In light of the upcoming elections this is kind of pathetic. Obviously Jeb is trying to help his brother out by giving people a poor perception of Kerry. It is questionable if the story is true or not, but either way, how is Kerry supporting an approved off-shore drilling site a bad thing? Other people made the decisions, he is going forward with them.

Does Jeb really think that, in contrast to GWB's future oil plan, the public is going to look down at Kerry. Give me a break, what's worse (politically wise), supporting decisions/plans that are already in affect to off-shore drill in Florida, or to destroy legislation has been affect to protect the land in Alaska? Bush's plan calls to explore, set-up, drill, and pipe oil from national wildlife refuges and parks in Alaska. Imagine the damage that will result from this (roads, logging, power stations, etc). I'm not saying the off-shore drilling will be all fine and dandy, but I think drilling in Alaska is much worse. In support of Bush though, the Alaska drilling will open up many jobs. However me being the liberal demo I am, I stand with the moose and the trees.

I just hope it isn't true. We don't need to ruin any more of our pristine locations with oil rigs. *sigh*

And to add to it. We are alrady believed to be in Iraq for theoil. Well let us at least earn the scorn we receive and take the crap so we can keep out oceans and landscapes beautiful Iraq is just a damn desert anyway :D

Wow you seem to be quick to jump to conclusions and already have your mind made up. :/

It's possible this is accurate just as it's possible it's false. Who's to say this is just an attempt to besmirch rather than let the public know that both candidates have the same political inclinations when it comes to future desecration of our land? I mean really, a lot of people vote dem because they generally are more for the environement.

If people are voting for the lesser fo two evils this would be good to know. If both are going to despoil the environment for monetary gain why not then proceed to the next set of ideals to question and base an opinion of whether to vote on the candidate on the other issues?

You seem more close minded that I previously thought.

Now considering your want to save Alaska why is that area any better that Florida? The environment in Florida is pretty spectacular, the wildlife diverse and very much worth protecting. In Alaska even if they do ruin the environment at least more jobs will open up and maybe the folks can stop drinking hair spray to get drunk and start working.

I'm not saying I think either should be destroyed mind you. I just seem to think you are just taking an opposing stance ebcause it's Bush rather than any real leaning towards tree hugging as you seem to claim. As a tree hugger any and all trees are worth saving, even if they are under 3 feet of water ;)

As for running with plans already in place that is a cop-out. If the guy was so good and cared about the environment etc. he would try to stop the plans for ruining Florida as well. He's just as greedy or doesn't care just like the rest but he's more of a snake and using the things other people are doing as a safety screen.

Florida is in dire need of some protective measures being enacted. We have a lot of stuff in many places that you can find in Alaska (even drunk indians) and once the everglades are gone... that's it. The damage caused by drilling in Florida could be a lot worse considering the ecological balance and the current problems all the shitheads in the northern part of the state are causing (like draining the south's water for their fucking lawns.)

You're welcome to your opinion but I think it's biased by your want to make Bush a scapegoat for the ills currently happening. Kerry isn't any better than Bush in my opinion but not worse either. They both have failing just in diferent areas. I think Kerry is more of a lying snake however where Bush just tells things like they are. Bush has more issues when it comes to being best friends with huge businesses that he makes money off of.

But I don't expect anything I say here to open anyones eyes. People's eyes are closed because they can't handle the truth, those who have their eyes open tend to not be staunch candidate or party or left-right haters and are more of a moderate.

I could be wrong but that's just what I see.

First off, it wan't Jeb that brought this to light, it was a college newspaper.

Your characterization of Bush wanting to indiscriminantly drill in national parks isn't quite correct. When the ANWR (Arctic National Wildlife Refuge) was created, 8% of it was set aside for oil exploration. This area- for the most part a barren wasteland- is where Bush has proposed drilling, and then in an environmentally sensitive manner. Only a very small footprint would be needed with current drilling techniques.

All the liberal whining about Alaskan drilling (despite the the fact most liberals have no clue where Alaska- much less the ANWR- is) reminds me of the controversy over the Alaskan pipeline 20 years ago. As usual, the liberal wackos were predicting armageddon on the wildlife population, but the pipeline was built anyways. The impact on wildlife? Non-existant.

