OGTEleven Posted December 16, 2005 Share Posted December 16, 2005 I found this to be interesting. I thought the last 4-5 paragraphs were more interesting than the first 75% of the article. Will Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted December 16, 2005 Share Posted December 16, 2005 I found this to be interesting. I thought the last 4-5 paragraphs were more interesting than the first 75% of the article. Will 533922[/snapback] As usual, right on the money. Environmentalism=Liberalism=Socialism=Communism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuntheDamnBall Posted December 16, 2005 Share Posted December 16, 2005 I found this to be interesting. I thought the last 4-5 paragraphs were more interesting than the first 75% of the article. Will 533922[/snapback] Will is a smart guy whom I have fundamental disagreements with. To me, environmentalism is about sensing something larger than oneself, something we are all a part of, and something that will remain when we die. We are mere caretakers for it. If he wants to call that collectivism and stress that the generation and consumption of energy is more important than this, that's his prerogative. But the fact is, oil is limited, whether we drill in ANWR or not, and we're doing next to nothing about it, even when the demand for sustainable energy sources is there (and I've come around a bit on nuclear energy, so don't throw that one at me). The people who hold the cards in this matter don't want to change, because things are going great for them now -- they'll change when they have to and when they can maximize their returns doing so. What government could do, since it is subsidizing the energy industry anyway, is make energy companies accountable and provide incentives for sustainability, instead of doing business as usual, which is leading down a road to nowhere at best, toward serious damage at worst. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted December 16, 2005 Share Posted December 16, 2005 What they don't talk about is the trillions of cubic feet of natural gas that will also be harvested once the oil drilling begins. Anyone concerned about that going up in price by nearly 100% this winter while Congress pretends that it's a pristine wilderness? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuntheDamnBall Posted December 16, 2005 Share Posted December 16, 2005 As usual, right on the money. Environmentalism=Liberalism=Socialism=Communism. 533936[/snapback] How naturally reductive and nuanced of you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UConn James Posted December 16, 2005 Share Posted December 16, 2005 As usual, right on the money. Environmentalism=Liberalism=Socialism=Communism. 533936[/snapback] Some of the biggest enviros I know are hunters (vested interest) that no one would ever accuse of being liberals, socialists or commies. This isn't a red/blue issue, even tho he tries to make it so. George Will can stick his bowtie up his ass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted December 16, 2005 Share Posted December 16, 2005 Some of the biggest enviros I know are hunters (vested interest) that no one would ever accuse of being liberals, socialists or commies. This isn't a red/blue issue, even tho he tries to make it so. George Will can stick his bowtie up his ass. 534075[/snapback] Which explains why the vast majority of "red" representatives are voting in favor of opening it, while the vast majority of "blue" representatives are voting against it. Right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted December 16, 2005 Share Posted December 16, 2005 Some of the biggest enviros I know are hunters (vested interest) that no one would ever accuse of being liberals, socialists or commies. 534075[/snapback] I have to agree with UConn on that one. There are lots of Hunters, Fishers, Farmers, Foresters, and guys in the Army Corps of Engineers that I have met that consider themselves evironmentalists and Conservative without contradiction. Didn't George Bush Sr. want to be known as the "Evironmental President," at one point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smokinandjokin Posted December 16, 2005 Share Posted December 16, 2005 Which explains why the vast majority of "red" representatives are voting in favor of opening it, while the vast majority of "blue" representatives are voting against it. Right? 534100[/snapback] No, that can be explained by reps voting along party lines instead of making a researched and informed decision. Very similar to this board, and just about everywhere else where people draw their line in the dirt and stand on their party's side, no matter what. It's a lot easier than actually thinking about things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OGTEleven Posted December 16, 2005 Author Share Posted December 16, 2005 Which explains why the vast majority of "red" representatives are voting in favor of opening it, while the vast majority of "blue" representatives are voting against it. Right? 534100[/snapback] George is "Willing" them to do it. It might not be a Red/Blue state issue, but to me he nails it when he calls it collectivist vs. ??????. I'd like to fil the question marks with the word capitalist but sadly I think that's a bit of a stretch for Republicans and Oil Cos. I will say that in this case ????? > collectivists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted December 16, 2005 Share Posted December 16, 2005 How naturally reductive and nuanced of you. 533969[/snapback] Well, thanks! One need only look to the failed socialist states of Europe for a keen example of just how socialism is intertwined with the modern environmentalist movement. Anythign to cripple commerce in the name of the "people", right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted December 16, 2005 Share Posted December 16, 2005 I will say that in this case ????? > collectivists. 534121[/snapback] Holy The Riddlers > collectivists, Batman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted December 16, 2005 Share Posted December 16, 2005 One need only look to the failed socialist states of Europe 534125[/snapback] Failed? Which one? There is a big difference between Belgium and Somalia as far as failed states go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted December 16, 2005 Share Posted December 16, 2005 George Will can stick his bowtie up his ass. 534075[/snapback] Thats tougher to do than one might think Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted December 16, 2005 Share Posted December 16, 2005 Thats tougher to do than one might think 534162[/snapback] Only if he doesn't take it off first. But smiley for you for putting that picture in my head Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted December 16, 2005 Share Posted December 16, 2005 What they don't talk about is the trillions of cubic feet of natural gas that will also be harvested once the oil drilling begins. Anyone concerned about that going up in price by nearly 100% this winter while Congress pretends that it's a pristine wilderness? 533960[/snapback] It is a pristine wilderness. Just because it's a barren desert for all practical purposes, doesn't mean it's not wild or pristine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted December 16, 2005 Share Posted December 16, 2005 Failed? Which one? There is a big difference between Belgium and Somalia as far as failed states go. 534136[/snapback] Their economies have LONG sported double-digit unemployment, high inflation and an overburdened tax and welfare system. This isn't fiction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted December 16, 2005 Share Posted December 16, 2005 It is a pristine wilderness. Just because it's a barren desert for all practical purposes, doesn't mean it's not wild or pristine. 534234[/snapback] Good point. despite connotations: pristine and frickin useless aren't mutually exclusive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted December 16, 2005 Share Posted December 16, 2005 It is a pristine wilderness. Just because it's a barren desert for all practical purposes, doesn't mean it's not wild or pristine. 534234[/snapback] Since I've been there and you haven't, I'm going to defer to myself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted December 16, 2005 Share Posted December 16, 2005 I have to agree with UConn on that one. There are lots of Hunters, Fishers,Farmers, Foresters, and guys in the Army Corps of Engineers that I have met that consider themselves evironmentalists and Conservative without contradiction. Didn't George Bush Sr. want to be known as the "Evironmental President," at one point. 534110[/snapback] I'm as big an environmentalist as anyone. No one wants clean air, water, and land more than me. Drilling in ANWR is a HELL of lot more environmentally friendly than drilling in the Soviet Union, South America, or the Middle East and then carting it across the ocean. But what do I know? Oh yeah, I've actually been to ANWR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts