Guest $iLk Posted October 26, 2001 Report Share Posted October 26, 2001 Two new stories for your viewing enjoyment, straight from Newsmax. $iLk's story time begins again - which side are you on? quote: Dead Snake Costs California $1 MillionWhen California officials found a garter snake lying dead at a construction site alarm bells rang, and state officials scurried around while all work was shut down for over two weeks to unlock the mystery surrounding the tiny serpent's death.The construction delay at San Francisco's Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) system airport extension project cost a whopping $1.04 million.According to reporter Aaron Davis finding the snake, which is listed as a member of one of those precious endangered species without which mankind cannot survive, sparked an investigation to determine the cause of the snake's death by the sleuths at California's Department of Fish and Game.Writing in the Mercury News, Davis reported that the lost time and wages added up to the loss of over $1 million.``Nobody has ever been able to find out what happened to the snake, and there was no evidence of foul play," BART spokesman Mike Healy told the Mercury News. ``There was no evidence that the contractor or anyone was directly at fault.''Healy added that BART has spent nearly $6 million to comply with environmental laws. That included the cost of rounding up 77 snakes and relocating them during construction. They have since been brought back home to slither around their native habitat to their heart's content.The $1.04 million expense, Davis reported, is just a tiny fraction of the nearly $50 million already spent out of the $69 million BART set aside for unforeseen costs in the extension. The BART line to San Francisco Airport is due to open in December 2002 at a total cost of $1.48 billion, providing no more dead garter snakes show up around the digs.No plans were announced for a memorial service for the world's most expensive garter snake, or for the taxpayers who got stuck with the bill for the postmortem costs. I love priorities... And here from the Washington post - Eskimos who want to drill their oil in Alaska, file a complaint with the IRS about illegal anti-oil lobbyists. quote:By Judy Sarasohn Thursday, October 25, 2001; Page A29 The Kaktovik Inupiat Corp. and the Native Village of Kaktovik, which support oil drilling on their lands in Alaska, are not happy that the Alaska Wilderness League has been lobbying Congress and encouraging grass-roots lobbying against oil and gas drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. So rather than slugging it out on Capitol Hill, the Inupiat Eskimos have gone to the Internal Revenue Service.The corporation and village say local Inupiat own the surface rights to 92,000 acres within the refuge. So they filed a complaint with the IRS this week, asking the agency to investigate whether the league has been illegally lobbying.The league is a 501©(3) tax-exempt charitable organization, whose ability to lobby is limited under the tax law. Because the group made a "501(h) election" under the law, it may spend up to 20 percent of its revenue on lobbying without jeopardizing its tax-exempt status."They've been attacking our stance. We've got to get the IRS to check the league out, that the tax we pay is used right," said Fenton Rexford, president of the Kaktovik Inupiat Corp.In the complaint, Rexford and village president Isaac Akootchook charge the league "spends nearly all of its time and expends most of its resources on both direct lobbying and grassroots lobbying in clear violation of the requirement that AWL be operated exclusively for educational purposes."The complaint says that AWL spent almost $15,000 to bring six members of Congress and staffers to Alaska "on a lobbying junket," and that the group urged people to write their lawmakers to bar oil exploration in the Arctic."The quality of life for my people depends on continued natural resources development," said Eve Ahlers, chairman of the board for Kaktovik Inupiat Corp.AWL's executive director, Cindy Shogan, said the group is a charitable organization "that works to educate the public about the values of Alaska's wilderness" and operates within the law. The group works closely with the Gwich'in Athabascan, who live in 15 villages in Alaska and Canada and oppose drilling in ANWR."We have a right to represent the interests of our members who oppose oil and gas drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge so long as our legislative advocacy activities stay within specified IRS limits," said Shogan, adding that she has not seen the complaint.The Kaktovik corporation, she said, "either has been misinformed by its friends in the oil industry about the law or it has deliberately distorted the facts in a cynical attempt to intimidate America's conservation groups from working to protect our nation's last great wilderness."Liz Towne, a lawyer for the Alliance for Justice, which educates nonprofits on how to operate within the tax laws, said it appears the tax complaint against AWL is "being used as a tool of harassment," as has happened with other nonprofits. Normally I don't debate the environment, but I think it's time to stretch my ideas a little bit. I think foremost, the environmentalists who are wackos = liberal environmentalists. Conservative environmentalists rarely show up in lobby groups or newspapers... I wonder why?Anyhoo let the debate begin over these two stories! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Põdi Posted October 26, 2001 Report Share Posted October 26, 2001 $ilk, can you ever start a thread without mentioning the word liberals? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest $iLk Posted October 26, 2001 Report Share Posted October 26, 2001 Would you rather I say Communists? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Epsilon 5 Posted October 26, 2001 Report Share Posted October 26, 2001 Our prime minister is liberal...He got something like the 2/3 or the votes and about the same proportion of seats at the elections, which was early this year I think.