I know I try to usually make factual arguments, but this is just absurd.
Well, the Senate just rejected an effort to take out a measure from the budget to drill in the National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska 49-51. The Republicans stuck this in the budget because you cannot filabuster a budget, and thus they only needed 50 votes to pass it and not the 60 required to end a filabuster. It is not official policy yet, but this was a crucial step for the those in favor of the drilling. It was also a sad day for the natural wilderness of the National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska. Once again, the Republicans (with a few exceptions who opposed the measure, and to them I give much praise for their courage) have affirmed their philosophy that the earth is theirs for the taking and damn the consequences.
Here's an idea: take the money it is going to take to drill and put it toward the development of alternative fuels that are renewable. But wait, THOSE companies probably do not contribute as much to the Republican Party, so nevermind. Afterall, you wouldn't want to bite the hand that feeds you.
15 comments:
It's a shame because the heritage of our nation is being dystroyed, some of these migratory birds are on the endangered list and obviously will be wiped out of the Alaska area. Whats even worse is that this oil will not be exclusively for Americans, it will hit the world market and the U.S. will get a percentage of the oil IF it is the highest bidder. This is because the US GOV'T is allowing PRIVATE contractors in the area, who will disperse the OIL as they see fit.
Three cheers for free markets!
I guess the 90+% of Alaskans who support drilling are wrong? Along w/ the Democrats in the Alaskan House and Senate, and their entire US Congressional delegation? They all just hate the place the live too and want to destroy it on purpose! You're arguent is laughable.
It's about time the Republicans in the Senate overcame your illegal fillibusters- YAY for rule of the majority! Three cheers for Democracy (and free markets)!
"YAY for rule of the majority!"
I suggest catching up on the founding fathers reading.
How would you feel if DuPont wanted to buldoze your house to build a chemical plant? People seem to forget that we share this planet with so many other life forms than humans...
The fact that 90% of Alaskans support the drilling does not surprise me. If some company was going to come into your backyard and create well paying jobs you wouldn't care about the fact that it destroyed some of the most pristine wilderness on the planet, or the fact that its going to take 10 years to get this oil to market anyway, and by that time we could save more oil by increasing and policing fuel efficiency requirements than we could ever hope to gain from ANWR. In its peak year of production ANWR would only decrease our reliance on foreign oil by 4%, how do you justify that? By the fact that your a partisan hack who agrees with whatever your national party tells you, and your national party is basking in the massive campaign donations of the big oil companies who look to make huge profits by drilling in ANWR.
And PS...when did Fillibusters become illegal? Last I checked fillibusters were a perfectly legal form of debate in the Senate, according to the Senate's rules of procedure, so why don't you learn your fucking rules of procedure before you make ridiculously inaccurate statements...straight up ignorance.
Federalist Papers 10 and 51 respectively speak of the importance of securing minority rights from the "evil" of a majority "united by a common interest" (Fed. Paper 51).
I have no objections to a "free market", but Bush is touting this as a magic potion to cure our dependancy on foreign oil, once again exaggerating to the public in order to get his way and help his fat cat business buddies. We need to spend money developing alternative renewable fuels, not drilling for more oil, none to less oil at the expense of a National Wildlife Refuge. The definition of a refuge is protection or shelter; Theodore Roosevelt must be rolling over in his grave.
And yes, the 90% of Alaskans who support the drilling ARE wrong, just as the majority in the South who opposed civil rights were wrong. They have been overwhelmed with self-interest and greed. Not suprising though; they are, after all, mostly Republicans.
First, thank you to delacrat for directing me to this excellent blog. I am a UD and College Dem alumni and am glad that political activism is still growing at Delaware.
Second, I am in total shock that the Senate voted for this measure. Perhaps I should not be considering the change the recent elections have worked on that house, making it more conservative than ever. What bothers me most about this measure is that the drilling in ANWR will not end or even help end our dependency on foreign oil as the Republicans are trying to spin this. I have read that this will decrease our dependency by only 2%. I am in complete agreement Mike that we need to focus our energy on developing alternative fuel sources. But as you suggest, there will be no movement on this as log as money can be made from black gold (and then given to pay off politicans).
This is more directed at fellow Democrats than Republicans, but obviously all are welcome to comment/respond.
The sad fact is, drilling in the Wildlife Refuge, if it occurs, will be just as much the fault of certain Democrats as Republicans. In fact, enough Republicans "crossed the aisle" to save the Refuge; it was the three Democrats who broke rank that sent it to its doom.
They were Senators Akaka and Inouye of Hawaii and Landrieu of Louisiana. I urge all Democrats to write or call these Senators and express your disgust and dissapointment at their vote. On the other hand, do not be afraid to call and praise those Republicans (or even Democrats) who attempted to stop this pillage of the Alaskan wilderness.
A complete list of who voted how is available at http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00052
A "yea" vote was in favor of REMOVING the provision that allows drilling, while a "nay" vote was for maintaining it.
Jeff: If the price was right and DuPont wanted to pay me a good sum, then I would definately sell my house and move elsewhere, and ultimtely build a chemical plant here. But also, the DuPont's aren't the majority- so that's a bogus argument anyways.
Tank: I think you should recheck your numbers- they've been updated. Also, filibusters became illegal when they started being used as a tactic to STOP legislation NOT continue debate. Filibusters were instituted to ensure that minority had a chance to debate their side, now it's used to stop legislation and create the need for a supermajority- that's illegal.
Mike: You need to reread your federalist papers because it contains a major theme them you missed: "Rule of the majority with respect to the minority," After 4 years of stalling and a 'wannabe' rule of the minority- it's time to move on a get things done.
Also, i think it's moronic how Democrats will always relate current issues to injustices of the past that have ABSOLUTELY NO correlation. "90% of Alaskans are wrong and drilling is wrong just like the South was wrong and slavery is wrong"... makes no sense. To relate drilling to slavery is sick.
Slavery was a terrible injustice and it needed a Republican to end it, it took a greater percentage of Republicans than Democrats to pass Civil Right legislation (that i believe former KKK member Byrd (Democrat) oppossed...
Sorry to take this off subject- but that's sick
Calling such a comparison “sick” shows a superficiality of analysis that reflects an inability to think critically and learn from the past. The comparison is meant to illustrate how a majority can BE a majority and still be wrong. It has happened in the past, and will undoubtedly continue to happen in the future.
It is funny that you should mention the Civil Rights legislation, however, as I certainly do not think Strom Thurmond was “debating [his] side” when he filibustered Civil Rights legislation in the Senate for 24 hours and 18 minutes. I’ll say it before you do; he was a Democrat then, but then switched to the Republican Party in protest of Johnson’s Civil Rights legislation. I would never argue the Democrats have a perfect history, and to their credit, the Republican Party has a proud history in various areas, including environmental protection.
It is shame they are currently working so hard to destroy that legacy.
So we're going to pay the animals that live in ANWR a handsome amount of money to move? But animals don't use money! That must mean we can do whatever the FUCK WE WANT WITH THEM! CARIBOU BURGERS FOR EVERYONE!
And wow, I must say that you've just confirmed my theory that a Republican would do ANYTHING for money. You're so materialistic, its SICKening.
On another note, dang, a lot of you need to work on your typing/spelling.
dystroyed
fillibusters
buldoze
suprising
dissapointment
ultimtely
oppossed
P.S. Drilling in the refuge is like a bandaid for a gushing head wound. We're running out of oil anyway, it just isn't worth it to wreck a refuge for an extra drop.
Post a Comment