To: Alighieri who wrote (138782 ) 8/14/2001 12:06:46 AM From: hmaly Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 1571229 Al Re.. What lies are you talking about<<<<< This one Bush and his grifting oil friends are capable of causing more damage if they miss the bowl in one single pissing incident than all the wildlife living there for eons. This one I believed that drilling is being proposed in the coastal plains, which is the most ecologically sensitive part of the ANWR and famous for its beauty and fauna... Al <<<<<<< Maybe you are just a city slicker who doesn't understand the amount of damage 130,000 caribou would do in 4 months roaming on the coastal plain, if the grass was actually sensitive. Most farmers in our area haven't let their cows out to pasture for 30 yrs already, because of the damage the herd can do to alfalfa, and alfalfa isn't a sensitive crop. There are a lot of crops and plants which are sensitive to urine, but not the coastal plain grasses, so just what exactly is so sensitive or beautiful about the coastal plain grasses. The picture shown in Newsweek, certainly didn't show any beautiful fauna. Just exactly where on the coastal plain is this fauna of yours, and why do all of the photos show a different area of ANWR thousands of miles away. I have shown articles with quotes from people who have been where the drilling is to take place, and none of them have described the place as particularily beautiful. Show me some quotes from people who have seen the area to be drilled who can show the opposite. LOL. Look better to who? Livable by who? <<<<<<< It figures. When you dems can't explain your lying you fall back on the Clinton, "the definition of is is." defense. Do you really figure it will work better for you than it did for slick Willy. Frankly, if 90% of the people can't recognize something as beautiful, it isn't that beautiful. I would be willing to bet that 90% of the men who compared Roseanne and Vanessa Williams would have no problem. Why is it that no one but you can see this mystical beauty? Is it there or is it a lie. Prove me wrong. <<< I would guess that this is the case. Guess????? You don't know, but yet you are willing to condemn thousands of people into poverty on a guess. Why don't you dems go back to treating interns as red meat and let the rest of us alone. Stick with the one thing you are good at. I have not said any of these things. <<<<<<< But you do know full well that the US imports 60% of our daily oil, and according to the Newsweek article, Alaskan oil provides 17%. Add em up. I have said that the ANWR is a national preserve and should remain that way. <<<<<< What makes you think drilling on one hundreth of a percent of the land will change the preserve. Prove it. In fact, the newsweek article said this<<<<<<<<Nobody really knows how much petroleum there is under the ANWR coastal plain. Although oil seeps out of the tundra in some places—staining bogs with a bluish-black sheen—some scientists believe the seeps are evidence that a potential reservoir underneath has been crushed and ruined over geologic time<<<<<<<< The oil is already seeping into the coastal plain. Drilling it is likely to reduce the pressure and keep more from seeping to the surface. Drilling may be the best way to preserve ANWR.