White House Won't Back Down on Arctic Oil Drilling

[Hawkeye-X]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Bush administration told Congress on Wednesday it was sticking with its plan for a broad energy bill to open an Arctic refuge in Alaska to oil drilling, even though the White House has been warned the proposal could kill the legislation.

Senate and House negotiators are trying to hammer out legislation by the end of this month that would be the first major overhaul in U.S. energy policy in a decade.

House lawmakers want to give oil companies access to the potential 10 billion barrels of crude under the pristine Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), while the Senate voted earlier this year to keep the refuge closed to energy exploration.

More on Oil-Boy's dreams

Dream on, Oil-boy.

Hawkeye-X

[kwolf68]

1. Oh yea

They've been trying for this for years. It passed Congress back in 95 or 96 with Clinton giving it the ole' veto pen.

This isn't just about "security"...This is part of an ANTI-environmental agenda...As Tom DeLay said about passing drilling in the Arctic Refuge..."WE want to pass drilling to CRACK THE BACK of radical environmentalists."

So it is about a vendetta against people Tom DeLay thinks are "radical environmentalist."

Piece of shit they are.

[prolesunited]

4. What I don't get

is what planet they plan on living on when they've ruined this one? They don't have to breathe air or drink water? Oh, wait, perhaps they plan on privatizing the air. They're already working on the water. Did you know that under WTO, it is illegal in some countries for people to collect rainwater?

[kwolf68]

5. Im not sure

I used to be a reich winger and have a pretty good view of the Conservative mind, HOWEVER, I can't figure out their stands on the environment.

Even back in my right wing heydey I loved nature, wanted to protect the environment, save all the song birdies and such...(still do) so I can't really relate to what gives.

I can tell you at the end of the day there have been very few Conservatives I have talked to that hold environmental issues in contempt. I've even had the most right of my friends admit it was a good thing to have a National Zoo, Public Lands, an EPA, and conversation measures in place.

Many respect that, but what gets in their way is advocating any form of government control. Yellowstone National Park IS Government control to some extent. They admit its great to have a place like Yellowstone, clean water, clean air, nice rivers and forests...but they just can't stomach the fact it was government (with Liberals and Poulists and some moderate enviro-friendly Republicans) who put pen to paper and protected some of the splender we still enjoy...

Their ideology prevents them from saying, "It's a great thing the FDA makes sure rat shit is no longer in our meat products." They just can't say it.

[kwolf68]

6. Then there is ...

Those other Republicans (like my wife sorta of, though shes coming around) who care about ME, MYSELF and I...and if drilling in the Arctic gives me cheaper gas, then thats what i want.

Sadly, many Democrats are a bit like that as well.

[prolesunited]

8. I know far too many people

who all they care about is themselves. What I try to do is find an argument that shows them it really is in their best interest to help others. For example, it is far less expensive to spend money on after school programs than it is to send people to jail and studies have shown that most juvenile crime occurs between the hours of 3 to 5, so it makes sense to fund activities at that time. You usually can find the right angle for just about any program.

I am curious, though. You said you used to be a conservative. How long ago was that and what changed?

[tom_paine]

7. They all intend to be Rapturized...so I don't think they care

Of Course, as followers of the AntiChrist, they will get the same surprise that so many others have gotten upon their deaths (that is, if the Judeo-Christian thing is true).

[prolesunited]

9. You mean like James Watt

James Watt was, according to the Audubon Society, "arguably the most anti-environment secretary ever."  Watt was not just anti-environment, he was a simpleton.  Testifying before Congress, Watt was asked if he agreed that natural resources should be preserved for future generations.  His response:

"I do not know how many future generations we can count of before the Lord returns."
--James Watt, February 5, 1981

http://www.geocities.com/thereaganyears/environment.htm

[joeybee12]

11. Yeah, clean the mess up for the Rapture!

God's a minimalist, doesn't want anything gunking up the works--make it all nice and level and flat.

[joshdawg]

2. White House won't back down........

of course not. The p.o.s. is an idiot!

[MaineDem]

3. Welcome to DU

:hi:

And I totally agree with you!

[bluestateguy]

10. How many times has the Senate rejected this?

Once again, somebody needs to tell these people: "You lost. Get over it."

[dusty64]

12. Good, they've just

killed this horrid Big Oil welfare bill. It STINKS and does NOTHING to address our energy problems. Hopefully this will be the end of that till we can get a REAL elected President in the WH.

[chasqui]

13. This is what happens when those in charge do not represent us

The Idiot-in-Chief was not elected, he is not beholden to us, he does not come from us. This is aristocracy, pure and simple, and these aristocrats are out to look after themselves, not us.