Tax Bill is a loser

[kalm]

I see reading comprehension is not a strength in the Ivies.

Beats East Spokumpton Directional.

It's "SpoCompton you dork...and it's in the western part of the county. Thanks for further proving my point.

[Ivytalk]

So was Bob Corker’s vote bought at the last minute with a change in the provision for real estate pass-throughs?

Best Congress money can buy!

‘Murica!

[BDKJMU]

Like all major legislation, there are pot-sweeteners inserted to win the support of hesitant legislators.

One, a carve-out for Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski, will open Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil and gas drilling.

The 19.6-million-acre refuge in northeastern Alaska is one of the most pristine areas in the United States and is home to polar bears, caribou, migratory birds and other wildlife.

Murkowski and other Republicans say drilling can be done safely with new technology, while ensuring a steady energy supply for West Coast refineries.

Safely. Right. Wink, wink.

This is the one thing about the GOP (shitting all over the planet for short-term corporate greed) that I could do without.

And the fact that the left conveniently ignores is that the area to be opened to exploration on the Alaskan North Slope (Area 1002) is only a tiny fraction of ANWR that is a barren frozen tundra of mud and rock.
http://www.anwr.org/features/pdfs/realanwr.pdf

The majority of Alaskans (poll this year shows 67% for, 31% against) support opening Area 1002 to exploration..
http://juneauempire.com/news/2017-03-23 ... -s-deficit

[93henfan]

Alaskans get a PFD check every year from the $55B fund from oil revenues. Of course they support more drilling.

That’s the exact mentality I am talking about.

US oil production has spiked exponentially in the past decade. Absolutely no need to drill in the national wildlife refuge. None.

[BDKJMU]

Alaskans get a PFD check every year from the $55B fund from oil revenues. Of course they support more drilling.

That’s the exact mentality I am talking about.

US oil production has spiked exponentially in the past decade. Absolutely no need to drill in the national wildlife refuge. None.

Yeah, oil revenues that come off Alaskan lands & waters. Way up on the northern slope of Alaska is a barren frozen tundra of mud and rock, thousands of miles and a world away from people in the lower 48. Admittedly the support has dropped some. Saw 2011 poll that showed 78% support among Alaskans. Granted the tribes are split on both sides, But if the majority of Alaskans still want it, who are the people in the lower 48 to tell them no? If they want to explore up in a tiny speck of ANWR, let them explore. The more we can produce domestically, the less we have to rely on from 2nd/3rd world banana republics. Absolutely no reason not to. None.

[Ibanez]

Alaskans get a PFD check every year from the $55B fund from oil revenues. Of course they support more drilling.

That’s the exact mentality I am talking about.

US oil production has spiked exponentially in the past decade. Absolutely no need to drill in the national wildlife refuge. None.

Yeah, oil revenues that come off Alaskan lands & waters. Way up on the northern slope of Alaska is a barren frozen tundra of mud and rock, thousands of miles and a world away from people in the lower 48. Admittedly the support has dropped some. Saw 2011 poll that showed 78% support among Alaskans. Granted the tribes are split on both sides, But if the majority of Alaskans still want it, who are the people in the lower 48 to tell them no? If they want to explore up in a tiny speck of ANWR, let them explore. The more we can produce domestically, the less we have to rely on from 2nd/3rd world banana republics. Absolutely no reason not to. None.

Just b/c it's there, doesn't mean we have to drill for it. As 93 astutely mentioned, of course the Alaskans want it. They get a check every year from the oil companies. Leave it alone.

[93henfan]

Yeah, oil revenues that come off Alaskan lands & waters. Way up on the northern slope of Alaska is a barren frozen tundra of mud and rock, thousands of miles and a world away from people in the lower 48. Admittedly the support has dropped some. Saw 2011 poll that showed 78% support among Alaskans. Granted the tribes are split on both sides, But if the majority of Alaskans still want it, who are the people in the lower 48 to tell them no? If they want to explore up in a tiny speck of ANWR, let them explore. The more we can produce domestically, the less we have to rely on from 2nd/3rd world banana republics. Absolutely no reason not to. None.