In typical Kerry hypocrisy, he blames Bush for high gas prices... yet opposes drilling in Alaska, has criticized recent Bush efforts to get the Saudis to increase production, and spoke in favor of a $.50 / gallon gas tax increase. He also drives a Chevy Suburban (he claims HE doesn't own it, "the family" owns it) [link]

What a fucking weasel.

You got that right. Anyone who wants offshore drilling in their state, just come take a look at the Louisiana coast line. It is f*cked because of the drilling and lax environmental protections. We are already screwed, let em open up more of our wells.

Close minded? Did you read what I wrote?

I said both have their environmental affects, but the overall damage to Alaska would be worse. I did not pick Alaska over Florida for any other reason.

I said Kerry was the lesser of two evils for one reason. He is supporting a existing plan to drill of shore in Florida. Bush wants to tear up policy and parkland to drill in Alaska. Supporting a existing plan has much less of a political impact than completely starting up a new plan that requires the altering of policy protecting the Alaska parklands.

"You're welcome to your opinion but I think it's biased by your want to make Bush a scapegoat for the ills currently happening" - Think what you want. Of course you are wrong though. What ills are currently happening that I'm being biased to? As I've said before, the only biased one is you Rev. That's pretty obvious by your bias of me and my thoughts about Bush. Nice try though. If I'm so "biased" towards Bush, why did I include that his plan in Alaska would bring about jobs? That's a check-plus for Bush in case you didn't notice. Tell me what I should include in my posts so I don't have to waste my time reading your B.S. about how I am biased.

"If people are voting for the lesser fo two evils this would be good to know. If both are going to despoil the environment for monetary gain why not then proceed to the next set of ideals to question and base an opinion of whether to vote on the candidate on the other issues? " Was this to me or a Rev rant? What are you trying to say here? Who said anything about monetary gain? What's the next set of ideals?

"He's just as greedy or doesn't care just like the rest but he's more of a snake and using the things other people are doing as a safety screen. He's just as greedy or doesn't care just like the rest but he's more of a snake and using the things other people are doing as a safety screen. " - Who's biased? If anyone will make money off of oil-drilling in Florida it probably would be Jeb.

"The damage caused by drilling in Florida could be a lot worse considering the ecological balance and the current problems all the shitheads in the northern part of the state are causing (like draining the south's water for their fucking lawns.) " - You really think the drilling in Florida will be worse for the local environment as compared to the impact drilling in Alaska will be? What are you backing this on?

"I just seem to think you are just taking an opposing stance ebcause it's Bush rather than any real leaning towards tree hugging as you seem to claim. As a tree hugger any and all trees are worth saving, even if they are under 3 feet of water" - Again with the bias? Is that you perception of me...that every thought I have is biased towards Bush? "You seem more close minded that I previously thought. "

"Your characterization of Bush wanting to indiscriminantly drill in national parks isn't quite correct. When the ANWR (Arctic National Wildlife Refuge) was created, 8% of it was set aside for oil exploration. This area- for the most part a barren wasteland- is where Bush has proposed drilling, and then in an environmentally sensitive manner. Only a very small footprint would be needed with current drilling techniques. " - The drilling location would have a small footprint. However how do you get there? How do you bring the oil back? What city is located near the area for workers to live in? What power station is near there to power the city and the drills? How much parkland is torn up for the pipeline, powerlines, roadways, etc? This is why I went with the lesser of two evils (Florida). Don't you think a drilling platform has much less of a environmental affect than the drilling in Alaska?

"First off, it wan't Jeb that brought this to light, it was a college newspaper. " - Umm...yeah.... I was speaking about Jeb's public criticism of Kerry. I never said Jeb brought the article out.

Jeb had good reason to critizise, since Kerry's position (which he- true to form- immediately backpeddled on) conflicts with the policy of both Jeb and George Bush... and the mainstream papers in FL refused to cover the story (liberal media bias, anyone?), although it is an issue important to most readers in FL.

The Bush White House blocked oil industry drilling in leased areas near the Florida Panhandle a few years ago.

The governor, who also opposes offshore drilling, told reporters, "There is probably 10 percent of the people of this state that would support a candidate for higher office who believe what John Kerry believes. I can't believe this and I'm not sure why you guys didn't cover this yesterday - your papers must have been in the same place that the Florida Alligator was."

