CNN Split Screen Pits ANWR-drilling Advocate vs. B-roll of Wildlife

CNN Split Screen Pits ANWR-drilling Advocate vs. B-roll of Wildlife

By Ken Shepherd (Bio | Archive)
Wed, 07/16/2008 - 15:49 ET

So much of the liberal bias on cable networks is visual. It can impact the casual viwer on the treadmill at the gym watching with the audio off. Case in point is the video embedded at right from the July 15 edition of "The Situation Room" on CNN. [audio available here]

In it, anchor Wolf Blitzer tries to put a substantial wedge between House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) and presumptive GOP nominee Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) over drilling for oil in ANWR. Notice that while Boehner defends opening up a small patch of the national Arctic wilderness for oil exploration, CNN producers make Boehner share a split-screen with footage of frolicking wildlife. The caption on screen reads, "Republicans at Odds Over Oil: McCain Against ANWR Drilling."

The message is clear: the GOP is the party that wants to shed [animal] blood for oil.

Read comments Free email alerts Take action

Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Copied from next article

Wed, 07/16/2008 - 15:53 ET by ArcherB

Face it. Democrats are NEVER going to allow drilling in ANWR. They
will do whatever they possibly can to stop it, including a
fillibuster. This means that we will NEVER drill in ANWR until
Republicans have at least a 2/3 control of congress, and we don't see
that happening any time soon.

So, rather than work against the Democrats, I say we work with them
and throw them a bone. Propose that we open ANWR for drilling, and put
a large percentage of the profit into renewable research and the rest
into a clean up fund for any potential disasters.

Of course, we would still see resistance from Democrats, but once
you point out to the public that this can produce 1 trillion dollars
($1,000,000,000,000) for renewable energy research, I don't see how
they can say no and hope to get re-elected outside of Berkely.

Comments?

"To send men to the firing squad, judicial proof is unnecessary." Ernesto "Che" Guevara

No worries, we will get some of the that oil from Canadas side

Wed, 07/16/2008 - 16:04 ET by upcountrywater

2-3 years we will be paying Canada for drilling and pumping there. h/t Ice Road Truckers.

Liberals62%

IranianUranium

So let's make as much noise about the this as possible

Wed, 07/16/2008 - 16:09 ET by needle

The more we make a fuss about it, the sooner it will happen.

BTW, The above remark is a very accurate description of Democrat brain chemistry.

Impunitas semper ad deteriora invitat.

neetle, heres some more of "not in my back yard," crap.

Wed, 07/16/2008 - 16:25 ET by upcountrywater

Yea i use lots of fuel to run my farm. 30 years and counting

permits years away from being completed.

His farm land will be condos soon if the project goes through, then he can buy a bigger farm elsewhere.

Liberals62%

IranianUranium

drill for oil

Thu, 07/17/2008 - 11:07 ET by goldfake

Go to this website we are pushing a Santa Claus is real snail mail campaign

http//www.drill4oilnow.org

I think the public is

Wed, 07/16/2008 - 16:28 ET by mjg

I think the public is becoming wiser. Just look at the 1.3 million signatures to a petition telling congress to drill anywhere. I don't think the democrats are listening though. I don't see how they can say no. But they will.

"So, rather than work

Wed, 07/16/2008 - 17:00 ET by ckc1227

"So, rather than work against the Democrats, I say we work with them and throw them a bone. Propose that we open ANWR for drilling, and put a large percentage of the profit into renewable research and the rest into a clean up fund for any potential disasters."

I have a better idea. Let the oil companies decide what to do with their profit. Do you really think they are going to spend billions to drill if all the profit goes to alternative energy research designed to put them out of business and a clean up fund?

That would be no. And I wouldn't blame them.

Besides, why should we throw the Dems a bone on something they are so wrong about? Working with them on issues they are wrong about is why this country has so many of the problems it has today. They own the "no ANWR" issue. Why let them off the hook for it when it could come back to bite them in November?

