Skip to comments.
Why Are Republicans Holding Up the ANWR Bill?
FOX News ^
| May 26, 2006
| John Gibson
Posted on 05/27/2006 2:26:07 PM PDT by jeffersonschild
Edited on 05/27/2006 2:32:08 PM PDT by Admin Moderator.
[history]
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 101-117 next last
41
posted on
05/27/2006 3:26:35 PM PDT
by
firewalk
To: jeffersonschild
I guess because most of the oil garnered from ANWR would be sold overseas anways.
42
posted on
05/27/2006 3:27:00 PM PDT
by
Tempest
(I'm a Christian. Before I am a conservative.)
To: jeffersonschild
[ Can someone help me here? ]
OK.. the meaning of "conservative" is SAME OLD, SAME OLD.. OR MORE OF THE SAME..
Thats why? there IS RINOS and why? they keep getting re-elected.. Hopeing for radical changes in politics while calling yourself a conservative is a self fullfilling prophesy.. not to speak of SILLY..
Radicals should call themselves radicals.. if nothing else its HONEST..
RINOS and democrats too want more of the same..
There you have it..
43
posted on
05/27/2006 3:30:56 PM PDT
by
hosepipe
(CAUTION: This propaganda is laced with hyperbole..)
To: MonroeDNA
Agreed entirely. Repeal the 17th Amendment, while we're at it.
To: jeffersonschild
"These events are even making me question the real reasons why we're in Iraq. I have been behind Bush 110%, now I can't explain away the behavior with immigration and the support of these RINO's. "
It's disconcerting when you think you understand a man (or a party), and they begin acting inexplicably. People do things for a reason and when the explanations make no sense (or are not even given), I wonder what is really going on. Personally I suspect that this is all part of the plan to create a "North American Community" of the US, Mexico and Canada without borders. Look it up, the actions of Bush and company are consistent with moving that plan forward. It sounds like tin foil hat stuff, but it is a real intitative that Bush has signed onto.
45
posted on
05/27/2006 3:38:09 PM PDT
by
BadAndy
("Loud mouth internet Rambo")
To: Normal4me
Make the illegals build ANWRThat dang near makes perfect sense. Although, I suspect our Eskimos may see it quite differently.
46
posted on
05/27/2006 3:40:24 PM PDT
by
Puppage
(You may disagree with what I have to say, but I shall defend to your death my right to say it)
To: jeffersonschild
For the same reason they are refusing to fix the border: they are RINOs.
To: jeffersonschild
48
posted on
05/27/2006 3:51:53 PM PDT
by
gpapa
(Boost FR Traffic! Make FR your home page!)
To: BlazingArizona
Can we possibly dream about having BOTH? Yes, that would be just wonderful would it?
The Majority... what a concept! :P
To: RightWhale
50
posted on
05/27/2006 3:52:47 PM PDT
by
thackney
(life is fragile, handle with prayer)
To: Normal4me
No. Those jobs, which would be high paying ones, should go to US citizens. Have the illegals build the wall and let them out.
51
posted on
05/27/2006 3:55:56 PM PDT
by
gpapa
(Boost FR Traffic! Make FR your home page!)
To: gpapa
Yeah, but how many mexicans would survive -40? I agree with you on the wall though. Let them build it from the Mexican side.
To: bmwcyle
Quit insulting people for the sake of insulting people. InSane is a disaster.
Pray for W and Our Freedom Fighters
53
posted on
05/27/2006 3:58:47 PM PDT
by
bray
(Top 10 Bushbot!!)
To: jeffersonschild
The Republican party is obviously splintered between RINO's (aka Democrats) and real conservatives.
And will continue to be, imo. The real conservatives or whatever you choose to call and define them aren't a large enough contingent to have a controlling majority whether as a 3rd party or within the Republican party. The Congress is elected on a local to statewide basis and unless you have a way to control and eliminate everything but the real conservative in that district or state then you'll always have a mixed bag.
Find 60 or more electable senators to meet your definition. I don't think you can across this nation and until you can do that the real conservatives will have to continue to neogiate/compromise or get left at the gate. jmo and yours may differ.
54
posted on
05/27/2006 4:06:21 PM PDT
by
deport
To: stands2reason
I hope your "hooray" was tongue-in-cheek. I voted against him and will have a very hard time voting for him in the election.
Ohio's senators are hopeless.
55
posted on
05/27/2006 4:10:31 PM PDT
by
arjay
(I would rather be right than consistent.)
To: lilylangtree
"If ANWR has so much oil, the next question is how much will the US export to other countries instead of keeping the oil at home to reduce the price."I've heard that the rights have already been sold to BP (British Petroleum) and Yes, it WILL go overseas. I can't imagine who has the right to sell those rights. That is AMERICAN oil and should stay in America. Again, big business is coming out ahead of the American taxpayer.
56
posted on
05/27/2006 4:31:16 PM PDT
by
holyscroller
(A wise man's heart directs him toward the right, but the foolish man's heart directs him to the left)
To: holyscroller
Then I hope that ANWR is NOT opened up to drilling unless the taxpayers are GURANTEED to see a return on their money such as wwwaaayyyy lower gas prices.
To: BadAndy
I'm right with you on that one BadAndy. I posted another article regarding the spp.gov website earlier today.
I'm just at a loss as to what we can do to take back our country.
To: thackney
American-Made Energy and Good Jobs Act
A House Resolution
Not just ANWR
59
posted on
05/27/2006 5:14:08 PM PDT
by
RightWhale
(Off touch and out of base)
To: holyscroller; lilylangtree
All new oil on the market, anywhere is the world, affects the price of all oil anywhere in the world.
Transport efficiencies also control which crude goes where. So does refining capacity.
American crude that is exported is reflected favorably in our current accounts balances.
So, we will benefit from lower crude prices and the export side of our current account will reflect higher values if the crude goes where it can most efficiently be transported.
However, if push comes to shove and we end up in a hot war where our ME suppliers cannot ship because the Iranians have blocked the Straits, we can enact our stated policy that blockage of oil shipments will be considered an act of war and still have a supply that is on our national soil. In time of real war, the government has the power to direct the economy in ways it does not have otherwise. Recall the rationing of WWII as an example. Those foreign drillers are fully aware of this and since BP is British, and an ally, there will probably be no problem.
IMO, US drilling has been held back to force the other oil producers to exhaust their easy/relatively easy supplies first. I actually think that any softening on ANWAR has more to do with fear of war w/Iran than anything else.
As for the GOP Senators, most of the ones against ANWAR are playing to a Green base and come from liberal states. The donk Senators who are for ANWAR have to be elected in GOP states.
We also have Green Republicans, aka: crunchy cons.
We are a capitalist society. The oil belongs to the USA and Alaska, which receives royalties from the drillers, who, in exchange, receive the right to exploit the resource. Incidentally, they bear all the costs of exploration, development of the site, drilling and transport to wherever, be it a port or a pipeline. They also take the risk that prices can fall, which has happened in the past. The company doing the drilling, et al, has a perfect legal right to sell it as they see fit. They do this to maximize profits and take advantage of whatever cost efficiencies may exist. Besides the royalties, they pay taxes. So there is also an increase in domestic revenues, lowering the Federal deficit.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 101-117 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson