digg

Join DiggAbout

Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular Elections 2008 content on Digg.

Boehner: there’s no ‘wildlife’ in Arctic Wildlife Refuge

thinkprogress.org — House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) doubted the existence of actual wildlife in the refuge. “We’re going to look at this barren, Arctic desert where I’m hoping to see some wildlife,” said Boehner. “But I understand there’s none there.”

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • greenfyre, on 07/16/2008, -8/+56Someone should let the man know that the outside of his head is not necessarily as barren as the inside.
    • pweegar, on 07/16/2008, -23/+1And you know all about having no brains. STFU
    • bonhoeffer, on 07/16/2008, -9/+5God forbid that any scientific inquiry be made into hysterical claims of devastation to wildlife by oil extraction.
      • PabloMac, on 07/16/2008, -7/+6Oil extraction conducted on a tiny percentage of the overall "wilderness area," equal, more or less, to a postage stamp on a football field.
      • hiPpymIck, on 07/16/2008, -2/+11as far as i know..
        a lot of wildlife migrates north in spring/summer in Northern latitudes
        ..and then back south autumn/winter

        so its not in the same place all year round

        if a pipeline (say) crossed the local wildlifes migratory path it could maybe have an large impact which you wouldnt see..
        unless you were there in the right season

        ..and the rest of the year it might have very low impact
      • neognostic, on 07/16/2008, -1/+7Pablomac, please tell me that was sarcasm. Having worked in the oil patch myself, I just wanted to point out some HUGE holes in your argument. Since there is no infrastructure, everything must be built. Roads leading to every site, and then the pipelines to every site.
        Or are you just going to use pixie dust to bring in all of the equipment, supplies and people, and then just pixie dust them and the oil out?
    • BossKey, on 07/16/2008, -2/+5Oh come on, he might simply be holding a traditional American point of view. You know, like how there weren't any people when we discovered America, either....just those Indians.
    • oldgal, on 07/17/2008, -0/+2I think there ought to be a basic knowledge and intelligence test that all would-be candidates must pass before they are allowed to run.
  • tykwondingo, on 07/16/2008, -6/+82dugg for last name "Boehner"

    he must've gone through hell in school...
    • goldenratiophi, on 07/16/2008, -0/+2090% of diggers clicked on this story just to post that comment. Me included.
      • goldenratiophi, on 07/16/2008, -0/+3crap I think that's supposed to be "myself included." meh.
      • custerfluck, on 07/16/2008, -2/+272.967% of all statistics are made up on the spot.
      • tykwondingo, on 07/16/2008, -2/+1yeah...

        FTW!!! haha
    • herschman321, on 07/16/2008, -0/+1haha, me too
    • doctechnical, on 07/16/2008, -4/+6Sorry to poop in the punchbowl, but it's pronounced "bon-yer".

      /ohio
      • richbleak, on 07/16/2008, -1/+10Yeah, and Peenhess is pronounced "Peynhouse". If my last name was "Boner" I would pretend it was pronounced a different way too.
      • aftern9ne, on 07/16/2008, -1/+5I've always heard it as "bay-ner".
      • pjkli, on 07/16/2008, -1/+5Obviously your not from Ohio. Its pronounced "bay-ner".
      • tykwondingo, on 07/16/2008, -3/+3No, it's pronounced, "Bon-er" - swear, ask his ex-classmates.
    • MattL920, on 07/16/2008, -4/+4I think it's his head in his ass that's giving him that Boehner
  • Berkana, on 07/16/2008, -18/+60 Current high oil prices (which are the result of unregulated oil futures trading driving up prices on fears that we may attack Iran) cannot justify drilling the ANWR; drilling in ANWR won't lower our oil prices because oil gets sold at market prices when the oil reaches the market. If ANWR were to be explored and drilled, the oil wouldn't even reach the market for another 5-10 years, and when it does, it will get sold at market prices. The oil companies aren't doing this out of altruism; they're in it for the money. They're using the current speculative bubble to grab as much land as they can.

    The US has only about 3% of the world's oil reserves, but consumes 25% of what is produced (or more accurately, 25% of what is extracted; nobody produces oil, and we will eventually deplete the resource). Any ANWR reserves would only increase the oil supply by a tiny fraction of a percent. Rather than imposing a long term impact on the ANWR for temporarily prolonging our addiction to oil, we need to spend the next 5-10 years radically reducing our dependence on oil, not just foreign oil. Any increase or continuance of our dependence on oil that doesn't radically change the proportion that we import inevitably results in greater dependence on foreign oil in the long run, since over two thirds of the oil we use is foreign anyhow.
    • pathouston22, on 07/16/2008, -22/+14"oil wouldn't even reach the market for another 5-10"

      Thanks Bill Clinton.

      "oil companies aren't doing this out of altruism; they're in it for the money"

      Welcome to capitalism.
      • nevetssav, on 07/16/2008, -6/+11Because clinton should've had the foresight to know that commodities would spike 8 years after his presidency, despite a 20+ year slow decent in price.

        Yeah, okay.
      • CryRightardCry, on 07/16/2008, -7/+7Uh, I hate to tell you moron, those are the figures Exxon is giving out. 5-10 years until oil from the new wells could possibly reach the market.

        And yes, we all know they do it for the money. It's why we want regulation. Capitalism unchecked is abuse.


        Welcome to stupidity, population you.
      • Wartyboskfapped, on 07/16/2008, -8/+9The 42nd President was named 'Clinton' not 'Nostradamus', you terminally ***** imbecile.
      • bruce86, on 07/16/2008, -4/+4Funny because i kinda felt like another president... Umm with a similar name to our current president put the executive ban on offshore drill....

        I think his name was George bush senior perhaps?
    • dubhousing, on 07/16/2008, -0/+15in addition, because refineries are running at capacity, increases in the supply of crude does not translate into increases in the supply of usable oil products. refineries have been running at capacity because of the lobbying of the petro industry.
      • cdelwood, on 07/16/2008, -2/+4Solution.....build more refineries.
      • dubhousing, on 07/16/2008, -0/+7here's an article on why that's not as easy as it might seem:
        http://energyoutlook.blogspot.com/2005/09/building ...

        excerpt:
        "How keen would Valero be to build a new refinery? Perhaps more than most, but I suspect they'd start to hear concerns from their shareholder base. It's one thing to buy up existing capacity and say that you'll run it more efficiently. It's quite another to build expensive new capacity that by its mere existence will reduce the operating margin of every other plant in the markets it serves. In a way, the refining business is like the restaurant business, where the person who builds a brand new restaurant, with a beautiful new kitchen, typically goes broke. By the time the third owner has bought it, at pennies on the dollar for the kitchen hardware, he has a chance to make a profit."
      • TheGuruStud, on 07/16/2008, -0/+2The refineries aren't even running at max capacity, less than 75%, actually.
    • chrispecic, on 07/16/2008, -19/+11Clearly a very well researched and educated response, oh wait no it was mostly BS.
      • jj101, on 07/16/2008, -1/+7What an insightful and constructive reply. You really took the crux of his argument and eloquently explained the flaw in his logic. Well done.
    • legolas68, on 07/16/2008, -10/+8If it's doomed to fail then let it fail. The only thing that will happen is that the oil companies will lose money.