Oil companies don't own the oil

Thu, 07/17/2008 - 01:15 ET by ArcherB

I have a better idea. Let the oil companies decide what to do with
their profit. Do you really think they are going to spend billions to
drill if all the profit goes to alternative energy research designed to
put them out of business and a clean up fund?

Gee, and here I thought that Iran and Saudi Sheiks that were making all that money because they owned the oil. I had no idea it was Exxon/Mobil that owned it all.

Here is my even better idea. How about you go read my original post and tell me where I said we should tell the oil companies what to do with their profits. Of course, the oil companies are welcome to ALL the profits as soon as they purchase the land and mineral rights from the US taxpayer that owns the oil under ANWR. But, in my plan, we sell that oil to those oil companies at market prices, which is now about $140/bbl. The oil companies can do whatever they want with their profits.

Let's say we hire a drilling and petrolium transportation company to drill and transport the oil at... say... $50/bbl. It will cost the oil company about $32/bbl to extract and transport. At $18/bbl profit, that gives them $180,000,000,000 that they are free to do with as they wish. If Exxon thinks they are up to the task, they are free to place a bid. I don't know of any company that would turn down a $180 billion government contract.

That will leave about $100/bbl profit for the US gov't. 10 billion bbl's times $100/bbl profit = 1 trillion dollars.

Besides, why should we throw the Dems a bone on something they are so
wrong about? Working with them on issues they are wrong about is why
this country has so many of the problems it has today. They own the "no
ANWR" issue. Why let them off the hook for it when it could come back
to bite them in November?

Maybe you're right. Let's do nothing and continue to take up the ass every time we fill up because you think we can win in November. Have you read any of the reports that show that Democrats are expect to expand their lead to a supermajority in November? Do you honestly think that McCain will Win in November and get a supermajority of Republicans in both houses? Really? Whatever you're smoking, you should probably share it as you've had too much already.

Fact is that high gas prices are ruining the economy. People think that is is Carter bad out there. Who do people blame when the economy is bad? You guessed it, the Prez. What party does the prez belong to? You guessed it again, Republican. Now, tell me again WHY you think the Republicans are going to gain a supermajority this year?

"To send men to the firing squad, judicial proof is unnecessary." Ernesto "Che" Guevara

Profits

Thu, 07/17/2008 - 08:09 ET by cassrat

Archer,

You are an economic IDIOT.

Idiot, eh?

Thu, 07/17/2008 - 11:57 ET by ArcherB

You are an economic IDIOT.

Are you going to back that up or just fling insults because you have nothing better to say?

"To send men to the firing squad, judicial proof is unnecessary." Ernesto "Che" Guevara

Archer

Thu, 07/17/2008 - 12:08 ET by bassndude

How are you going to get the oil out of the ground and transport it for 32 bucks a bbl? The drilling rig alone costs from 25 to 50 million. Off shore, those rigs are in excess of 100 mil. You cant do it for 32 dollars a bbl.

BTW, I have yet to see the goverment manage anything well. Everything they do costs three times what private companies can do it for. If we had handed Social Security over to investment management companies, SS would not be in the sad shape it is today.

Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!

Yup, $30 per barrel!

Thu, 07/17/2008 - 13:02 ET by ArcherB

As you extract more oil from a site, it becomes more expensive as the supplies dwindle. Eventually, it is no longer profitable to extract. So, when they say that there are 10 billion barrels, it may be only profitable to extract 5 billion since after that, it costs more to extract than it's worth. Given that, read up on it HERE:

Using the graph on the right we see that at an oil price of below $13/barrel no oil is commercially recoverable, while at an oil price of $30/barrel the 95% probability estimate is 3.2 billion barrels of oil, the 5% probability is 10.4 billion barrels of oil, and the mean expected estimate is 6.4 billion barrels of oil. At an oil price of $24/barrel the mean expected estimate comes in at 5.2 billion barrels of oil.

I was being conservative at $30/barrel. And in regards to a $50 million rig, seeing as an oil drilling company stands to make about $200 billion, $50 mil is a smart investment. Hell, the Feds could even put up the money up front if there are no bidders. But since every oil company in the world wants ANWR opened up, I doubt that there will be any problems finding bids.

