Skip to comments.
Six Republican Senators Turn Against Bush on ANWR
Reuters ^
| 1/31/03
Posted on 01/31/2003 11:32:06 AM PST by areafiftyone
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 201 next last
To: Mo1
I have talked to the DeWine people about this in the past. They had absolute no credible knowledge on this subject. Tried to fool mr. Turns out DeWine is supporting his son an enviro-waco.
There must be a soft belly in Ohio politics. Both DeWine and Voinovich are going off the reservation with Lincoln Chafee and McCain.
21
posted on
01/31/2003 11:41:00 AM PST
by
paguch
To: areafiftyone
In addition to McCain, the letter was signed by Senators Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine, Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, Peter Fitzgerald of Illinois and Mike DeWine of Ohio. Wouldn't it have been simpler to say that "the letter was signed by the usual suspects"
22
posted on
01/31/2003 11:41:42 AM PST
by
hobbes1
(Thank god for the Club for Growth)
To: Mo1
So , you want to give the senate and the house to the Democrats ? That is the choice here. If we got rid of Republicans that think for themselves and aren't party lap dogs Democrats would be in control have all three branches.
23
posted on
01/31/2003 11:43:06 AM PST
by
stalin
To: stalin
Actually, I would prefer to produce as little American fossil fuel as possible, until the rest of the World begins to run dry.
24
posted on
01/31/2003 11:43:13 AM PST
by
hobbes1
To: areafiftyone
Hopefully six Dems will support it.
25
posted on
01/31/2003 11:44:30 AM PST
by
1Old Pro
To: areafiftyone
This move is irrelevant for now because the conference committee, which reconciles differences between the House and Senate, will insert the provision in the final version. Not one of the six Rinos will be on the conference committee and there will be 51 votes for the final bill.
To: Mo1
I'm suprised that Spectre and Coleman didn't sign the letter.
27
posted on
01/31/2003 11:45:05 AM PST
by
CPT Clay
To: Timesink
If the sheeple got their way at least the borders would be secured. I wonder what fox has on Bush to get him to put Mexico's interests ahead of America'even though the polls show the vast majority against his Mexico first policy ?
28
posted on
01/31/2003 11:45:54 AM PST
by
stalin
To: stalin
if we got rid of Republicans that think for themselves and aren't party lap dogs Democrats would be in control have all three branches. Why do you say that?
That's all the dems have now...
29
posted on
01/31/2003 11:46:08 AM PST
by
hobbes1
To: areafiftyone
"ANWR, which is home to polar bears, caribou and other wildlife"
This is not accurate. There are no polar bears or caribou in this area - because there is nothing for them to EAT!!
30
posted on
01/31/2003 11:46:12 AM PST
by
CyberAnt
( Syracuse where are you?)
Comment #31 Removed by Moderator
To: hobbes1
exactly !!!!
32
posted on
01/31/2003 11:46:59 AM PST
by
stalin
To: stalin
So , you want to give the senate and the house to the Democrats ? No I would like to see them replaced with better republicans
33
posted on
01/31/2003 11:47:14 AM PST
by
Mo1
(I Hate The Party of Bill Clinton)
To: CPT Clay
Me too
34
posted on
01/31/2003 11:47:48 AM PST
by
Mo1
(I Hate The Party of Bill Clinton)
To: areafiftyone
John McCain? Oh I can't believe this... (NOT!)
Arizona, can't you get rid of this pri-k?
35
posted on
01/31/2003 11:48:08 AM PST
by
DoughtyOne
(Hi, I'm John McCain, the best friend Conservatives could get rid of!)
To: Mo1
not possible. They would just be replaced by democrates. It's better to have them on our side even if they vote against party politics half of the time.
36
posted on
01/31/2003 11:48:45 AM PST
by
stalin
To: areafiftyone
How much you wanna make a bet that is obstructed too by the Democreeps.When Dubya makes a big hullaballoo about a phoney panacea like hydrogen cars, why should he expect RINO senators to take the ANWR proposal seriously?
It's the same old political crap that has led to an ineffective Energy Policy for over 30 years.
U.S. Petroleum & Crude Oil Overview
(thousand barrels per day)
|
1960
|
1965
|
1970
|
1975
|
1980
|
1985
|
1990
|
1995
|
2000
|
U.S. Crude Oil Production |
7,035
|
7,804
|
9,637
|
8,375
|
8,597
|
8,971
|
7,355
|
6,560
|
5,834
|
U.S. Petroleum Imports |
1,815
|
2,468
|
3,419
|
6,056
|
6,909
|
5,067
|
8,018
|
8,835
|
11,093
|
Total
|
8,850
|
10,272
|
13,056
|
14,431
|
15,506
|
14,038
|
15,373
|
15,395
|
16,927
|
Imports as % of Total
|
20.5
|
24.0
|
26.2
|
42.0
|
44.6
|
36.1
|
52.2
|
57.4
|
65.5
|
37
posted on
01/31/2003 11:48:51 AM PST
by
Willie Green
(Go Pat Go!!!)
To: stalin
According to my calculations, if they could pump it "fast enough" the oil could supply the USA for about 814.25 days or about 27 months. 16 billion barrels of oil. Current daily usage of the USA, 19.65 billion barrels per day. This data is taken from the Transportation Energy Data Book, Edition 22, USDOE.
However, I have a feeling that once the oil companies get up there they might find more oil than they think is there. The Prudhoe Bay well has already produced more oil than they initially though was present.
Comment #39 Removed by Moderator
To: stalin
Republicans that think for themselves and aren't party lap dogs Uh, these particular RINOs are more predictable and more sheep-like than they are "free-thinkers". There's honest debate among the party, but when I see *these* monkeys break off and do something, I *know* what's up, and free thought has NOTHING to do with it. ;-)
--CWL
40
posted on
01/31/2003 11:49:56 AM PST
by
Kip Lange
(The Khaki Pants of Freedom)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 201 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