As far as the environmental impact of offshore drilling vs the north shore of the ANWR, the best indication of which is worse is the opinion of those who actually live in FL and AK. Most Floridians are opposed to offshore drilling off the Florida panhandle, Alaskans are in favor of drilling on the designated area of the ANWR. Gov Bush is against offshore drilling, Alaskan politians are among the biggest proponents of ANWR drilling.

Could it be that the Alaskans are a bit more knowledgeable about the issue than someone from New Jersey? Given how many people live in Alaska because of the unspoiled wilderness, and how important tourism is to the state, do you really think they'd be in favor of something that would be overly destructive?

Yes I did which is why I told you what I thought about it. It came across more like a smoke-screening for Bush bashing. I explained why I saw it as such.

You claim you picked Alaska only because the damage would be worse. Could you provide some facts to back up that claim or why you believe this to be true?

"Supporting a existing plan has much less of a political impact than completely starting up a new plan that requires the altering of policy protecting the Alaska parklands."

Less of a political impact. As I said he doesn't care about anything in regards to the environement. He appears to be using the "existing policy" as a way to do the same damage without taking as much flak for it. He's a snake, hiding behind the actions of others, blaming others for the ills when he's just as much in support of it.

"What ills are currently happening that I'm being biased to?"

Oh so somehow I just came up with you being a Bush basher for no reason? It doesn't have anything to do withy ou disagreeing with him being in Iraq or any other of the many topics you libs like to throw out there? I see, my bad. :rolleyes:

"That's pretty obvious by your bias of me and my thoughts about Bush."

I only stated what I saw. I am not biased against anyone. From what you said it appears you were. I'm still waiting for proof to the contrary. Since I am in fact open to facts you care to provide I can hardly be called biased. If I was biased I would ignore the facts, toss out red herrings, etc. like many of the Foobs here do. Alas, I don't. Present hard facts to the contrary and I'll accept them. I don't consider you just saying you aren't a hard fact when your posts seem to show otherwise.

"If I'm so "biased" towards Bush, why did I include that his plan in Alaska would bring about jobs?"

Maybe it's for the same reason I'm biased and yet willing to accept any evidence you'd provide. Your logic is astounding. Mentioning one good thing hardly makes you unbiased. If that logic were true, any time I complemented someone I would be biased for them.

"Tell me what I should include in my posts so I don't have to waste my time reading your B.S. about how I am biased."

I would but I doubt you'd bother.

"Was this to me or a Rev rant? What are you trying to say here? Who said anything about monetary gain? What's the next set of ideals?"

Are you really this dense? I'm astonished. Why are people usually for big busines or for oil drilling etc.? Seems to be there is some sort of gain otherwise they wouldn't do it.

The next set of ideals. The next issue in contention. I mean really, WTF? Both don't care about the environment, next question, do they both support the war, next question do they both masturbate to kiddie porn, next... for fuck's sake start using that rock that is rattling around in your damn skull.

"Who's biased? If anyone will make money off of oil-drilling in Florida it probably would be Jeb. "

Of course Kerry wouldn't have any kickback whatsoever from it. Nope, not him. He's for destroying the environment without cause I take it then?

"You really think the drilling in Florida will be worse for the local environment as compared to the impact drilling in Alaska will be? What are you backing this on?"

Well the uniqueness of the Florida everglades, the critters you find there and nowhere else. Sorry but while Alaska is very nice and I enjoy a good moose just like everyone else, I think we have more to lose when the eco system fails in Florida. We only have one florida, we have a lot of places like Alaska when it comes to topigraphical nature, ecosystem etc. Take all of Canada for example. Sure not all of it is a hunk of ice or coastal property but a great deal of it is. Keep in mind i'm not talking a WE as in USA rather a WE as humans/world.

"Again with the bias? Is that you perception of me...that every thought I have is biased towards Bush?"

No, it's against him. You surely aren't biased for him. I explained it pretty well but you missed the whole point. You claim to be unbiased and pro environment. Yet you pick the one that Bush wants to waste rather then your hero Kerry. I would rather they left both alone but failing that I say leave Florida alone for the reasons already stated.

Your "freed mind" isn't doing you much good by appearances.

"Don't you think a drilling platform has much less of a environmental affect than the drilling in Alaska?"

Nope.

A spill is a spill.
The trucking back and forth of pipeline etc. from a platform is just as bad to the oceans and surrounding areas that they connect to on land are just as bad. *sigh*

"Umm...yeah.... I was speaking about Jeb's public criticism of Kerry. I never said Jeb brought the article out."