BTW, I have yet to see the goverment manage anything well. Everything
they do costs three times what private companies can do it for. If we
had handed Social Security over to investment management companies, SS
would not be in the sad shape it is today.

So, are you saying that we should not drill in ANWR because it's on federal land?

"To send men to the firing squad, judicial proof is unnecessary." Ernesto "Che" Guevara

I am saying to keep the

Thu, 07/17/2008 - 13:44 ET by bassndude

I am saying to keep the feds out of it.

Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!

It's FEDeral land. You can't take the FED out of FEDeral

Thu, 07/17/2008 - 14:00 ET by ArcherB

I am saying to keep the feds out of it.

While I would normally agree, that is not possible here unless the feds release the 1002 area, and that ain't gonna happen. But since it's federal land, the feds HAVE to be involved. Fortunately, their involvement would be nothing more than leasing the land to whichever company gives the best bid and monitor to make sure things go well, just like every other oil lease on federal land.

"To send men to the firing squad, judicial proof is unnecessary." Ernesto "Che" Guevara

Even Californians are

Thu, 07/17/2008 - 09:53 ET by NL207

Even Californians are smarter than what you give the people credit for. They figured out Gray Davis was a jackass and dumped him when his energy policy in California produced an energy crisis.

The energy policy we are following right now is a Democratic policy -- no drilling, no new infratsructure, subsidies to trendy liberakl solutions, biofuels, etc. When the public at large figures out Dem policies caused this enrgy crisis coupled with a food shortage, the Dems will be history. Leave to Dem jackasses to cause a food riot while they muck with energy production.

There's a large flaw in your theory

Thu, 07/17/2008 - 12:54 ET by CobraMan

There's a large flaw in your theory; we DON'T HAVE a nationalized oil industry. What you're proposing is the nationalization of an entire industry. That's called socialism and it is inherently un-American.

I suggest you come up with a new theory, one that doesn't involve America becoming another Venezuela.

Please, read up on how oil extraction works

Thu, 07/17/2008 - 13:27 ET by ArcherB

There's a large flaw in your theory; we DON'T HAVE a nationalized oil
industry. What you're proposing is the nationalization of an entire
industry. That's called socialism and it is inherently un-American.

There is a huge flaw in your understanding of my theory. THE OIL COMPANIES DO NOT OWN ANWR, and are therefor not entitled to the profits beyond what they get paid to drill there. The Feds own that land. So, when I speak of the profits that would be invested in renewables, I'm not talking about what the oil companies make, but WHAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT MAKES off the oil. And, by definition, the federal government is nationalized.

"To send men to the firing squad, judicial proof is unnecessary." Ernesto "Che" Guevara

Which oil extraction method

Thu, 07/17/2008 - 13:43 ET by bassndude

Which oil extraction method from which depth? The feds own ANWAR. If you think federal lands belong to the people, you better guess again. Federal law governs federal lands. And if you would trust the feds to do with that money what they are supposed to do, or promise to do, well....just look at the history your so fond of telling us to read.

Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!

So we should do nothing? That's what we are doing now!

Thu, 07/17/2008 - 13:52 ET by ArcherB

Which oil extraction method from which depth? The feds own ANWAR. If
you think federal lands belong to the people, you better guess again.
Federal law governs federal lands. And if you would trust the feds to
do with that money what they are supposed to do, or promise to do,
well....just look at the history your so fond of telling us to read.

Since federal law is what governs federal land (your words), I thought I was proposing about a federal law that would dictate where the profits made off of ANWR should be spent.

I guess since YOU THINK that federal law is not enough to dictate that sort of thing, I guess we should do nothing. Sorry, I just thought we were trying to find a way that would be beneficial for both sides of the political aisle so that ANWR could be opened up for exploration and extraction.

So do you suggest closing all federal leases currently open to exploration or are just biased against ANWR for some reason?

