Advertisement

Archive for Wednesday, November 23, 2005

Liberals to blame

November 23, 2005

Advertisement

To the editor:

I read with amusement the recent Saturday Column asking when someone in politics would point out that going into ANWR to drill for oil would be environmentally responsible with today's technology.

A little news flash for the Journal-World. It was even technologically brilliant and environmentally responsible when the current Alaskan pipeline was built over three decades ago. The radical left screamed way back when that the caribou would be adversely affected as far as breeding, migration, etc.

The reality is that the caribou are in better shape then ever before and have suffered no adverse effects whatsoever.

The column went on to also suggest that we need to have offshore drilling and vast expansion of nuclear power. The column is absolutely correct that we need to do ALL of the above things in order to advance toward energy independence. The funny part to me is that the writer completely ignores the fact that George W. Bush has vociferously advocated all of the above as ways to achieve our energy needs, but has been stymied by environmental wackos and liberals intent on stopping any progress this nation can and should make in the area of energy production. However, when you have an opposition party who cannot stand the idea of a president they hate getting any credit for anything positive, you have political gridlock on all issues, not just energy. Do you like $2-$3 per gallon fuel prices? Don't blame the oil companies. Thank a liberal!

Charlie Bannister,

Eudora

Comments

craigers 9 years ago

I'm surprised this letter has made it till 8:30 without being commented on.

Spoken1 9 years ago

Yes, Charlie certainly showed us his ignorance of this subject.

craigers 9 years ago

I am thankful for Charlie's insight. I mean all problems are completely to blame on the opposite party.

bettie 9 years ago

Yeah, poor President Bush. He's got all these great ideas, but how's a guy supposed to get anything done when the "opposition party" has minorities in the House and the Senate?

Seriously, when Republicans control the executive and legislative branches of federal government, how can they people continue to blame things on Democratic obstruction?

Maybe, just maybe, these ideas (ANWR drilling, Social Security privatization, exceptions to a torture ban) just aren't that good to begin with.

kansasboy 9 years ago

Wow! Observer and Spoken1 posts are typical left wing nut responses. When the truth hurts for liberals they resort to insults everytime.

Spoken1 9 years ago

kansasboy, Charlie cannot prove what he has stated, can you?

Besides, stating that someone is ignorant of a certain subject isn't necessarily an insult, it's just a statement. In this case, it is a statement of fact.

Spoken1 9 years ago

kansasboy, I do believe that letter that Charlie wrote was an insult, my statement was not. Also, your comment was an insult, whereas mine was not.

Jamesaust 9 years ago

While generally sympathetic to the argument made, the author is clearly wrong on two points.

  1. Bush has not vociferously (or any other way) argued for more off-shore drilling. Major off-shore energy fields? Florida. A) Bush's brother is governor of Florida, where the idea is political death, and B) Bush needs Florida's votes. So, what's good for the goose is not so good for the gander, at least if your are an electorally rich vote state run by a relative.

  2. ANWR could have been drilled long ago and not been "stymied by environmental wackos and liberals intent on stopping any progress this nation can and should make in the area of energy production" as long as other efforts weren't stymied by oildrilling wackos and 'conservatives' intent on stopping any progress this nation can and should make in the area of energy conservation. The votes for a compromise have always been in the majority. But as the Dark Lord has lectured: "We can't conserve our way to energy independence." And so, when Le Roi Dick says no, the answer is no - no to fuel standards, no to energy taxes, no to alternative fuels, no, no, no. And so, the extremists on both sides deprive the U.S. of a consensus policy.

Spoken1 9 years ago

Arminius, we aren't talking about Clinton here, good lord man, you broken record you.

Bruce Bertsch 9 years ago

ANWR gives all of 6 months in proven reserves. It does nothing, zip, zilch, nada to help with energy INDEPENDENCE from fossil fuels. If the Bushies wanted to get serious, they would remove price supports for sugar, open trade to Cuba, import as much cane as possible and mandate that we move to E85 instead of gasoline. Good for trade, good for the economy, good for Detroit, not so good for big oil. Or how about $$$ for more r&d into other alternatives? Again, not good for big oil.

Spoken1 9 years ago

Good lord Arminius, GET OVER BILL, HE ISN'T PRESIDENT ANY MORE.

"If Clinton had kept his promise and the Democrats had voted to increase the CAFE standards in 1993, do you believe our country would be more or less dependent of foreign oil in 2005?"

I believe we would still be about the same, and there is NOTHING you can do to prove that we wouldn't be in the same shape.

I believe if you do your homework, you will find that the repubs have been blocking increases in CAFE standards for quite some time, so your question has no validity at all.

Spoken1 9 years ago

Exactly, thanks for making my point. Now who had control of Congress during most of Clinton's term? Repubs, not dems, so get your facts straight.

Mike Ford 9 years ago

Let's see, if developers want this farmer's land, and he defies their desire to exploit his land due to a 100-year-old claim on the land, that's ok. Especially if it's stopping Johnson County from encroaching further into Eudora. However, if a distinct cultural group who has survived and thrived by maintaining a balance in a brutal temperature climate like Northern Alaska's, decides that their 10,000 year-old way of life is more important than some greedy Republican's oil wishes, they are an obstacle to oil independence and economic stability. PLEASE! what planet are you from?

Seeing fewer Expeditions, F250's and Excursions running would be one way of conserving fuel. Another way would be having these vehicles running on ethanol E85 or Biodiesel instead of petroleum. Having more of these oil wells I see around Vinland, Baldwin, and Franklin County, running, would be another solution. All of this would be more productive than destroying the Gwich'in People's way of life in an area that's irreplacable. I wish these rural people would research more and write less.

memoirs_of_a_sleepwalker 9 years ago

Oh Arminius, when will you ever learn? Your life must be pretty sad.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.