Oh because he'll call a spade a spade? Funny libs don't have a problem bashing Bush for the hell of it. Oh wait, they can do no wrong, they are justified in their criticizm and pointing fingers. They aren't being at all hypocritical. If they aren't hypocrites they are deluded and just don't realize what they are doing. They are getting an education.

Your "freed mind" is making everyone that reads your posts dumber.

"Could it be that the Alaskans are a bit more knowledgeable about the issue than someone from New Jersey?" - Could it be that the mexicans in Cozumel are more knowledgable about letting cruise ships come in and wreck the coral reefs than a person from Jersey? The alaskans want the money.

"Most Floridians are opposed to offshore drilling off the Florida panhandle" - The plan passed didn't it? How'd that happen if no one wants it?

"Jeb had good reason to critizise, since Kerry's position (which he- true to form- immediately backpeddled on) conflicts with the policy of both Jeb and George Bush... " - You're right. I was just referring to it being a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

"Oh because he'll call a spade a spade? Funny libs don't have a problem bashing Bush for the hell of it. Oh wait, they can do no wrong, they are justified in their criticizm and pointing fingers. They aren't being at all hypocritical. If they aren't hypocrites they are deluded and just don't realize what they are doing. They are getting an education. "

"Oh because he'll call a spade a spade? Funny libs don't have a problem bashing Bush for the hell of it. Oh wait, they can do no wrong, they are justified in their criticizm and pointing fingers. They aren't being at all hypocritical. If they aren't hypocrites they are deluded and just don't realize what they are doing. They are getting an education. "

"Oh because he'll call a spade a spade? Funny libs don't have a problem bashing Bush for the hell of it. Oh wait, they can do no wrong, they are justified in their criticizm and pointing fingers. They aren't being at all hypocritical. If they aren't hypocrites they are deluded and just don't realize what they are doing. They are getting an education. " - HP thought that I was bashing Jeb for bringing the story out. I wasn't. WTF are you talking about? Get back on subject.

"A spill is a spill.
The trucking back and forth of pipeline etc. from a platform is just as bad to the oceans and surrounding areas that they connect to on land are just as bad. *sigh* " - You could be right. Spills are bad, but how often do they happen?

.

Comparing politics in the US to Mexico is absurd. That said, the People of Cozumel largely did oppose the new dock, but the Mexican govt isn't terribly responsive to the will of the people- at least where money is involved.

Again, RTFA. The Florida drilling DIDN'T go through- the Bush White House (undoubtedly responding to a request from Gov Bush) blocked it. In this case, the will of the people prevailed.

How this is a case of "the pot calling the kettle black" I don't know. The (liberal) media refused to cover Kerry's position regarding offshore drilling, although his apparent position (again, it's hard to know what his position ever is, since he takes all three sides of every issue) is one that most Floridians strongly disagree with. Jeb chided them for it, and only then did the media cover it. They let Kerry's side have their say, and the paper that originally covered it had theirs.

The ANWR drilling debate has gotten plenty of media attention- no suprise there, as it gives the liberal media the chance to mislead people into thinking Bush is anti-environment.

Kerry's my hero now huh? You're moving into a world of fiction again. My hero isn't in the polls anymore.

"Of course Kerry wouldn't have any kickback whatsoever from it. Nope, not him. He's for destroying the environment without cause I take it then? " - How is Kerry going to get kickbacks? The plan is in effect already. Isn't the time for kickbacks passed already?

"You claim you picked Alaska only because the damage would be worse. Could you provide some facts to back up that claim or why you believe this to be true?" - Articles like these are the ones that are "biasing" my opinion. [link] You claim the opposite, where are your facts?

"Yes I did which is why I told you what I thought about it. It came across more like a smoke-screening for Bush bashing. I explained why I saw it as such.

You claim you picked Alaska only because the damage would be worse. Could you provide some facts to back up that claim or why you believe this to be true?

"Supporting a existing plan has much less of a political impact than completely starting up a new plan that requires the altering of policy protecting the Alaska parklands."

Less of a political impact. As I said he doesn't care about anything in regards to the environement. He appears to be using the "existing policy" as a way to do the same damage without taking as much flak for it. He's a snake, hiding behind the actions of others, blaming others for the ills when he's just as much in support of it.