"To send men to the firing squad, judicial proof is unnecessary." Ernesto "Che" Guevara

My position is to drill

Thu, 07/17/2008 - 14:04 ET by bassndude

My position is to drill ANWAR, offshore and inshore and scoop the oil shale. The feds should just stay out of the way and let the US oil companies take care of it. The feds can't do anything right. I am not biased towards oil exploration, at all. I am biased towards the feds getting their fingers into the businesss.

Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!

So, we agree then

Thu, 07/17/2008 - 14:10 ET by ArcherB

My position is to drill ANWAR, offshore and inshore and scoop the oil
shale. The feds should just stay out of the way and let the US oil
companies take care of it. The feds can't do anything right. I am not
biased towards oil exploration, at all. I am biased towards the feds
getting their fingers into the businesss.

I agree completely. I'm not suggesting that the feds dictate anything except for what happens with the money that the feds make from the lease. The oil companies can do as they wish with their share.

The goal here is in two parts.

Get the Democrats on board. Nothing will happen unless they sign on. It's unfortunate, but true.
With the money invested in renewables, maybe by the time ANWR and other domestic resources dry up, we won't need them any more and we will find ourselves 100% energy independent. Hell, maybe even become an exporter. I'm tired of paying our enemies for energy.

"To send men to the firing squad, judicial proof is unnecessary." Ernesto "Che" Guevara

purchase the land and

Thu, 07/17/2008 - 13:02 ET by Jack Bauer

purchase the land and mineral rights from the US taxpayer that owns the oil under ANWR.

Why? That doesn't make sense.

You aren't also suggesting Oil companies should buy all the water and the continental shelf beneath for off-shore drilling, as well, are you?

Seriously? That'd be kinda kooky too.

Vote 4 change. Vote 4 anything. See Jack & Mr Shy's first campaign ad for the ONLY viable 3rd party candidate.

Is that how it works

Thu, 07/17/2008 - 20:37 ET by ArcherB

You aren't also suggesting Oil companies should buy all the water and
the continental shelf beneath for off-shore drilling, as well, are you?

The post I was replying to was under the impression that the oil companies were the only ones who profit from drilling. That is only the case if the oil company owns the land that they are drilling on. So, in order for them to have ALL of the profit, they would need to be land owner also, since the land owner gets a large portion of the profit. That's not the case here as the oil company is NOT the land owner. Also, I wasn't suggesting that we dictate what the oil companies do with their share of the profits, but what the feds do with theirs. I think that investing that money toward renewables is not a bad idea. Maybe, by the time ANWR dries up, we won't need it any more.

In other words, if I own a piece of land with oil in it, the OIL COMPANIES get the profits? No. I get the profits. The oil companies take a cut, but it's still MY OIL. If the oil companies want that oil, they need my permission to get it (it's called a lease), and trust me, they are going to have to pay me well to get it.

Same goes with the continental shelf. They need permission to drill there. That permission (lease) comes at a price.

So, even though the oil companies are not nationalized, the land that the oil is under IS.

"To send men to the firing squad, judicial proof is unnecessary." Ernesto "Che" Guevara

Answer this question Archer

Thu, 07/17/2008 - 21:51 ET by PopularTech

Why are renewables that are not based on subsidies not being heavily invested in by private industry? Could it be they are not market competitive?

Do you have any concept of how markets work? Or do you really think that we are running out of oil?

Myth: The World Is Running Out of Oil (Video) (5min) (John Stossel, 20/20)

I have a better idea for the lease money, reduce my taxes.

The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource

Archer..Renewables is a BAD Idea.....Corn, Wind, Solar, etc...

Thu, 07/17/2008 - 23:27 ET by JayTee

The Feds are subsidizing Ethanol at a 1.40 a gallon or so. Wind doesn't work for what we Spend for it, Wind is a very small option...always needs a backup system, cannot supply energy stand alone 24/7.

Solar like Hydrogen, just doesn't work yet.

Nine Years to get to the Moon, but the USA can't Drill it's way to Energy independence ? OSHA is the BIGGEST obstacle to Nuclear, behind the Environmentalists.