[ 10-26-2001: Message edited by: Epsilon 5 ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest $iLk Posted October 26, 2001 Report Share Posted October 26, 2001 So perhaps I should say Socialist? C'mon guys, what are your views on these two stories? Debate me on liberals in the Marxism thread... or the Gun thread... aw hell let's only debate environmental liberals and conservativeness here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 26, 2001 Report Share Posted October 26, 2001 First off, Garder snakes are a dime a dozen up here. As a matter of fact the zoo had to kill about 10 of the little buggers because they kept eating some of the zoos Frogs.And as far as ANWAR is concerned, the environmental impact would be negligible, and we need more domestic sources of energy. This so-called coalition Bush had to create was because of OIL AGAIN!!! If we don't start supplying more of our own oil, we are really going to be up the creek without a paddle.And Californians are nuts, especially around San Francisco!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Schacher Posted October 26, 2001 Report Share Posted October 26, 2001 The environmentalists show pictures of pristine Alaskan slopes and Mt. McKinnley-like vistas, and say "We can't take a chance on damaging this." However, the area in ANWR that is proposed for drilling is flat, frozen tundra that nothing lives on, where the temperatures during 9-month long winters are as low as -70F. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest $iLk Posted October 26, 2001 Report Share Posted October 26, 2001 I'm sorry for those conservatives in California, but I can't help but laugh at the stories I hear from leftists in that state. (Maybe I ought to listen to boorz and quit saying liberals and start saying leftists since it's more descriptive.. )Anyhoo, the wackyist stuff comes out of California, and it's the vocal minority that makes the whole state look like idiots - which they aren't. As far as Alaska, I'm all for it, we wouldn't be hurting anything, we would basically see some metal pipes in an otherwise barren area devoid of indigenous life. By all accounts, the warmth from the pipes and such would be good for some species as it would keep them from freezing to death. Just a thought. Why is it that wackos have to make up lies and falsehoods in order to convince a majority of Americans that certain things are happening?Remember all that crap about global warming? Our atmosphere? You know the stuff they would tell you in school? Most of it is exagerated or not true at all. Remember how they would tell you about how we are running out of water? Well as it turns out, water is in the same supply it was 50, 100, 2000 years ago. It's just that there are more people now. I think it needs to be represented by people who know what they are talking about. I'm all for natural conservation, but we need to be reasonable. When it comes to humans or some obscure creature - I pick us.Sorry but that's the way it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest $iLk Posted October 26, 2001 Report Share Posted October 26, 2001 $iLk's story time again - more oil From Rush quote: Environmentalist Message : We need Oil Over the course of the many years that I've hosted this program, you heard me mention a man by the name of Pat Michaels. He is a reasonable and very sensible environmentalist and he has taught on the faculty at the University of Virginia. He's now with the Cato Institute, and authored a great book on the global warming myth titled The Satanic Gasses. Michaels has a brilliant column in Thursday's Washington Times on energy and Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle's bid to block a vote on exploring for our own sources of oil. Daschle knows he'll lose the vote, because enough Democrats support it to get it passed, so he's standing in the way of it. There's a lot of domestic politics that has been going on not being reported because of all the attention that's being focused on the war. Mr. Michaels is a former member of the University of Virginia faculty, and he's one of the most sensible, reasonable anti-environmentalist whackos ever. He does not subscribe to the insane global warming theories and the ozone "hole" theories that abound. He is a voice of calm, cool reason. He makes total sense and is himself a scientist. I've always said, "For all these people that can produce scientists saying global warming is real and will destroy us, I can produce just as many scientists who say it's not real, or that if it is, we're not causing it. It's natural." Even the pro-global warming crowd will tell you that they can't prove it yet - which is what makes me so suspicious. Their trick is painting all these doomsday scenarios, the solutions to which are radical, anti-capitalist and anti-American. Then they say, "We don't really know for sure, but what if? Let's go ahead and assume that it's happening and make economic and societal changes so as to be prepared for it." Pat Michaels says this is stilly and stupid. Daschle Standing in way of Energy Independance In the midst of this war, the effort to restrict our own ability to produce energy independently of anybody else, gives rise to serious questions of what is the real motivation here. Many Democrats are behind drilling in that tiny, out-of-the-way corner of ANWR, for instance - because they have rejected the lie that you must destroy the environment to get oil. That's just not true. So Daschle stopped the vote. This leaves us at the mercy of people who control our Middle Eastern oil. The more I think about it, this energy business has been bothering me long before it started. I've linked to this article below, and I urge each and every one of you not only to read it, but to forward it and my brilliant commentary here on to your friends. It's so important that we get the true message out on just how dependent we are on sources of energy we do not control. If you think you're always going to have enough gas to fill your car, heat your home and do all the other things that petroleum is used for, I urge you to think again. This whole ANWR thing has been bothering me. I do not understand the fear that people have of being energy-independent. I don't understand the lack of fear so many Americans seem to have at being dependent on energy from parts of the world where we could end up in a conflict. The spigot could be turned off, all because these environmentalist wackos have gotten people convinced that getting new sources of energy is going to kill us or make things dirty or what have you. It just boggles the mind. The lack of common sense in some people's brains just frustrates me. I just want to grab their heads and knock them together. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XenoZohar Posted October 26, 2001 Report Share Posted October 26, 2001 quote: Remember all that crap about global warming? Our atmosphere? You know the stuff they would tell you in school? Most of it is exagerated or not true at all. Right. I suppose you're the definitive authority on this. Don't post things without backing them up.[ 10-26-2001: Message edited by: XenoZohar ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest $iLk Posted October 26, 2001 Report Share Posted October 26, 2001 I just did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emphy Posted October 26, 2001 Report Share Posted October 26, 2001 The global warming issue is what has harmed or will harm th environmentalist cause the most. The scientific world is at this moment quite confident that the earth is warming up, but doesn't agree on how much, how much harm will be done, and what part of the warming is actually caused by human actions. (as opposed to different methods of measurement and natural fluctiations) These waters are further muddied by environmentalists with media campaigns which predict more storms, floods and other disasters "because of global warming". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest $iLk Posted October 26, 2001 Report Share Posted October 26, 2001 The solutions to which are anti-capitalist, and socialist.Bravo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soback Posted October 26, 2001 Report Share Posted October 26, 2001 Don't even get me started on enviromentalists. The guy who founded the green peace left it because he was so ashamed of what it has become. In my drastic opinion (like always) they should be put in a cage and fed to some kind of endangered shark. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XenoZohar Posted October 26, 2001 Report Share Posted October 26, 2001 quote: The global warming issue is what has harmed or will harm th environmentalist cause the most. The scientific world is at this moment quite confident that the earth is warming up, but doesn't agree on how much, how much harm will be done, and what part of the warming is actually caused by human actions. (as opposed to different methods of measurement and natural fluctiations) These waters are further muddied by environmentalists with media campaigns which predict more storms, floods and other disasters "because of global warming". quote: The solutions to which are anti-capitalist, and socialist. Explain? Maybe I missed something...Edit: I'm talking to Silk, not emphy, just to be sure. [ 10-26-2001: Message edited by: XenoZohar ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Urza Posted October 26, 2001 Report Share Posted October 26, 2001 I'm not touching this with a ten-foot pole. $iLk just can't stop sparking debates and controvercy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Põdi Posted October 26, 2001 Report Share Posted October 26, 2001 quote:Originally posted by Urza: I'm not touching this with a ten-foot pole. $iLk just can't stop sparking debates and controvercy.It's what he does best, eh $ilk? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emphy Posted October 26, 2001 Report Share Posted October 26, 2001 That is good, be very suspicious at the moment that everyone agrees... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 26, 2001 Report Share Posted October 26, 2001 No controversy about it, the scientists who are PAID by the environmental movement are the ones screaming DOOM!!The scientists who have actually studied the issue are the ones who say global warming is a load of manure.I will listen to the REAL scientists and not the paid stooges thank you very much.The environmental movement is where a lot of the socialists/communists moved after the soviet union fell apart. They will get thier socialism if they have to lie to get there. the environmentalists just happened to be a great way to make it happen.You will notice the EPA is able to tell you not to build on your own land because they claim a beetle that lives there may be endangered, private property rights, GONE!! Socialism in degrees and they are using the environmental movement for that goal. Global warming may be happening, but there is NO proof, just the words of scientists being paid by the environmentalists themselves. The environmentalists goals are now the goals of the Socialist/communists in thier midst. This is dangerous, and the media ia either an unwitting stooge or is in on the plan. They are dangerous and should be considered traitors to the constitution and all that it stands for.This might sound a little crazy, but here in Oregon, we have LOTS of them and they're all NUTS!!!! I've met them and seen their meetings, these guys are diehard socialists!! They would like nothing better then to control your lives in every way shape and form. And they get LOTS of media attention, LOTS!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scrivener Posted October 26, 2001 Report Share Posted October 26, 2001 I'm really in the mood for some Whale 'N Chips. Mmmmmmmmm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XenoZohar Posted October 27, 2001 Report Share Posted October 27, 2001 I think I got lost. I'm just going to read this thread now. No more posting from me. I have other ideas. Differences are bad. Conformity is good.O_o Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest $iLk Posted October 27, 2001 Report Share Posted October 27, 2001 quote:It's what he does best, eh $ilk? You bet! Anyway, what I mean by saying that the solutions are anti-capitalist, read the 3rd article I posted up above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 27, 2001 Report Share Posted October 27, 2001 quote: I think I got lost. I'm just going to read this thread now. No more posting from me. I have other ideas. Differences are bad. Conformity is good. No, conformity is NOT good, the constitution and all that it stands for is good. Anything that goes against that great document is bad!!Environmentalist organizations, or a good number of the more radical ones have been taken over by socialists that use that movement to move thier agenda. There are some reasonable Environmental groups out there, but they don't get nearly the media attention as the socialist controlled ones do.No conformity is not good, the constituion IS GOOD!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Epsilon 5 Posted October 27, 2001 Report Share Posted October 27, 2001 quote:I will listen to the REAL scientists and not the paid stooges thank you very much.How do you distinguish True and Paid scientists?What if those who say global warming danger is a hoax were paid by oil companies? You can't know that.I'm not sure about the alaska thing... but about the environmentalists... they are right on many points, but they exagerate...[ 10-27-2001: Message edited by: Epsilon 5 ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now