"What ills are currently happening that I'm being biased to?"

Oh so somehow I just came up with you being a Bush basher for no reason? It doesn't have anything to do withy ou disagreeing with him being in Iraq or any other of the many topics you libs like to throw out there? I see, my bad.

"That's pretty obvious by your bias of me and my thoughts about Bush."

I only stated what I saw. I am not biased against anyone. From what you said it appears you were. I'm still waiting for proof to the contrary. Since I am in fact open to facts you care to provide I can hardly be called biased. If I was biased I would ignore the facts, toss out red herrings, etc. like many of the Foobs here do. Alas, I don't. Present hard facts to the contrary and I'll accept them. I don't consider you just saying you aren't a hard fact when your posts seem to show otherwise.

"If I'm so "biased" towards Bush, why did I include that his plan in Alaska would bring about jobs?"

Maybe it's for the same reason I'm biased and yet willing to accept any evidence you'd provide. Your logic is astounding. Mentioning one good thing hardly makes you unbiased. If that logic were true, any time I complemented someone I would be biased for them.

"Tell me what I should include in my posts so I don't have to waste my time reading your B.S. about how I am biased."

I would but I doubt you'd bother. " - I just asked what I could do to show that I can be unbiased and that is your response? WOW! Instead of taking a step in the right direction, you choose the one of conflict. Seems like if we keep arguing on how I'm biased on everything because of Bush then we would be arguing "just for the sake of it." At least I tried to fix the situation.

"I would rather they left both alone but failing that I say leave Florida alone for the reasons already stated. " So what your saying is that since I chose between what I think is the lesser of two evils and I'm "biased against Bush", I'm not pro-environment?

"Are you really this dense? I'm astonished. Why are people usually for big busines or for oil drilling etc.? Seems to be there is some sort of gain otherwise they wouldn't do it. " - I guess I am dense. I guess I'm missing on how Kerry is making money off the drilling off-shore in Florida. Help me out with this one oh masterful one. Show any incling that he is making money off of this, or some reason to at least suspect it. Maybe he supports it because he honestly believes it's better than the alternitives. Maybe he supports the drilling because he knows it would help the U.S. Maybe he supports it because Bush is against it. I don't think he supports it because he's making money from it.

Just a few comments,

The Offshore Drilling was approved by the Clinton Administration, and is a federal mandate, not state.
Jeb Bush, and most of the population of Florida has opposed offshore drilling.
George Bush and Cheney, however, supported the move, due in large part to Anadarko. Anadarko is a big backer of Bush. Early in his presidency, Shell and Anadarko both went to the administration to make sure that what was started in the Clinton administration was stuck to. As far as I know, they agreed. This was never voted on by Florida voters. This was enacted by Clinton, and again endorsed by Bush. The people opposing it are Jeb Bush and the population in Florida.

Do with it what you will :)

"Comparing politics in the US to Mexico is absurd. That said, the People of Cozumel largely did oppose the new dock, but the Mexican govt isn't terribly responsive to the will of the people- at least where money is involved. " - Absurd? I agree their government is a lot more corrupt than ours. However, are you saying that the government in Alaska and in the U.S. is free from corruption, or that a politician wouldn't pick money (= jobs =more tax revenue, etc.) over the environment? Who's debating in the ANWR, the people of Alaska or the politicians.

"Again, RTFA. The Florida drilling DIDN'T go through- the Bush White House (undoubtedly responding to a request from Gov Bush) blocked it. In this case, the will of the people prevailed." - OK. Kerry supports the existing plans as I said before - "I support oil drilling in the right places," Kerry had said. "There is a capacity to protect what we have today - the protections for the coast of Florida - and still be able to drill in those locations where they're already permitting, already had the environmental impact study, they've already had the leases." I guess you automatically believe he wants to start new drilling, even though the article says that people suspect it. I see your point now.

"How this is a case of "the pot calling the kettle black" I don't know." I was referring to Jeb's critisizm of Kerry in light of GWB. I guess "irony" would have been better.

I'm just going by what the article says- that Bush blocked the offshore driling.

Who's debating in the ANWR, the people of Alaska or the politicians.

Polls- even those conducted by the environmental / socialist wackos- show that the majority of Alaskans are in favor of it.