      That's what your leftist mind wants anyway doesn't it?
      • omegared, on 07/16/2008, -2/+5i ***** hate when people categorize the left or the right as one single group that thinks alike. Nothing better than getting your point across by insulting a group of people. So what you right wingers want to drill for oil and for some reason that when the oil comes online that it will automatically flow to the USA and not around the world? And if the price did drop wouldn't lower oil prices only increase demand around the world and therefore either price would not drop as much because of the increased demand. Keep believing in your myth that more oil will lower the price, without increasing demand and therefore causing the price to increase.
      • jscottd, on 07/16/2008, -2/+1Point:
        i ***** hate when people categorize the left or the right as one single group that thinks alike.

        Counterpoint:
        So what you right wingers want to drill for oil and for some reason that when the oil comes online that it will automatically flow to the USA and not around the world?

        All in the same paragraph. Bravo.
      • omegared, on 07/16/2008, -1/+2whats your point? Does it make you feel better if i change right winger to left winger or person in political center? So because i put right winger you can ignore everything else i wrote?
      • jscottd, on 07/16/2008, -0/+1No, it's funny because you said "i ***** hate when people categorize the left or the right..." then followed with "So what you right wingers want..." I stopped reading there. After that, who cares what you say? Sort of ironic isn't it? I could care less about the accuracy of your statement.
      • legolas68, on 07/16/2008, -1/+1The categorization was correct. Leftists are anti-capitalists. The statement is anti-capitalist. If it walks like a duck it's a duck.
      • hiPpymIck, on 07/16/2008, -0/+1i think Democracy (not politics) says IMO

        if you can find a smarter solution to a problem
        - that in the end the free market will solve anyway -
        then youre ahead of the curve

        in other words..
        bad investments get fixed by the market eventually true - but it would be better to have invested more wisely in the first place
      • Berkana, on 07/18/2008, -0/+1@legolas68: I am not an anti-Capitalist, nor a leftist of any flavor; I am against unfair markets in capitalist systems. I am a Ron Paul conservative; all you have proven is that it's easier for you to resort to smearing and name calling than to reason with facts. Right now, big oil is playing on an uneven field tilted in their favor. I am for capitalism that doesn't put our whole nation at risk on account of the greed of a few corporations with disproportionate influence in politics.

        We need to put our money and effort into getting off oil, period.
    • doctechnical, on 07/16/2008, -9/+2Um, why does it take 10 years to drill a hole and suck oil out of it when we put a man on the moon and brought him back in less than that? Are we drilling on Uranus or something?

      Methinks I detect the whiff of *****.
      • Badandy127, on 07/16/2008, -1/+6Methinks you have no idea about anything dealing with the oil industry.
      • pweegar, on 07/16/2008, -6/+4a whiff?? It's more like the left just farted a ton of *****. At least if the oil companies were drilling in the USA, OPEC wouldn't be in control of our own oil prices. WE would. Makes sense to me.
      • nevetssav, on 07/16/2008, -0/+6Infrastructure takes time to build, it takes time to move rigs out to look for oil, then it's a crap shoot as to whether or not we actually *find* oil there, then it's gotta be drilled, transported, and refined, and then we have to keep drilling to the point where we've produced enough oil to have a significant impact on supply. I'm not positive what that number would be, but I'll take a guess: a lot.
      • plainOldFool, on 07/16/2008, -0/+3But Daniel Plainview can start drilling in 10 days, guaranteed.
      • cdelwood, on 07/16/2008, -7/+3Most of that 10 years is just to get through the red tape that the LibsEnviroCrats have thrown up to stop drilling.
      • doctechnical, on 07/16/2008, -3/+4@Badandy127: Nice dodge, Captain Avoidance, but can you answer the question?

        @nevetssav: The Empire State Building was done in a little over a year, and that was back in the 30's. That must be one ***** of an infrastructure you're talking about.

        I think we're confusing the "Dum de dum de dum, I'm bored, I think I'll drill for oil today" timeline with "HOLY JUMPING ***** WE NEED OIL NOW NOW NOW!!!!1!" timeline. I believe the latter may prove to be more compact.

        In other words, I think we can turn it up to eleven if we really want to.
      • ptsuk, on 07/16/2008, -1/+3yah just watch ice road truckers this season (they are drilling for frozen natural gas on top of the arctic sea, then switch to watching "Black Gold" where three rigs are competing to win the rights to dig more oil wells in texas.

        they move/drill/move/drill in no time flat.
    • nevetssav, on 07/16/2008, -1/+3Fears we may attack Iran? The US is close to putting a consulate in Iran. The only aggression we've seen from them in the past month is purely in response to a direct threat from Israel. Is there any sort of credible source that really thinks we're going into one of the toughest-to-assault countries in the middle east, right before an election?
      • Wartyboskfapped, on 07/16/2008, -2/+6What credible evidence that we're gonna attack one of the most toughest to assault countries in the ME? The Bush Administration is comprised by a pack of delusional imbeciles with the collective strategic grasp of a bunch of four-year olds playing capture the flag, that's what. We've seen their appreciation of the realities of war in the ME, and we've seen their current crazy sabre-rattling before, in the lead up to the utterly fubar Iraq invasion. You may have confidence in this bunch of overcompensating chickenhawks, many of the rest of us do not.
      • jj101, on 07/16/2008, -1/+1Well said that man. Now lets all hope you're right.
      • nevetssav, on 07/16/2008, -1/+1None of the slander you posted, wartyboskfapped, is actually evidence. Past performances are not guarantees of future results. The scene has changed rapidly, and there's far more evidence against war than for it.
    • leahcim, on 07/16/2008, -3/+7If the Democrats lose this November, you'll have this to thank.


      This is from one independent that is leaning Dem this year.

      Digg me down or deny it all you want, but the Democrats plan of "Let the gas price rise to force us to use 'green' fuels some 20 years from now' will not win you the Presidency and it may well cost you the Senate.

      By the way, we need every possible method to solve this energy problem. ANWR oil, Solar, Wind, off shore oil, nuclear, whatever else you want to throw in there. Our house of cards economy is too shaky right now to be ***** over these stupid arguments when they should all have been implemented yesterday.

      You yourself state that its the "speculators" that is causing the high oil prices (in reality its the deflation of the dollar, the rise of india and china, and 1000 other factors involved as well), and even if so, the day they pass a law that opens up drilling in every part of the United States that is being debated about the futures market would drop. It would at least buy us some time to implement more sustainable long term energy from within our own country so we don't keep sending out the equivilant of most countries GDP to foreign countries every year for oil.
      • tgelston, on 07/16/2008, -3/+4I don't like the idea of "buying time" with the environment. I think there is a much greater chance of looking back and regretting drilling willy-nilly.
      • mattalice, on 07/16/2008, -3/+2The dems can't lose. They have two liberals running. One on the dem ticket and one on the repub ticket.
    • cph1, on 07/16/2008, -2/+3The first thing that people need to realize is that oil is sold on the global marketplace. That is how the free market works. It is a misconception to think that drilling for Alaskan oil will somehow change American oil independence. Oil produced in America will not necessarily be sold in America. If an American consumer will pay $100 for a barrel of oil and a Chinese consumer will pay $150, the barrel will go to the Chinese. The oil producer doesn’t care who’s buying it, they simply want to sell it for the highest price.
      On the consumption side if an American consumer wants to buy oil they will buy it at the lowest price, no matter where it comes from. If oil produced in America costs $150 a barrel and Saudi oil is sold for $100 a barrel, the consumer will buy from the Saudis. Again, producers and consumers will determine their purchases based on favorable prices, not where the oil comes from.
      It is a FACT that drilling today will not yield production for years. Oil companies and politicians from both sides of the political spectrum acknowledge this fact. This should not be contested.
      The oil problem should not be blamed on speculators. The futures market fundamentally has no effect on supply and demand and will not influence the cash price. Speculators simply make for an easy scapegoat.
      The problem is simply one of supply and demand. Existing oil resources are being depleted as fast as new production is going up. The result is supply has not been able to increase as fast as demand. US consumption has actually not changed much since 2000, but again oil is a global market and we must take other countries into account. China’s consumption of oil has almost doubled since 2000. Other developing countries have also experienced fast increasing demand.
      • mattalice, on 07/16/2008, -2/+4Supply and demand? More of a product lowers the price? derr?
      • cph1, on 07/16/2008, -1/+2More supply lowers the price IF demand is held constant. The problem is demand is rising fast everywhere else in the world. Production gains in the US will not necessarily translate into lower prices for Americans since it will be absorbed by foreign demand.
      • amoirae, on 07/16/2008, -0/+1cph1: Which is why diamonds are SO affordable.

        A controlled supply allows price manipulation.
      • cph1, on 07/16/2008, -0/+1Please explain what you are trying to say about diamonds. If you are saying that the diamond supply is controlled then it wouldn't be considered a free market and these rules wouldn't apply in the same way.
    • bonhoeffer, on 07/16/2008, -0/+4There is a reason its called "futures trading." Trading isn't based on what's hitting the market, but how likely is the value to increase in future years. If the future is expanded supply, investment stops today, and prices drop.

      That's if speculation is really what is driving price increases.
      • cph1, on 07/16/2008, -0/+3I don't understand your reasoning....
        Futures traders will bet on the future price of various commodities. It is July right now... WTI crude contracts are traded monthly so the next one expires in August 2008. The price of that contract is now $134 a barrel. If a speculator thinks that the market price of crude will be $140 a barrel in August, they will buy the contract for $134 and wait until August. When August comes if the price that consumers are willing to pay for oil is $144, then the speculator makes $10 per barrel. If the price that consumers are willing to pay is $124, the speculator has lost money. The speculator must either re-sell the contract to someone who will actually use the oil, or take delivery. Unless the speculator resells the contract they will end up with thousands of barrels of oil on their doorstep. Because speculators do not take delivery, the futures market has no influence over the supply/demand of the underlying commodity.


        Here is a helpful basic article on the recent increase in oil price.
        http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/steo/pub/special/high- ...
      • StGhurka, on 07/16/2008, -0/+1@cph1

        "The speculator must either re-sell the contract to someone who will actually use the oil, or take delivery.'

        Not true. The contract does not have to be fulfilled by delivery of the commodity. They can settle up for cash.
      • cph1, on 07/16/2008, -0/+1yes, there can be a cash settlement. The point is that there will be no change in the supply or demand of the underlying commodity.
    • j0keR, on 07/16/2008, -4/+2You know you're a communist when you're opposed to a private venture that you have nothing to do with and you're willing to let the government use force to support your views. "Public land" is a socialist concept in the first place. Go read the communist manifesto and think about just how many planks the United States has already implemented. This is not a free country.
      • cph1, on 07/16/2008, -0/+2The problem is that the environment is intrinsicly a common good that is non-excludable and rivalrous. The free market is efficient when it comes to private goods, but common goods will often lead to market failure. This necessitates some sort of government intervention.
      • Berkana, on 07/18/2008, -0/+2All you've demonstrated is that it is easier for you to resort to name calling (as if this were the 50's, calling me a communist) than it is for you to reason. These "private ventures" are pulling the strings of government at the cost of all of the rest of us. I'm not opposed to capitalism; I'm for responsible capitalism.
    • hivoltage815, on 07/16/2008, -0/+3I agree that we should be cutting our dependence on oil, not increasing production. But I am sick of people complaining about the environmental concerns because the argument is rather null.

      Just like with the Alaskan pipeline everyone said would destroy the region and instead increased some of the animal populations because they enjoyed mating near the warm pipes.

      If drilling our own reserves allows us to cut some of what we take from Venezuela or the ME, it should be done. We will be using petroleum for many years to come - it's not only used for gasoline you know.
    • ZenMojo, on 07/16/2008, -2/+3But, but...I want my gas to go down by 8 cents 10 years from now! Think of the future!!!
      • legolas68, on 07/16/2008, -0/+1If we don't do anything gas will go up 8$ 10 years from now. Think of the future.
      • cph1, on 07/16/2008, -0/+2If we don't do anything we will get to the point where other sources of energy are cheaper than oil and the market will react accordingly. Cars that run on natural gas/ethanol/electricity will become the norm.
        In the short term we will see an increase in use of cheaper fuel-efficient ways to travel such as public transportation.
    • JosephTHogan, on 07/16/2008, -2/+1"oil wouldn't even reach the market for another 5-10"

      -This statement alone demonstrates your lack of economic knowledge, so much so that i refuse to read the remainder of your rant.
      Economically speaking, prices are set based on future expectations of supply. For example, if i knew that we would use the remainder of our oil tomorrow, prices today would be very high as to try and preserve that oil and keep it going more than a day. Therefore, we look to the supply in the future to determine prices today. And finally, even if ANWR oil did not reach our gas tanks for 10 years, the expectation of a greater supply in the future would reduce prices today.

      And this business about being sold at market prices, you are confused to the point of idiocy. Market prices are determined, as i explained before, by supply and demand... even an expectation of a supply. Thus, the market price today would be reduced by the expectation of more oil 10 years from now.

      To give a simpler example, if you had the last apple on earth, you could sell it for billions, but if everyone knew that a fresh supply of apples was due to hit the market in 2 weeks, you would not get much at all for your apple.
      • cph1, on 07/16/2008, -0/+1I don't see why you think that it is incorrect to say that it would be years before oil production commences. Companies need to buy land, explore potential sites, assess feasibility, obtain permits, and construct the necessary infrastructure. For large projects it often takes years before construction begins.

        I think what you mean is that the effect on todays price, rather than oil inventory, would be immediate. You are correct that supply and demand are influenced by expectations of the future but it is unlikely that this would have a profound effect on today's prices. Production is too far ahead, the incoming quantity is too small, and today's demand is growing too quickly. Raw material that is still in the ground is valued at a fraction of what the final product is worth. For instance, the current price of gold is around $960, but gold held by developing gold mines in the ground is valued at around $10-$100 per ounce. I haven't done enough research to give you an example specific to developing oil projects but it follows the same pattern.

        I highly suggest you read the EIA's analysis of ANWR
        http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/anwr/index. ...
      • cph1, on 07/16/2008, -0/+1In addition, studies show that ANWR would add at most around 800 thousand barrels per day to production. Thats only a 10% increase compared to today's production and it doesn't seem like much when you consider that America consumes around 20,000 thousand a day. Who knows what we will be consuming 10-20 years from now.
        The truth is ANWR would have a minimal impact on oil prices and shouldn't be seen as America's energy solution. Unfortunately we have turned the issue into too much of a partisan topic.
      • JosephTHogan, on 07/23/2008, -0/+1In fact, i did say the effect would be on price, not supply. I said that the supply in the future would be positively affected. I'm not sure where you are going with your gold example - extraction/production of a good is costly and thus the market price will reflect those costs which may not be considered before extraction/production - but again, what this has to do with oil is beyond me.
        Also, if you read my comment again, you will find that i did not deny that it will take years to begin production, i confirmed it. I refer several times to having the oil 10 years from now, which is in line with the findings.
        I have found that your rebuttal is based on poor reading comprehension and suggest you go back and read my comment a few times. Also, using arguments such as "Who knows what we will be consuming 10-20 years from now" is pretty silly. It does not provide any information. And your "truth" about ANWR was triumphantly announced without making any good arguments - especially the 10% one - Taking into account oils direct affect on the price of gas, 10% on 4 dollars (the current price of gas) is 40 cents - This sounds significant to me.
  • nathanww, on 07/16/2008, -0/+13I like how they had to put "falsely claims" in the title. Good reminder of how he got to where he is.
  • dupswapdrop, on 07/16/2008, -0/+13Just like there are no real actual Republicans in congress.
  • cdtoad, on 07/16/2008, -13/+16The R next to is name is for RETARD!
  • Ninh, on 07/16/2008, -1/+8Good, then we have a place to relocate all those homeless polar bears to.
  • themarq, on 07/16/2008, -3/+8Does he think that because it's cold nothing could live there? Hasn't he seen all the cute animated Penguin movies lately?
    • bonhoeffer, on 07/16/2008, -0/+2That was in Antartica. No penguins in the Arctic.
      • dondara, on 07/16/2008, -0/+2All the polar bears have drowned and the seals have all been clubbed, so yeah, no life there now.
  • KMyHero, on 07/16/2008, -8/+16Come on guys, stop picking on the handicapped kid. He's from Ohio.
  • Idiggapony, on 07/16/2008, -10/+31I propose a new restriction: no more than 37 HuffPo and ThinkProgress articles on digg's front page per day.
  • HillerMylife, on 07/24/2008, -6/+20The truth is there isn't a ton of wildlife in the tiny area of the ANWR where they're proposing drilling, and the wildlife that is there probably wouldn't be disturbed much by it. I don't think that's really the big issue here. The big issue is the precedent it would set, which is that a Wildlife Refuge wouldn't really be much of a refuge at all if it just means we'll get around to mining and drilling some other time.
    • RichG13, on 07/16/2008, -5/+3True, there is not much life there. So do you suggest we all move up there to take advantage of all that glorious oil? NO? You want to somehow get it down here.... hmm is there some sort of lifeless corridor we could take advantage of and create a pipeline? No? then just ship in tankers.. that has worked so well in the past.
      • Julik, on 07/16/2008, -3/+6How do we get oil from the middle east?
      • ConceptualTrap, on 07/16/2008, -1/+3Magic carpets?
      • RichG13, on 07/16/2008, -2/+5Not through any Alaskan wildlife refuge that I am aware of.
      • cybrguy, on 07/16/2008, -1/+7Do some research on the Alaskan pipeline, The "projections" of environmentalists predicted absolute ecological devastation. And now, we discovered that it had very little negative impact. Taking up a few miles of land for drilling will have even less impact. And as long as it adds money to the American economy, then it is a good move.

        Will it help gas prices? Not for a long while. But that doesn't make it a bad decision. But the environmental impact for drilling up in ANWR is far less than the other proposals going forward.

        It would be riding on former precedents, not setting a new one. There are tons of natural resource extraction facilities across national parks and refuges. Just because .0015% of your refuge is used for resource extraction doesn't mean that you loose any value to the refuge. Maybe you should whine about all those visitors centers in Yellowstone.
    • MorganMghee, on 07/16/2008, -2/+2Again, simply wrong. http://alaska.usgs.gov/BSR-2002/usgs-brd-bsr-2002- ...
  • wolfing, on 07/16/2008, -2/+11I'm just wondering how much of the tax I paid last year will go into that 'trip' to see if there's wildlife in the wildlife refuge
    • cybrguy, on 07/16/2008, -1/+3Instead of wasting time and money looking into how many caribou turds are on a small piece of tundra, we should have just drilled, and then purchased 50X the land in rainforest and preserved it. Tundra has jack compared to rainforest in biodiversity. I would just have ANY industry preserve an equal amount of wild lands for every bit of land they take for their uses. We have a lot of people arguing over what amounts to an anthill while the millions of acres of far more biologically important land gets destroyed every year around the world.
    • MorganMghee, on 07/16/2008, -0/+2I think you should call or write and ask them:

      House Republican Conference
      U.S. House of Representatives
      1420 Longworth House Office Building
      Washington, DC 20515

      Main Office Phone: (202) 225-5107
      Press Office Phone: (202) 226-9000
      Office Fax: (202) 226-0154

      Email: GOP@mail.house.gov
  • skiiper, on 07/16/2008, -6/+5How do you pronounce his last name? Bonner? BONER?
    • dan222555, on 07/16/2008, -1/+3I bet that makes you giggle like a school girl, doesn't it?
      • skiiper, on 07/16/2008, -2/+2You can bet your hairy republican ass it does.
    • MJG2007, on 07/16/2008, -0/+1When two vowels go walking, the first one does the talking. Therefore, Boner would be the correct pronunciation.
    • bonhoeffer, on 07/16/2008, -1/+0Bet you had a blast with "President Putin." Ya get it? Ya get it? That's sophisticated humer there.
  • greenfirefly, on 07/16/2008, -9/+3All the woodland Cariboo that migrate into the ANWR must simply be lost then, perhaps he can take his GPS up there and give them directions.