Just b/c it's there, doesn't mean we have to drill for it. As 93 astutely mentioned, of course the Alaskans want it. They get a check every year from the oil companies. Leave it alone.

I dunno. BDK may be right. The US needs every pristine tiny speck of Arctic wilderness it can find, since we’ve become so inefficient at pulling oil from the ground the past ten years. I heard the Bakken and Eagle Ford shale deposits could be exhausted in a couple of days.

[Ibanez]

Just b/c it's there, doesn't mean we have to drill for it. As 93 astutely mentioned, of course the Alaskans want it. They get a check every year from the oil companies. Leave it alone.

I dunno. BDK may be right. The US needs every pristine tiny speck of Arctic wilderness it can find, since we’ve become so inefficient at pulling oil from the ground the past ten years. I heard the Bakken and Eagle Ford shale deposits could be exhausted in a couple of days.

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/06/us-oil- ... r-eia.html

The U.S. Department of Energy on Tuesday signaled it is now more confident that U.S. oil production will rise to 10 million barrels a day next year, the highest average annual level on the books.

The department's Energy Information Administration forecast output would surge to the historic level in 2018 after last month projecting the country would produce just shy of 10 million barrels a day next year. The previous record average was 9.6 million barrels a day in 1970.

"Increased drilling activity in U.S. tight oil basins, especially those located in Texas, is the main contributor to oil production growth, as the total number of active rigs drilling for oil in the United States has more than doubled over the past 12 months," EIA acting Administrator Howard Gruenspecht said in a statement.

Maybe you are on to something....

[kalm]

Alaskans get a PFD check every year from the $55B fund from oil revenues. Of course they support more drilling.

That’s the exact mentality I am talking about.

US oil production has spiked exponentially in the past decade. Absolutely no need to drill in the national wildlife refuge. None.

Yeah, oil revenues that come off Alaskan lands & waters. Way up on the northern slope of Alaska is a barren frozen tundra of mud and rock, thousands of miles and a world away from people in the lower 48. Admittedly the support has dropped some. Saw 2011 poll that showed 78% support among Alaskans. Granted the tribes are split on both sides, But if the majority of Alaskans still want it, who are the people in the lower 48 to tell them no? If they want to explore up in a tiny speck of ANWR, let them explore. The more we can produce domestically, the less we have to rely on from 2nd/3rd world banana republics. Absolutely no reason not to. None.

Yep...barron, mud, rock.

And although boosters of drilling there have long tried to cast the vast region in northeastern Alaska as a virtual frozen desert, the wilderness actually teems with life, scientists say, as the photos above suggest. More than 200 species make the refuge home, including caribou, wolves, Arctic fox, 36 species of fish, and millions of birds, from snowy owls to northern pintails. Many species find critical homes there during migration.

Covering more than 19 million acres of Alaska's North Slope, the refuge is the largest in the U.S. It is the only refuge in the country that is home to grizzly bears, black bears, and denning sites for polar bears, and it provides a wildlife corridor that stretches from the Canadian border across Alaska to the Chukchi Sea.

https://news.nationalgeographic.com/201 ... -plan-spd/

[BDKJMU]

Yeah, oil revenues that come off Alaskan lands & waters. Way up on the northern slope of Alaska is a barren frozen tundra of mud and rock, thousands of miles and a world away from people in the lower 48. Admittedly the support has dropped some. Saw 2011 poll that showed 78% support among Alaskans. Granted the tribes are split on both sides, But if the majority of Alaskans still want it, who are the people in the lower 48 to tell them no? If they want to explore up in a tiny speck of ANWR, let them explore. The more we can produce domestically, the less we have to rely on from 2nd/3rd world banana republics. Absolutely no reason not to. None.

Yep...barron, mud, rock.

And although boosters of drilling there have long tried to cast the vast region in northeastern Alaska as a virtual frozen desert, the wilderness actually teems with life, scientists say, as the photos above suggest. More than 200 species make the refuge home, including caribou, wolves, Arctic fox, 36 species of fish, and millions of birds, from snowy owls to northern pintails. Many species find critical homes there during migration.