The paper that covered the Kerry speech stands by it's story that Kerry advocated offshore Florida drilling. Their reporters were there, I wasn't. The oil companies already had the leases to drill, and drilling was approved by the Clinton administration.

Your way of quoting is a bit hard to follow so I'll try and break it down, if I screw it up please let me know or rephrase it so it can be quoted properly...

"How is Kerry going to get kickbacks? The plan is in effect already. Isn't the time for kickbacks passed already?"

You aren't very world-wise.

"Articles like these are the ones that are "biasing" my opinion.[link] You claim the opposite, where are your facts? "

So you have more than one yes? Please supply them. I mean you did use the plural form of article. Also how exactly does your provided link support your idea that Alaska would be ruined whereas Florida would be just fine? Sorry I don't see the connection.

Now for a couple of my tidbits regarding the ecosystem of Florida are to eb found here: [link] [link] [link] [link] (abstract, need a login to get the full document) [link] and [link]

Somehow your one article doesn't exactly support your opinion that the damage would be worse up there than down in Florida. Again please provide something with which you draw this conclusion, m-kay thanks.

"I just asked what I could do to show that I can be unbiased and that is your response? WOW! Instead of taking a step in the right direction, you choose the one of conflict."

Pot calling the kettle black there. Everything you've done has been as a means to cause conflict as well. What kind of reaction do you expect hmmm? Sorry, I don't bend over and take it up the ass. When you choose to act like an offended jerkoff instead of simply stating why I am incorrect and providing evidence supporting that, you'll just get it worse in the end.

Your problem, not mine.

Either way, you are still hedging around the issue. you mentioned you were a tree hugger and would side with the moose and trees first yes? I simply stated that if you were really a tree hugger and cared you would be into protecting a more unique environment that could be lost. Thus the conclusion that you are just opposing Bush comes up.

Seems like if we keep arguing on how I'm biased on everything because of Bush then we would be arguing "just for the sake of it." At least I tried to fix the situation."

Not true. Prove you aren't biased. If you aren't you should be able to do so just fine. I am stating reasons why I believe you to be so and you seem to hedge around the issue rather than answer the questions and back up your anwers.

I hardly consider your being an ass for the sake of being an ass trying to fix things. You were making a snide fucking comment and got a like comment in return. I mean really, how are you trying to resolve a conflict by stirring it up further by lableing what someone things or their opinion bullshit hmmm? Yeah, thought so. STFU.

"So what your saying is that since I chose between what I think is the lesser of two evils and I'm "biased against Bush", I'm not pro-environment?"

I'm simply stating what I see. I also stated why. So how is defiling Florida the lesser of two evils? You support the environment right? Why is Alaska so much better and worth protecting so much more? For fuck's sake the government has some of that land set aside for their damn use of resources. (the last bit may not be really relevant to the actual reason of why one state is worth saving while the other isn't so feel free to disregard. However I did state why I felt Florida was worth more.)

"I guess I am dense. I guess I'm missing on how Kerry is making money off the drilling off-shore in Florida. Help me out with this one oh masterful one."

This is you trying to resolve conflict again right? Fucking cunt.

At any rate, Kerry isn't the selfless person you're trying to paint him as. If he were true to his liberal colors he wouldn't be for defiling any of the environment. He's against trying to get more foreign oil and willing to destroy the environment for "us" right? I wonder exactly how much stock he owns in the companies that stand to profit the most, or how many campaign contributions he's received from the people who happen to benefit from these things coming to pass. (The wondering is rhetorical mind you.)

Here's just alittle tidbit:
In the presidential race, Kerry has accepted contributions from the same "special interests" he accuses Bush of being too cozy with: HMOs, drug companies and energy firms. He has raised nearly $27,000 from oil and gas companies, tops of the remaining Democratic candidates; $34,000 from health maintenance organizations, second to Dean; and $18,500 from pharmaceutical companies, third behind Dean and Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (Conn.). Even after subtracting money Kerry has raised for his presidential campaign, he ranks in the top four Senate beneficiaries of lobbyist cash, the CRP found.

From [link]

Seems like more pot calling the kettle black. The dems and libs are fond of pointing fingers then saying they don't do any wrong when you call them on the same things.

But no, he doesn't get any benefit by supporting the objective of the "enemy."