2 Years to construct the Alaska Pipeline, but Congress says Drilling will take 10 years?

Show me a Land based Well head Drilling operation that Drilled for 5 months before Stopping....How about 3 months....? ? Most Land based wells Drill a well within a few weeks to 2 months --Maximum. After that time, the Drilling stops, the Well either Pumps the Discovery, or the Well is Dry and the Drill moves on.

The Billion Barrel North Dakota Oil Field was tapped with a Well in 50 days of Drilling.....Two Miles down.

The Dems WILL get out of the Way.....right now they are trying to fake it with a "DRill bill" trying to tell Exxon how/where to Drill....existing leases. The DEMS are NOT strong enough to Support $4 a gallon Gas. They are TOAST...it's just a matter of time.

The Republican Revolution will not be Televised

I have a better idea for the lease money, reduce my taxes.

Thu, 07/17/2008 - 21:50 ET by PopularTech

Face it you don't understand economics.

I have a better idea for the lease money, reduce my taxes.

The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource

Cute, Wolf, but where's the unicorns?

Wed, 07/16/2008 - 16:11 ET by SickofLibs

Cue to the frolicking black flies...

Does anyone know if what CNN

Wed, 07/16/2008 - 16:13 ET by TE

Does anyone know if what CNN showed was actually video of ANWR or did CNN just take video of a scene outside ANWR that CNN figured would better advance the political agenda of CNN, to wit: no drilling in that mesquito infested cesspool known as ANWR?

the Half Truth in action

Wed, 07/16/2008 - 17:25 ET by wizardjr

ANWR is a huge place - over 30,900 square miles, approximately the size of South Carolina. Some of it is spactacular with mountains and rivers, etc. The drilling site is on the frozen crap hole called the coastal plain. The pictures they showed have nothing to do with the coastal plain (oh SHOCK, SURPRISE!).

In the winter its 70 below zero and no animals. In the couple of weeks of summer it is plagued with bugs that burrow into the caribous' nose membranes or under their skin. The infections kill directly or indirectly by making them wolf food. Even the caribou don't go there unless their preferred breeding ground has problems that year. It's only 70 miles from Prudhoe Bay where we have had operations for decades.

it's a wild kingdom - survival of the fittest

Wed, 07/16/2008 - 22:38 ET by mom_rox

no animals? Polar bears, musk ox and arctic foxes are in other areas of the North Slope (oil production areas) during the winter, so I have to believe that they are in ANWR as well. (By the way, they are doing just fine. If they weren't, we would have heard about it.)

bt notes in a later post how the caribou like the warmth from the pipeline. The caribou also use the gravel pads during insect harassment season. Plus, they like the shade from the pipeline. No natural shade exists on the coast. Also, construction is curtailed during calving season.

A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.
- George Bernard Shaw, 1944

not on the coastal plain

Thu, 07/17/2008 - 14:08 ET by wizardjr

Please don't confuse ANWR which is as big a South Carolina with the limited area in question - the coastal plain. You might find a stray Polar Bear wandering around there in the winter, but that's about it. The Greens and the oil folks and the government have tons of pictures of the place in all seasons. Try and find animals in the winter pictures of the coastal plain. Not likely.

not confused, but thanks for caring

Thu, 07/17/2008 - 15:45 ET by mom_rox

my earlier post: Polar bears, musk ox and arctic foxes are in other areas of the North Slope (oil production areas) during the winter, so I have to believe that they are in ANWR as well.

Allow me to refine my earlier statement to the following:

Polar bears, musk ox and arctic foxes are in other areas of the North Slope (oil production areas along the coastal plain) during the winter, so I have to believe that they are in Area 1002 (the coastal plain) as well.

These animals are around the oil fields in winter, so I would be very surprised if none exist in the 1002 area. Also, please note that the lowest recorded temperature at Prudhoe Bay is -62. The average low is in the minus 20's deg. F. I tried but could not find the average winter temperatures of Kaktovik, the village on the 1002 coast.