Covering more than 19 million acres of Alaska's North Slope, the refuge is the largest in the U.S. It is the only refuge in the country that is home to grizzly bears, black bears, and denning sites for polar bears, and it provides a wildlife corridor that stretches from the Canadian border across Alaska to the Chukchi Sea.

https://news.nationalgeographic.com/201 ... -plan-spd/

The same libtard arguement. The look at this serenghetti pictures the left trots out aren’t of Area 2002. ANWR is GINORMOUS. 2002 is a tiny sliver of it. The pictures you show aren’t in Area 2002. Anything that has mountains in it isn’t Area 2002. 2002 is a flat coastal plain.

[BDKJMU]

Yeah, oil revenues that come off Alaskan lands & waters. Way up on the northern slope of Alaska is a barren frozen tundra of mud and rock, thousands of miles and a world away from people in the lower 48. Admittedly the support has dropped some. Saw 2011 poll that showed 78% support among Alaskans. Granted the tribes are split on both sides, But if the majority of Alaskans still want it, who are the people in the lower 48 to tell them no? If they want to explore up in a tiny speck of ANWR, let them explore. The more we can produce domestically, the less we have to rely on from 2nd/3rd world banana republics. Absolutely no reason not to. None.

Just b/c it's there, doesn't mean we have to drill for it. As 93 astutely mentioned, of course the Alaskans want it. They get a check every year from the oil companies. Leave it alone.

It’s hard living up there. Many of those Alaskans are poor. Why are you against poor people and states rights?

[93henfan]

The same libtard arguement. The look at this serenghetti pictures the left trots out aren’t of Area 2002. ANWR is GINORMOUS. 2002 is a tiny sliver of it. The pictures you show aren’t in Area 2002. Anything that has mountains in it isn’t Area 2002. 2002 is a flat coastal plain.

If you’re going to profess expertise based on a quick-study of Exxon-funded pamphlets, at least transcribe it correctly.

It’s area 1002, not 2002, and it’s an important wildlife refuge in a sensitive part of the planet.

[93henfan]

Just b/c it's there, doesn't mean we have to drill for it. As 93 astutely mentioned, of course the Alaskans want it. They get a check every year from the oil companies. Leave it alone.

It’s hard living up there. Many of those Alaskans are poor. Why are you against poor people and states rights?

Yessiree. Those Alaskans are destitute. They’ve fallen to third behind Connecticut: https://www.kff.org/other/state-indicat ... desc%22%7D

[BDKJMU]

It’s hard living up there. Many of those Alaskans are poor. Why are you against poor people and states rights?

Yessiree. Those Alaskans are destitute. They’ve fallen to third behind Connecticut: https://www.kff.org/other/state-indicat ... desc%22%7D

Cost of living by state, ranked by most expensive.
1. Hawaii
2. Connecticut
3. Alaska
4. CA
5. NY
.
.
https://www.uslearning.net/cost-of-living-by-state.html

[Ibanez]

Just b/c it's there, doesn't mean we have to drill for it. As 93 astutely mentioned, of course the Alaskans want it. They get a check every year from the oil companies. Leave it alone.

It’s hard living up there. Many of those Alaskans are poor. Why are you against poor people and states rights?

When did I say I was?

[Ibanez]

The same libtard arguement. The look at this serenghetti pictures the left trots out aren’t of Area 2002. ANWR is GINORMOUS. 2002 is a tiny sliver of it. The pictures you show aren’t in Area 2002. Anything that has mountains in it isn’t Area 2002. 2002 is a flat coastal plain.

If you’re going to profess expertise based on a quick-study of Exxon-funded pamphlets, at least transcribe it correctly.

It’s area 1002, not 2002, and it’s an important wildlife refuge in a sensitive part of the planet.

Fake News!

[∞∞∞]

Just b/c it's there, doesn't mean we have to drill for it. As 93 astutely mentioned, of course the Alaskans want it. They get a check every year from the oil companies. Leave it alone.

It’s hard living up there. Many of those Alaskans are poor. Why are you against poor people and states rights?

Alaska could do itself wonders if it diversified its economy instead of relying on fossil fuels. It's a gorgeous state; that oil money should be more heavily invested into tourism - hell be as wild and imaginative into building Anchorage into the northern Dubai. Make the city a playground for rich Russians, Chinese, and Americans...while promoting the rest of the state as a natural retreat to be protected.