Are you done yet, or do you actually have something with which to back up your claims of not being biased, as well as your reasons for believing you have picked the "lesser of two evils?"

*waves*

Often enough and I'm talking more about the daily spills involved in boats, drops here and there form minor leaks etc. I'm not referring to the major catastrophes even though those are pretty bad.

There are "acceptable" standards for pollution and it's unfortunate. Citing the issue about having to create housing, roads etc. in Alaskan parks and the miles of pipeline etc. goes both ways. It is just as bad for the state of Florida as well.

I feel there is more we should worry about protecting in Florida at this time. My opinion may change in the future as more things are being discovered or lost but right now that's just how it is.

"Both of Alaska's senators favor drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge because it will produce revenue for their state, as well as for Eskimo tribes who live in the rugged area. So does the state's lone congressman, Republican Don Young, who came to the Senate floor for the vote. Some Republicans argued that the Senate was bucking its usual tradition of acceding to the wishes of a home state senator on a local matter." [link] I'm not arguing your point though...just an FYI.

Let me filter through all the off-topic crap and get down to the real stuff here. If you want to rant about Kerry, make a fucking forum on it. If you want to rant about liberals and dems, make a fucking forum on it.

The articles you provided said nothing about the effects of off-shore drilling to the Florida ecosystem or to the everglades. Nice sites though. The other one mentioned coral reefs. That article mentioned that they banned searching for sites for new drilling efforts. Are the sites that are currently drilling that Kerry was referring too near any coral reefs? Also, did you read in the article that I posted that the rigs actually provide a great habitat for fish and other sea life? When the rigs are finished they make for a good artificial reef for fisherman and divers to use.

I'm still not convinced that the oil-drilling is bad for the areas you mentioned. I know it could cause damage, but I still think the effects in Alaska will be greater. Here is more supporting my case. [link] - That's a long one (250pages, you can view it for free if you look). [link] [link] (that one was bush biased so take it with a grain of salt, still some very good figures/facts in here).

[link]

[link] Quoted from this last one "Oil operations on Alaska's North Slope emit more than 56,000 tons of nitrogen oxides yearly, contributing to smog and acid rain. This amount is greater than the emissions for all of Rhode Island or Vermont, and is more than twice the emission rate of Washington, DC.
Each year North Slope oil facilities emit 2 to 11 metric tons of carbon dioxide and 24,000-114,000 metric tons of methane. Both are greenhouse gases and major factors in global warming.
The Alaskan North Slope already averages one oil spill per day, involving tens of thousands of gallons of crude oil and other hazardous materials every year. From 1996-1999, approximately 1600 spills occurred. Environmental impacts of oil spills are more severe and last longer in the Arctic than in more temperate climates. "

Does that support my case at all?


"This is you trying to resolve conflict again right? Fucking cunt. " - HA! What you can't take some criticism?

"I mean really, how are you trying to resolve a conflict by stirring it up further by lableing what someone things or their opinion bullshit hmmm? Yeah, thought so. STFU. " Did I label your opinion or your thoughts (you meant "thinks" right?) bullshit? Show me...

No need to argue past this unless you want too. Again we both have our own points. I respect your's yet you do not respect mine.

If you have anything more on how I might be wrong for criticizing Jeb for criticizing Kerry on the environment, I'll listen.

"The articles you provided said nothing about the effects of off-shore drilling to the Florida ecosystem or to the everglades."

If you read them I'm sure you saw what I was pointing out regarding how they are environments worth protecting over Alaska if I had to choose right? Please, if my "crap" was so off topic perhaps you could leave the red herring at home hmmm?

"Are the sites that are currently drilling that Kerry was referring too near any coral reefs? Also, did you read in the article that I posted that the rigs actually provide a great habitat for fish and other sea life? When the rigs are finished they make for a good artificial reef for fisherman and divers to use. "

Yes they are too near the reefs. All rigs are too near the reefs. However "too near" is very subjective. I'm a diver and I like beautiful, natural reefs. The rigs cause too much pollution (in any state or country) and I again direct you to why I would rather save Florida over Alaska.

I personally DON'T think the rigs make good reefs. Sure eventually they get taken over but the damage they do before they are retired is too much and a great majority of the ecosystem is changed forever and for the worse.