A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.
- George Bernard Shaw, 1944

ANWAR

Thu, 07/17/2008 - 08:12 ET by cassrat

NO it was not a picture of ANWAR. Right now ANWAR is a muddy soup with the tundra melting.

The CNN message:

Wed, 07/16/2008 - 16:16 ET by mattm

Republicans hate wildlife...among the many other things they hate.

I am sick and tired of

Wed, 07/16/2008 - 16:36 ET by bigtimer

I am sick and tired of seeing the msm do this all the time arm in arm with the dem party and their enviro backers, they cut to a picture of pure BS 99.9% of time that has nothing, zilch, nada to do with anything that has to do with injuring anything whatsoever...when it comes to drilling on and or underwater, nuclear plants, shale fields, on and on.......we have technology to do all of this just fine...

Why this wouldn't even kill the big and I mean big bad mosquito plantations they have in ANWR and elsewhere in Ak.

We all know the caribou love the warmth from the pipeline...

Btw...I am sick and tired of some damned insect, rodent, or anything else that the green nutcases have thrown ion the way for our own dependency on everything here in this country, from oil, grazing, farming, logging, mining...on and on...these people have destroyed more communities and businesses than a lot of people know...once thriving communities, that supported themselves and has kept everything just fine for decades and decades...

You learn from experience what to do and not do with newer ways to improve...but shutting down our own self-dependency here in this country has been a vile plan by the socialist/communists world-wide....the court system stays jammed with the suits they bring...

I want to see the day when they have to pay if they lose in court for all the costs they have brought to others...all of the costs...we will not be seeing so many of these...they will run out of money with time.

More than anything I want to see is any conservative that goes on the msm says right off the bat that they do not want to see a split screen of some wild-life somewhere that has nothing to do with what they came on to talk about shown while they are talking...or they will walk off...and denounce the network and the anchor.

"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh

People are fed up

Wed, 07/16/2008 - 17:02 ET by iconoclast

From what I'm hearing politicians got an earful from many of their constituants about the oil situation when they went home on 4th of July break. The consensus seems to be, "We don't care what you have to say...drill damit!" I believe we as a nation have hit the wall and are no longer going to listen the green to talk anymore. I think we're all getting to the point where we believe that our survival is more important than the Caribou, which we all know by now wouldn't even be harmed. In fact they do quite well around the pipeline. Regardless, the truth is, we are giving our nations wealth to the mid-east and are being held hostage at the same time. I think we the people are done with them, and no amount of rhetoric is going to persuade us to think differently. To the politicians. Cut the crap and drill, damit!

CNN tugs on your heartstrings.

Wed, 07/16/2008 - 17:54 ET by garyganu

The CNN piece is disingenuous and uses emotions to sway viewers to their political views.

Last night I saw an ad on TV from a supposed foundation to help endangered animals. They show a video of a polar bear cub on a floating bit of ice with its mother. After the mother jumped off the ice, the cub reluctantly followed. You were left to think that the cub was about to drown or starve. Then a woman came on who looked like she was about to cry and said that your donations can save the lives of polar bears.

I thought it was a total scam. This ad blamed global warming for the probable extinction of the polar bear. I have no idea how this teary eyed woman intends to alter the Earth's climate with your donations. But it is undeniable that she was playing on emotions, in order to secure donations.

I checked out their website at www.givewwf.org I don't know what to make of it. They have videos about polar bears panda bears and they say that you can help them save these endangered species. But I don't know what they do with the donations besides finance trips to exotic places to make those videos and appeal for more donations.

Polar bears are thriving and the man-made global warming theory is just a theory. With the help of the government, these foundations have a license to steal. They can do it in a way that is legal by paying themselves salaries, going on exotic junkets and donating the rest of the money to their friends who are selling carbon credits.

I truly believe that this woman loves exotic aninamal and she has devised a way for financing her worldwide safaries. The only thing that bothers me is that it is disengenuous, just like the CNN piece about ANWR.

CNN slights Boehner with visual clues

Wed, 07/16/2008 - 17:57 ET by nkviking75

CNN is using visual clues to diminish what Boehner is saying. The caribou is getting at least twice as much of the screen as the senator. Naturally, the eye will tend to be drawn to the animal and away from Boehner. I can't see why the caribou needs to be there at all, but it certainly doesn't require 2/3 of the screen.

When you put the clowns in charge, don't be surprised when a circus breaks out.

"The message is clear:

Wed, 07/16/2008 - 18:17 ET by Clear thinker

"The message is clear: the GOP is the party that wants to shed [animal] blood for oil."

Actually, I have no problem with that. If it's a choice between animal or human, I vote for the humans.

45 Communist Goals for America http://www.nationmakers.com/com_goals.htm

→ It's unthinkable, Clear

Wed, 07/16/2008 - 18:23 ET by Cool Arrow

Haven't you seen the carnage that resulted from the Alaskan pipeline? /s

LYDSEXICS UNTIE

Fair enough CNN. But how

Wed, 07/16/2008 - 18:26 ET by DaBird

Fair enough CNN. But how about the next time you are interviewing a Democrat about high gas prices, show a split screen with a Saudi oil man rolling around in a pile of money?

Funny....

Wed, 07/16/2008 - 21:17 ET by GrannyGrump42

When they have some abortion advocate spouting about "women's rights" they never make him share a split screen with a 4D ultrasound of a fetus frolicking in the womb. Are only caribou, not human beings, entitled to equal time?

Funny in a very sad sort of

Wed, 07/16/2008 - 21:22 ET by Clear thinker

Funny in a very sad sort of way.

45 Communist Goals for America http://www.nationmakers.com/com_goals.htm

Granny that would be an

Wed, 07/16/2008 - 22:10 ET by bigtimer

Granny that would be an excellent idea...

They would never do it...they should though.

Excellent point...excellent.

Sad what this world has come to and where real priorities are.

I hope the day comes when someone has the guts to do exactly what you suggest..time adn time again...

this will help stop abortion and the rate of premarital pregnancy....

IMO.

"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh

park

Wed, 07/16/2008 - 21:54 ET by goldbough

I wouldn't be surprised in the least if that video was from a national park. If Boehner had seen the video playing next to him, I hope he would have said that that's not the type of area they want to drill in.

Here's the problem, as some

Wed, 07/16/2008 - 23:32 ET by

Here's the problem, as some people see it: you -- the GOP base -- have lost all credibility. The constant distortion of facts and figures and the outright lies that surround everything you touch compromises your ability to argue any case, even if you might be right. For example, Trent Lott today told a lie that's been going around and been debunked a hundred times concerning oil spills during hurricane Katrina. There were oil spills during Katrina. It is a fact. There are satellite pictures of the oil in the ocean. So long as the representatives of your party blatantly lie about energy issues, why should anyone believe a word you say? You say there's no wildlife in ANWAR but who should we trust -- a pack of partisan liars or our own eyes?

Look...Biffy's little

Wed, 07/16/2008 - 23:37 ET by bigtimer

Look...Biffy's little brother flash has come to play!

"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh

Who the hell says there is

Wed, 07/16/2008 - 23:41 ET by RESTLESS 1

Who the hell says there is no wildlife in ANWR? We are saying that drilling will not disrupt the wildlife. You guys on the left have a real disrespect for nature. Drilling is many times easier and cleaner than in the seventies. Multilateral drilling allows us to drill many wells with one rig, and one downhole. Do some real research and stop sucking on the evirowhacko teet.

"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008

oil spills

Thu, 07/17/2008 - 08:19 ET by cassrat

Flash

Could you give a link to the satellite photos you reference? Without the link you are just blowing hot air (sorry michelle). Also, could you give links to some of the other 'distortion of facts' from the GOP?

thank you

Thu, 07/17/2008 - 14:11 ET by wizardjr

thank you cassrat, I too would like to see all this evidence

The oil spills you speak of

Thu, 07/17/2008 - 14:18 ET by bassndude

The oil spills you speak of were not from the rigs offshore, and were not in the ocean. The oil "spills" came from the gas and bulk storage stations, (used by gas stations to store heating oil and farm fules). The gas station tanks, being underground, became saturated and leaked, oil containers leaked, oil from cars and busses leaked. That is where the oil came from and was the only oil "spills" noted. None of the rigs leaked.

Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!

----

Thu, 07/17/2008 - 21:52 ET by dahliatravers

That is where the oil came from and was the only oil "spills" noted. None of the rigs leaked.

Damn. You ruined a great story.

OPED

Wed, 07/16/2008 - 23:48 ET by oped

Unfortunately, I am afraid that we will have to lose the White House like we have the Congress and Senate. And when the American public gets the reality of 4 years of Liberal hell and Conservatives get their act together, maybe we can put a stop to this sort of nonsense at some time in the future. I am afraid that for the present, I am not optimistic.

Bush tried to drill in ANWR early in his first term, but didn't really fight hard. Oil was cheap so no one pushed the issue and the Republicans let the Dems and the Liberal ECO nuts hold this issue hostage. Now we are reaping the damage of all of their inaction. Shame on all of them.

The Msg is...Polar Bears Do NOT vote, People do

Wed, 07/16/2008 - 23:48 ET by JayTee

Exxon hasn't killed a Polar Bear in Years, but Americans are "a fixin to" kill off some Congressional seats.....

Pelosi has Stopped hearing the American Majority, ...you know, the Majority "Rules" ?

The Tidal Wave is building, the Quake was a 4.3 Dollars a Gallon in Intensity, Grab your ankles congress, Americans are in the mood for Drilling.

The Republican Revolution will not be Televised

→ Seals neither

Wed, 07/16/2008 - 23:53 ET by Cool Arrow

But if seals could vote, I'll bet they vote against those Polar Bears.

LYDSEXICS UNTIE

One must really stand back

Thu, 07/17/2008 - 03:26 ET by mostlymoderate

One must really stand back in awe of how liberals have become the greatest enemy not only to our national security, our morals and our values but NOW to our livelihood. I am sorry people but OIL is EVERYTHING in this world. Everything depends on it. DRILL Fu#*ing ANWR!!!!!! Most of these degenerates have probably never even BEEN to Alaska.

My Mother-in-law lives in

Thu, 07/17/2008 - 07:43 ET by USA4freedom

My Mother-in-law lives in Sparta NJ. The last time we were up there she showed me a picture of a bear eating out of her bird feeder. Every night, the lawn is filled with deer, so much so that I have to keep my labs on a rope to keep them from chasing them.

My point is: somehow some way these animals manage to survive in an area where people live. They live so well, that the nut cases will not allow hunting. This puts every one at risk, via road kills from deer or bear attacks.

It does not take a mental giant to see deer kills in your area, rural or city! We in the south have organized hunts and some how the deer survive!

But if we allow any drilling in a frozen wasteland, all the caribou will die!!!!! Magically

Ronald Reagan, 1962: I did not leave the Democratic party, the party left me.

Insert: your name, 2008, and the Republican party.

Romney / Jendil 2012 (if,we survive)

stop the deer before they kill again!

Thu, 07/17/2008 - 14:15 ET by wizardjr

You wouldn't believe how many people die within the city limits of Minneapolis and St Paul from deer strikes. As a Chicago boy I am always amazed at the carnage (of people).

[ perhaps they're Jihadi Deer..?? "Die human infidel! Up PETA! ]

Crazy ain't it? I've got

Thu, 07/17/2008 - 14:33 ET by MassConserv

Crazy ain't it? I've got two bucks to my credit. First one 20 years ago, delivery truck vs. deer. Second one two years ago in the City of Worcester. Sucker evidently came loping down some train tracks, jumped a guardrail and pummeled the right front fender of my car. Scared the crap out of me because it was at night and I had no idea what I'd hit.

Anyway, the second one certainly didn't seem to mind the semi-industrial surroundings there.