[BDKJMU]

If you’re going to profess expertise based on a quick-study of Exxon-funded pamphlets, at least transcribe it correctly.

It’s area 1002, not 2002, and it’s an important wildlife refuge in a sensitive part of the planet.

Fake News!

Yeah, because I had a typo from 1002 in my initial post to 2002 in a later one..

[93henfan]

Yessiree. Those Alaskans are destitute. They’ve fallen to third behind Connecticut: https://www.kff.org/other/state-indicat ... desc%22%7D

Cost of living by state, ranked by most expensive.
1. Hawaii
2. Connecticut
3. Alaska
4. CA
5. NY
.
.
https://www.uslearning.net/cost-of-living-by-state.html

So there you have it. Alaskans and Connecticotians are destitute. I always assumed this, looking at all the run-down housing when I pass through Connecticut:

[Ibanez]

Yep...barron, mud, rock.













https://news.nationalgeographic.com/201 ... -plan-spd/

The same libtard arguement. The look at this serenghetti pictures the left trots out aren’t of Area 2002. ANWR is GINORMOUS. 2002 is a tiny sliver of it. The pictures you show aren’t in Area 2002. Anything that has mountains in it isn’t Area 2002. 2002 is a flat coastal plain.

Fuck those animals!

[93henfan]

The same libtard arguement. The look at this serenghetti pictures the left trots out aren’t of Area 2002. ANWR is GINORMOUS. 2002 is a tiny sliver of it. The pictures you show aren’t in Area 2002. Anything that has mountains in it isn’t Area 2002. 2002 is a flat coastal plain.

Fuck those animals!

Eh, caribou are just one species. Stop overreacting. There are plenty of other caribou-like species. There are still elk in Montana and deer in Pennsylvania. Fuck the caribou! Sounds French. I bet they surrender a lot.

[BDKJMU]

It’s hard living up there. Many of those Alaskans are poor. Why are you against poor people and states rights?

Alaska could do itself wonders if it diversified its economy instead of relying on fossil fuels. It's a gorgeous state; that oil money should be more heavily invested into tourism - hell be as wild and imaginative into building Anchorage into the northern Dubai. Make the city a playground for rich Russians, Chinese, and Americans...while promoting the rest of the state as a natural retreat to be protected.

They don’t just rely on fossil fuels extraction. Mining, fishing and tourism are very big.

[Ibanez]

Alaska could do itself wonders if it diversified its economy instead of relying on fossil fuels. It's a gorgeous state; that oil money should be more heavily invested into tourism - hell be as wild and imaginative into building Anchorage into the northern Dubai. Make the city a playground for rich Russians, Chinese, and Americans...while promoting the rest of the state as a natural retreat to be protected.

They don’t just rely on fossil fuels extraction. Mining, fishing and tourism are very big.

With peak oil production occurring in 1988 and proven reserves in 1973, i'd say they need to diversify. If my state had vast (potentially) untapped resources and oil production had been declining for almost 30 years, then I'd lobby to open those areas to drilling. 90% of Alaska's revenue comes from 1 industry, and that's with falling revenue (perhaps another reason why Big Oil wants ANWR opened up.) They should diversify.

[houndawg]

Alaskans get a PFD check every year from the $55B fund from oil revenues. Of course they support more drilling.

That’s the exact mentality I am talking about.

US oil production has spiked exponentially in the past decade. Absolutely no need to drill in the national wildlife refuge. None.

I stayed in Fairbanks for a while after my ETS at Ft. Wainwright, always had a good chuckle listening to the ruggedly individualistic discuss what they were going to spend their guvmint handout on.

[houndawg]

Alaska could do itself wonders if it diversified its economy instead of relying on fossil fuels. It's a gorgeous state; that oil money should be more heavily invested into tourism - hell be as wild and imaginative into building Anchorage into the northern Dubai. Make the city a playground for rich Russians, Chinese, and Americans...while promoting the rest of the state as a natural retreat to be protected.

They don’t just rely on fossil fuels extraction. Mining, fishing and tourism are very big.

The value of their inventory is worth less every day.