    This guy is perhaps as big an idiot as Bush.

    digg to cdtoad for pointing out that R-OH is in fact for RETARD!
    • dondara, on 07/16/2008, -0/+1"This guy is perhaps as big an idiot as Bush."

      Shenanigans
  • vanguardanon, on 07/16/2008, -1/+5This might sound lame but I actually agree with the Republican in this clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-c_WUF-J7E

    Please watch it. (I promise you, it's on topic and it's not a Rick Roll)
    • paraforce, on 07/16/2008, -3/+7I'm going to have to go with Jimmy Smits on this one.
      Just because we don't visit it doesn't mean it's not important.

      We don't visit Africa either, but does that mean we can just turn our back on the genocide and impoverty ravaging the country and pretend it's not happening?

      Oh wai...
      • cybrguy, on 07/16/2008, -0/+3How about ANYWHERE for that matter, your argument might as well say, no drilling anywhere in the world, because anywhere not drilled, is pristine and natural. Comparing oil drilling to genocide just shows how out of perspective your view is.
    • paraforce, on 07/16/2008, -0/+5And let me remind you what we'd be destroying.
      http://www.lib.odu.edu/libassist/courseguides/NewP ...
    • frieddonuts, on 07/16/2008, -3/+2Having oil wells in LA is completely different from creating them in a tundra environment. Pipelines would disrupt migration routes and there is no proof that the infrastructure would survive was the permafrost continues to melt from the effects of climate change. It's arrogant and close-minded to suggest that just because it's not immediately important to us, it doesn't matter at all. Alaska is one of the few places in this country where we actually preserved much of the original ecology as it was before we came.
      • paraforce, on 07/16/2008, -0/+1You replied to me?
        I agree with you bud...
      • salxman12, on 07/16/2008, -0/+3you know theres already a pipeline even bigger than the anwar one going accost all of alaska already and its been there since the 60's right?
    • cybrguy, on 07/16/2008, -0/+6Good perspective.

      Just as many here are lacking perspective when they say that we will loose something big if we take a hundredths of a percent of anwr to drill for oil.

      People are being so unreasonable when they say no drilling anywhere. What about outside of ANWR, where there is far more wildlife? Can they drill there all they want because it doesn't have a 4 letter government issued designation?
    • MorganMghee, on 07/16/2008, -0/+2I've never been to D.C. either, not many people have. Lets drill in D.C.
  • wexmajor, on 07/16/2008, -11/+4Kill all the ***** polar bears in the world if it'll make oil prices go down a dollar.
    • serif69, on 07/16/2008, -1/+3Is it sad that I think you're being sarcastic but I agree anyway?
      • ConceptualTrap, on 07/16/2008, -1/+1You agree? There are plenty of better ways to lower the cost of oil. Stop the war effort, put some of that money into subsidizing the current costs of oil while putting the rest into alternative fuel sources. Alternative green energy gets miniscule amounts of federal funding. Course it's our own fault, we just love electing former ceo's of oil companies.
    • EricSchC1, on 07/16/2008, -0/+5Unless you omitted the sarcasm tag, congratulations on having the most shortsighted and obtuse take on the situation...you'd really want to kill off an entire species to save yourself a few bucks? I hope you get mauled by a renegade polar bear,
      • wexmajor, on 07/16/2008, -0/+3Why the ***** wouldn't I? What's so great about Polar Bears? Do they cure cancer? Are they sentient? Or do they just eat and ***** and maul people to death once or twice a year?

        Also, think of all the cute baby seals that they eat. Think of the children.
      • omegared, on 07/16/2008, -0/+1people that say that we should kill the polar bears because they maul people once or twice a year make me laugh. Is that the best argument you can come up with? What about people that don't add value to society, and people in coma's they do not do anything. Do you propose we get rid of them?

        So here's you solution i think, kill polar bears, get oil, price goes down for awhile, than backup once reserves start dwindling and now we have a screwed up Eco system because their are no polar bears. the future generations will thank you for killing the polar bears so you could get oil for a little while at a reduced price.

    • omegared, on 07/16/2008, -0/+3what about people that are homeless or people with capabilities that don't add anything to society but use resources? Should we kill those people since instead of the polar bear because polar bears may be adding some type of value to having a functioning ecosystem while the person stuck in a bed is not?
    • Mononuclear, on 07/16/2008, -2/+4It won't make oil prices go down a dollar and even if it did you are screwing over future generations just so you can save a dollar. ***** you narcissistic *****!
    • cybrguy, on 07/16/2008, -0/+1Here is the reality of that comment. If we took the savings from this proposed trade, and put it into preserving other wild life, then we could save tens of thousands of other species, and tens of MILLIONS of acres of land preserved with the tens of billions of dollars saved. But oh no, we cant make any sacrifice. Again, perspective.
    • MorganMghee, on 07/16/2008, -0/+1That's it, dear, it won't make anything go down but air quality and the number of bills in your wallet.
  • Anzat, on 07/16/2008, -10/+10What a retard. I've been just a couple miles outside ANWR and it was one of the most wildlife-rich places I've ever seen... lots of Dall's sheep, caribou, and musk oxen, not to mention all the birds. Here's hoping Boehner gets mauled by a grizzly while he's there.
    • iceperson, on 07/16/2008, -1/+5So you were just a couple miles outside of an 80,000 km² area and you're an expert on the wildlife for the whole 80,000 km² area now?
    • cybrguy, on 07/16/2008, -0/+5Yes, as we all know, outside of ANWR must be exactly the same as the small section they want to drill on. And the thought of giving up even a square inch of pristine (government designated reserve) makes you vomit.

      Answer me this: What would be a better drilling site? So its ok to drill if it doesn't have a 4 letter designation?

      I'm all for preserving land, but when people go extreme and won't compromise it ruins it for everyone. Not compromising on something so insignificant and blowing it out of proportions is so wasteful. We could save millions of acres of land elsewhere, where it might matter, but some people cant compromise on a small piece of tundra in northern alaska, where maybe 100 people may visit in the next 100 years(excluding oil drillers)



      • quiznos, on 07/16/2008, -0/+1We shouldn't be drilling for more oil anyway. This is a very temporary solution that will take years to come to fruition, and with peak oil coming soon (if we haven't already hit it) we need to invest in alternative fuels.
      • Monk22, on 07/16/2008, -0/+1"and with peak oil coming soon"

        you have no idea if its coming soon.
  • ProUSADigger, on 07/16/2008, -14/+4Hi thinkprogress article!!! You're buried!! Yay!!
    • CryRightardCry, on 07/16/2008, -3/+5Hey, a rightard ***** warmonger too ***** to enlist!
      Congrats, coward!

      How proud you must be to shill for failure and corruption.
      And you manage to do your right wing shilling despite the tremendous burden of being a coward who won't fight the wars he cheers for.
      Pathetic loser. And a MCCain shill? LOL
      What a winner.
      • Jackson0909, on 07/16/2008, -1/+2CryRighardCry,
        Your posts always seem to amaze me. Just when I thought you couldn't be any more ignorant and hateful, you produce something like what is above. What you think of as your personality is nothing more than talking points and rhetoric. How did you become so twisted?
  • thegreatgazoo, on 07/16/2008, -11/+61) We've been dealing with this controversy for 10 years now. If 10 years ago it was approved, we'd have the oil now and probably wouldn't have $4 gas, and we could tell Chavez to shove it.

    • ConceptualTrap, on 07/16/2008, -0/+34$ gas is still much much higher than gas prices 10 years ago. Destabilizing the middle east, more than it already was, is what ***** us over. In the 8 years that Bush has been in office the price of a gallon of gas has basically doubled.
    • cdelwood, on 07/16/2008, -3/+1DINGDINGDING!!! We have a winner!!
    • Charun, on 07/16/2008, -0/+3If we had made a real commitment to breaking our dependence on foreign oil 10 years ago then we could tell Chavez AND Boehner to shove it.
  • magus_melchior, on 07/16/2008, -5/+13I remember a right-wing friend saying that drilling in the Arctic would be beneficial to wildlife because it would provide a warm spot for caribou to gather. I wish I'd retorted that the operators would probably shoot the caribou to get them to go away (or to snag a free meal); not to mention, a "warm spot" isn't exactly what the local ecosystem is in balance with. Another evangelical Bush supporter bamboozled by this administration and the Republican party.
    • samwe, on 07/16/2008, -1/+6In areas where there is drilling the wildlife has done very well. The Caribou herd in the area has grown. People can't just shoot them to chase them away. Firearms are not allowed there, and even if they were we have laws about harassing wildlife.
      As a local resident, I see posts like yours as great examples of why we Alaskans don't appreciate people from other states "looking out for our best interests"... Just as the right is capable of misinformation, so is the left.
      • Moonkeeper, on 07/16/2008, -1/+1But those of us that are thousands of miles away typing on a computer clearly know what is best for all of you up there.

        (end sarcasm)
    • Shipyaad, on 07/16/2008, -0/+3If a few operators snag a free meal by taking down a few caribou, it's not going to change anything. If they have a license, then great. If not, then prosecute. I'm not sure what the problem is.

      The pipeline DOES tend to attract a lot of caribou - especially in the winter - and has allowed many of the herds to grow considerably since fewer animals are dying of exposure. The Western Arctic Herd has grown from 75,000 animals in the mid 70s to nearly 500,000 today. Now, that 75,000 was after a population crash, but the herd is currently DOUBLE its average population.

      Now, if you were to import 200 million people into Alaska, then you'd do some real damage. But drilling a few acres in a totally barren, remote spot of ANWR is not going to be the catastrophic death knell for Alaska that so many naysayers want us to believe.
    • cybrguy, on 07/16/2008, -0/+4Ok, well your friend heard about the Alaskan pipelines effect, and misconstrued it... The Alaskan Pipeline gives off heat and caribou DO gather around it. Does it harm the ecosystem to add warmth? The animals like it, so please explain. Oil wells may give off heat but they will be fenced off from any wildlife. In the end, its moot, irrelevant, and pointless to argue about. A little extra heat in the system won't have a lasting effect on anything.


  • DDMX, on 07/16/2008, -7/+10ACTUALLY.. the area proposed for drilling is BARREN.. there are many areas that have forests, wildlife, etc, but NOT the area where the drilling is proposed.
    • RichG13, on 07/16/2008, -2/+5And we just magically teleport the oil here to the states, right?
      • bruce86, on 07/16/2008, -1/+1Don't worry, Goku already learn instant transmission technique before his fight with Cell. I am sure if we trade him a dragon ball he will teleport all the oil.
    • bonhoeffer, on 07/16/2008, -2/+5ANWR is the size of North Dakota. The oil drilling area is the size of Atlanta's Hartsfield-Jackson Airport. The caribou won't even notice.

      So lets talk about the DEM's underlying interest in crippling American productivity by denying all energy sources: hydro, coal, natural gas, nuclear, oil or any other energy source that approaches practical effectiveness.
      • malex, on 07/16/2008, -3/+2First, as has already been explained, oil fields require oil pipelines. That impact is missing from your Atlanta Airport footprint measurement.

        Second, you are right that there are ways to drill for oil with minimal impact on the local environment. However, can we trust a man who denies that the wildlife is even there to make that a priority? Not really, no.

        Third, you accuse the Democratic party of having an "underlying interest" in reducing American's economic strength. That means you're not actually interested in solving problems are just a partisan wingnut, so further discussion with you is pointless.
    • MorganMghee, on 07/16/2008, -2/+1You are, simply, wrong. http://alaska.usgs.gov/BSR-2002/usgs-brd-bsr-2002- ...
  • s14sh3r, on 07/16/2008, -10/+3***** a bunch of caribou and polar bears, who gives a *****?
    • DreKor, on 07/16/2008, -1/+9I do, so ***** you!

      See, I can be irrationally vulgar, too.

      But seriously, ***** you.
    • inajeep, on 07/16/2008, -0/+3I think they would get pissed if you tried.
    • dondara, on 07/16/2008, -0/+1You should stick to ***** goats, those polar bears hate a dick in the ass, even a tiny one like yours.
    • beerock, on 07/16/2008, -1/+2Yeah, ***** 'em,

      I bet you said the same thing about civil liberties, and the Middle East in general.

      Hey, can I buy your vote?
  • chrissku, on 07/16/2008, -10/+20Republicans suck.
    • HoratioHellpop, on 07/16/2008, -2/+3Democrats sw ... ah, forget it.
  • doctechnical, on 07/16/2008, -8/+7"It's too hard! It will take too long! It will require sacrifice! We'll have to make tough decisions! It won't make a differnce! There won't be any results for years!"

    -- The Spirit That Conquered Absolutely Nothing
    • nevetssav, on 07/16/2008, -2/+5But that spirit also didn't waste a lot of taxpayer money.
    • TVarmy, on 07/16/2008, -1/+3Couldn't the same be said of the transition to alternative fuels? Getting a little bit of oil from ANWR wouldn't exactly be as exciting or noble as say, finding a vaccine for polio or going to the moon. It's more of the same, and what would we do after ANWR? Switching to a different fuel for cars (my money's on electric, pref solar or nuclear) is hard too, and would probably call for some government assistance, both in terms of research grants to improve the technology, and tax deductions for consumers to buy the cars, but it seems to be a good, long term solution.
      • doctechnical, on 07/16/2008, -1/+2Drilling and alternate energy are not mutually exclusive. We can do both simultaneously. At the same time, even.
    • MorganMghee, on 07/16/2008, -0/+4It won't lower gas prices! It will only lengthen our dependence on oil! Only people who benefit are Oil companies and their stockholder!

