global war machines!" "There are no terrorists! George Bush is the world's terrorist!" Blah blah blah! Well what do you call the left's tactics? Led by the high priest himself Al Gore! Dimestore science at it's best! 20 years ago we were headed for another ice age! Not anymore, global warming now! And there absolutely NO way it could be natural. It's all mankind's fault and we're all doomed! In fact...IT'S GEORGE BUSH'S FAULT! All those damn neo cons! It's ridiculous that the left-tard wacktivists have so much influence in the DAMN-ocratic party, but then again that just shows how far their amoral secular party has fallen.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 71 of 71 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.