      --The Spirit That Caused This Predicament
  • thatguy331, on 07/16/2008, -9/+10Why the hell is everyone getting so uppity about drilling in ANWR?

    Its projected that they'll need ~2,000 acres total out of the 19,000,000 in ANWR for drilling (rigs, buildings, pipelines, ect).
    thats 0.01% of the area... hell, say they underestimated the land usage by a factor of 10x... thats 20,000 acres out of 19,000,000 = 0.1% of ANWR.

    Drill it dammit!


    • XBunnyRacer, on 07/16/2008, -1/+1And how are they going to get in and out of there?? Airplane?? No.. they will have to build roads where none currently exist.. So that 2,000 acres is *****. Drilling for oil and transporting oil pollutes the environment.. There isn't that much oil up there and we won't see any of it for at least 4 years..

      • Monk22, on 07/16/2008, -1/+2"So that 2,000 acres is *****"

        I'm sure you went and found out if that factored in roads to the facilities and what not.

        "we won't see any of it for at least 4 years"

        are you ***** retarded. maybe you should try thinking ahead more than 2 days and what obama is up to. did it not occur to you that if the gas prices get to high they will collapse the economy and there wont be allot of investment in renewable energy if there's no money to spend. its not perfect but we STILL NEED OIL. until we find a viable solution to the energy problem we cant just ignore that we need oil. do you not realize that everything you ***** use is made from oil?
  • MJG2007, on 07/16/2008, -0/+17Actually there is no wildlife in ANWR.....all those animals are quite tame, civilized, and friendly. I recommend that Boner run up and hug the first polar bear he sees. In fact, the female polar bears just get all giggly when you lavish attention on their young. It would be a great photo op for his re-election bid.
    • snotrokit, on 07/16/2008, -0/+2Your idea has merit. I like it, I say we put it to the floor for a vote.
    • dondara, on 07/16/2008, -0/+5And I'll make him a life vest out of steaks. That will fight off the chill and give him a manly, outdoorsy look that earn respect from all the bears up there.
    • salxman12, on 07/16/2008, -0/+1there are no polar bear's in ANWAR...
      • MJG2007, on 07/16/2008, -0/+1Anwar Sadat? No, he's buried. I said ANWR.
  • legolas68, on 07/16/2008, -3/+5We should have shut up all the "5-10 year" idiots 5 to 10 years ago. We wouldn't be having this discussion.
  • shitforbrains, on 07/16/2008, -0/+3This guy reminds me of the Iraqi spokesperson who said the Americans were beaten back as the tanks were right outside his door.
  • ecoaussie, on 07/16/2008, -2/+6gee...a surprise, another stupid republican comment..
  • TVarmy, on 07/16/2008, -0/+2So, why are the republicans pushing so hard to drill there, even when the experts say there's only a little oil we'd see in years after we started drilling? Is it all just to bicker with the dems, or is it more about trying to sell that oil before people move on to a new fuel?
  • Apocrypha, on 07/16/2008, -3/+4Wow, what an irresponsible *****.
  • TVarmy, on 07/16/2008, -2/+4Another question: Say we do drill this oil. Just how much would it lower American gas prices, based on the national average? Would it even be more than ten cents? That would save me about a buck fifty per tank, saving me a total of $6 a month if my carpool fell apart. I'd be happy to pay $6 a month to keep a national wildlife refuge pristine.
    • Sairynn, on 07/16/2008, -0/+2As long as I can save about tree-fiddy I'll be happy. Damn Loch Ness Monster keeps comin around...
  • nomadgabe6, on 07/16/2008, -1/+1John Boehner: Giving Asshattery a Bad Name
  • aftern9ne, on 07/16/2008, -0/+2I don't buy the supply/demand argument. How many of us have seen a gas station running out of gas this month?
    • Barackalypse, on 07/16/2008, -0/+1Some, "In Tijuana and Rosarito Beach, virtually all gas stations that had been selling small amounts of diesel had closed those pumps yesterday because they had run out."
      Some smart Americans realized that just across the border they could get that nice subsidized diesel blend instead of the American heavily tax variety and did it.
      http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/mexico/tijuana/ ...

      Of course in serious answer to your question, there don't need to be actual shortages to cause price jumps. Even the threat of them is sufficient, and given we've got rebels in Nigeria and Mexico attacking infastructure and some Iranian general talking about how they could shut the Gulf of Hormuz or however you spell it down in the event of a conflict, and with worldwide demand still very strong, you've got the ingredients for price increases.
      • aftern9ne, on 07/16/2008, -0/+1Perhaps my question was a bit short sighted and I can see how global shortages could play into prices, but the situations in Iran and Nigeria play more into speculation than shortages. Which is my point to begin with - drilling in ANWR (where the supply is very limited to begin with) will not provide a significant drop in price.
    • dawgfrommsu, on 07/16/2008, -0/+1That is the whole point to lower the demand and increase the supply so they don't close. Think for one second how long would your station have fuel if they lowered it to $1.00/gal. The one thing worse than high prices is closed stations.
  • majortom1981, on 07/16/2008, -0/+1I could ahve sworn that i saw a special on the discovery channel stating that oil in alaska has been declining and that not much has been found in the artic wildlife refuge (i am pretty sure some drilling has been allowed). So opening up the whole thing I think would just waste more money.
  • MorganMghee, on 07/16/2008, -0/+1Send this to your representative, Rep or Dem. http://alaska.usgs.gov/BSR-2002/usgs-brd-bsr-2002- ... . It is a study of just this topic performed by the USGS, peer reviewed and updated in 2001. It is the most extensive study I have found...they aren't easy to find.
  • Slagar, on 07/16/2008, -4/+11I'm an Alaskan. I'm for drilling in ANWR, and you ask most others around here and they're for it too. I grew up here, I've hiked around and explored just about as much of this state as one can in 21 years. I've also been up to the areas where they are proposing to drill, and he's not kidding when he says barren. It's rolling tundra for miles and miles.
    Most Alaskans agree that the potential jobs and income for the state far outweigh displacing some damn caribou. We've got alienated villages all over the state where it's almost impossible for the kids to get a good education, terrible roads, and sky-high heating bills. We need the money, and you lower-48 armchair environmentalists should go ahead and ***** off.
    • evilbob333, on 07/16/2008, -1/+4Ditto. Fsck if it were up to me, all federal lands would be turned over to the states for local control.
    • bubba9999, on 07/16/2008, -1/+1Ted Stevens learned how to drive the dump truck!
    • salxman12, on 07/16/2008, -1/+4another Alaskan here iv been here my whole life and seen more of it than all the politicians combined and i like ever other Alaskan am for drilling in ANWAR. and hes right the ANWAR region is an endless barren waist land of weeds and a rock chuck every few miles
    • TheSexyGeek, on 07/16/2008, -1/+2Nice to hear from someone who has actually SEEN what we're talking about and not just cutting and pasting what they heard.
    • triad203, on 07/16/2008, -1/+1Sorry to spoil it for you two Alaskan love-birds, but ANWR stands for Arctic _National_ Wildlife Refuge, and belongs to the federal government (administered by the fish and wildlife service) and the _entire_ peoples of the United States of America. See: http://arctic.fws.gov/purposes.htm That means Alaska doesn't get to decide what happens to it on their own, especially not just for a few quick bucks. Long-term conservation was the stated goal of the legislation that created ANWR.
      • MJG2007, on 07/17/2008, -0/+2Alaskans get a dividend every year for revenues from oil drilling. So it should come as no surprise that many Alaskans would be more than happy to drill as much as possible.
  • beerock, on 07/16/2008, -2/+3hey boner, it's an ecosystem.
    just because the wildlife there can be shot, decapitated and mounted on your wall isn't to say there is no wildlife.
  • j0keR, on 07/16/2008, -1/+1If you want a "wildlife refuge" you should buy some land and do whatever you want with it. When you allow the government to do things with land, it will never end up as intended. All government programs result in the exact opposite as intended. The war on drugs created more drugs. The war on poverty created more poverty. The government itself is the biggest polluter. Wake up socialists.
    • ZenMojo, on 07/16/2008, -1/+1WAR IS PEACE
      FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
      IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

      We did buy the land. It's called "National" for a reason. Now GTFO.
  • alaskyn66, on 07/16/2008, -0/+3It does'nt matter one way or the other if there are animals on ANWR. Look at the pipeline, there is cariboo and moose
    crap all along it...they could care less about development, just ask the people in Anchorage who have to dodge moose right downtown.. if moose can live in a business district I reckon they wouldnt flinch at a couple of oil rigs..
  • ibmetom, on 07/16/2008, -1/+0The lack of concern for the environment that this man has is evident. It's telling that it was in Ohio that the Cuyahoga River caught on fire.
  • Ladymongoose, on 07/16/2008, -0/+2I guess if those pesky, elusive critters don't come out and dance a Conga line just for him, they must not be there.
  • BuckCynnie, on 07/16/2008, -0/+2He was talking about strip clubs! There are no strip clubs in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge!
  • ChinezePanda, on 07/16/2008, -1/+2What a ***** ignorant prick.

    I want to be next to him when hes at the refuge... this is what will happen.

    Me: Hey Boehner! Whats that in the distance?

    Boehner: 1 penguin, a polar bear it looks like... and I think I see a wolf... and holy *****.. Santa and his 9 reindeer.

    Me: RIGHT! ***** WILDLIFE! (then proceed to punch him in the jaw and leave him to freeze in the snow... letting the wild life eat him.. to bring back food for their young.. producing more wild life)

    When the media and the police asks me what happened to him... I'll simply say...

    "He was part of the problem.. But I saw to it that he became part of the solution"
    • NtroP, on 07/17/2008, -2/+1You are a ***** moron. ANWR is barren except for mosquitoes by the bajillions and caribou when the herds migrate through there. There are NO frickin penguins up here in Alaska and polar bears are mostly along the coast. You could walk for months up there and never see anything bigger than a mosquito or a bird flying over on the way to somewhere else. Sure, if you stumble on a caribou herd you might see something, but good luck otherwise.

      None of the animals have any problem with the tiny amount of development that would take place in order to drill there. I live here. I have bear, beaver and moose in my back yard on a daily basis. They don't seem to mind the development. In fact they seem to seek it out.

      You ignorant greenie-hippie-environmentalists should get the ***** off your asses and actually learn about the "environment" you profess to love so much.
      • ChinezePanda, on 07/17/2008, -0/+1If you actually read my post..

        I mentioned 1 penguin, a polar bear, a wolf, and santa and his reindeer.

        None of those are found in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge... except maybe a penguin..

        So sir.. GO ***** YOURSELF.

        I am all for drilling the gulf, drilling alaska, and I dont clean up mmy dogs ***** when I take him for walks. I also use Premium Gasoline to drive around my golf cart.
  • DC0tter, on 07/16/2008, -3/+1Hate to break it to everyone, but it's a desolate frozen plain up there. Put down the pipe and do your homework hippies. Also, if you look closely in that CNN b-roll those bears are in a god damn cage at a zoo.

    Instead of jumping on the mindless hate-republicans bandwagon, try thinking for yourselves- especially if you don't want $10 gas by next year. Sorry but your care won't run on wind and hemp.
    • ejpusa, on 07/19/2008, -1/+1Maybe I'm missing something here. I'm just one of those dumb lower 48 state hippies. But how EXACTLY is drilling for oil in Alaska supposed to move us to focus on alternatives to a NON-RENEWABLE resource [AKA Oil]? Am I missing something?
  • mrrealtime, on 07/16/2008, -2/+1well theres that and the permafrost, which huge development would hasten to melt. See, if permafrost melts, it releases 100x the greenhouse gasses that cars and factories do. ITs not meant to be released that quickly. So, drilling up north will compound the issue and hasten the melting of the southern ice cap and send all the major cities under water, increase huge storms, and kill off 90% of the humans. And this boner will be riding the leading storm waiving his hat in the air going "its the end of the world and I did it!"
  • GeezerD, on 07/16/2008, -0/+1Idiot. Approved by the spell checker, too.
  • MaceSoul, on 07/16/2008, -1/+3I especially like ThinkProgress's link "Click here for pictures of the wildlife" which goes to a photo gallery that includes absolutely animals. Way to stick it to him.

    Also, CNN is famous for showing video of the AWR that actually did not come from AWR, so don't get all giggly that they found pictures of animals to show.

    Yeah, it's just teaming with wildlife there: http://www.nationalreview.com/images/pic_ANWR_134. ...
  • HippoCrocoStoat, on 07/16/2008, -2/+0One word for him...Moron!
  • hackiavelli, on 07/17/2008, -1/+1This country's oil addiction has driven it stark raving mad. The price of fuel has skyrocketed giving oil companies the highest profits in history so our solution is to open up protected areas and enrich them more?!

    Has anyone for one second stopped and asked themselves why oil companies would invest millions and millions of dollars to depress the price of their own product? Because that's the entire "logic" of drilling in ANWR.

    Open up ANWR and coastal drilling and oil companies will continue manipulating the market as much as possible to maintain the highest profits possible (until people start really looking for something better).
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 52 of 52 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.