There are also plenty of wrecks to dive fi you want to see rusting hunks fo metal littering the ocean. We don't need to add more. They don't provide a great habitat for life while they are in operation. Does soem life survive? Sure. However that's hardly a legitimate excuse for allowing themto be used. I mean hell, the dark moist area under your sac can support life but that doesn't make it a good thing.

"I'm still not convinced that the oil-drilling is bad for the areas you mentioned."

Funny you should say that, yet say it will mess up Alaska. The damage it will do in Alaska, it will do in Florida. That is the simplest way to put it.

Now concerning the links you provided. It is just as easy to pull up facts about how bad off shore drilling is and you can even point to other states that do it to support the argument. In general they are all bad. Now we get down to what area would suffer worse. I say Florida would and I gave you my reasons for it.

You made the claim to be a tree hugger and chose the northern state and I pretty much stated I didn't think you were because we stand to lose more in Florida. You haven't been able to contradict that but it doesn't matter. The rigs in Alaska will end up boosting the economy there somewhat. But again that doesn't matter. What matters is the apparent bias because you made a comment with seems to be contradicted by the things I'm saying as well as what you are saying. Take your spouting of numbers regarding how bad the situation would be in Alaska. It applies to the rigs as well. If you were so concerned about the environment it would seem you would want to protect the one that has the most to lose. Again I'll cite bias.

"Does that support my case at all?"

As much as it supports mine.

"HA! What you can't take some criticism? "

Oh so that's what they call it now. You being apunk bitch that can't hack it , getting flippant and throwing out snide remarks because that's all you have left. Criticism. I'll have to remember that one the next time I need to insult someone and can't be a man about it.


"" Did I label your opinion or your thoughts (you meant "thinks" right?) bullshit? Show me... "

Last I knew the term B.S. stood for bullshit. Correct me if I'm wrong. But you did saythis: "Tell me what I should include in my posts so I don't have to waste my time reading your B.S. about how I am biased."

There, I showed you. Any more schooling you'd like? I'm more than capable of giving it to you and happy to oblige.

"No need to argue past this unless you want too. Again we both have our own points. I respect your's yet you do not respect mine."

Yuo are so full of shit it's amazing. Respect my points like how I consider you biased and give you a reason? Right. You are a fucking lying cunt. Respect that dickhead. I respected you enough to give you the chance to prove my opinions wrong but you have been unable to and are getting very defensive about it. Not my problem but I will take issue with your dumb ass spouting this drivel about respect when you are so obviously full of shit.

To conclude you also very succinctly stated you disliked Bush. I'm sure you'll see the post shortly. In case you are unable to find it, it's in the WMD thread. I know you have a very bad memory so if you forget this little nugget of info provided.

"If you have anything more on how I might be wrong for criticizing Jeb for criticizing Kerry on the environment, I'll listen."

My issue wasn't about that so I won't bother getting into that little bit. I disagree and I'll leave it at that.

What was all that fictional shit you just blabbed out? Maybe you should start writing childrens books Rev. They wouldn't be able to see right through your crap as easier as everybody else does.

"To conclude you also very succinctly stated you disliked Bush. I'm sure you'll see the post shortly. In case you are unable to find it, it's in the WMD thread. I know you have a very bad memory so if you forget this little nugget of info provided. " - No shit Sherlock, I never said I didn't dislike him.

"Last I knew the term B.S. stood for bullshit. Correct me if I'm wrong. But you did saythis: "Tell me what I should include in my posts so I don't have to waste my time reading your B.S. about how I am biased." - What are we arguing about? Your opinion of me or your opinion of the oil-pumps in Florida? Did you miss the "B.S. about how I am biased." I've always respected your comments about Florida and provided evidence that counters them. Your B.S. comments are in respect to your opinion of me, which is off-topic, so STFU. Is it clear now?

"Now concerning the links you provided. It is just as easy to pull up facts about how bad off shore drilling is and you can even point to other states that do it to support the argument. In general they are all bad. Now we get down to what area would suffer worse. I say Florida would and I gave you my reasons for it. " - You asked me for proof on why I picked Alaska. I provided it. Those links are "bad" in your opinion, but they still provided a link between the effects of the pumping, the environment, and the economy. If my links were "bad", then your links must be shit because they didn't connect any of these things with exception of the rigs and the reefs. However you did not provide any connection between the sites Kerry was referring too and any reefs in the area. I'm still waiting on those posts.

Any which way this is getting boring. I do what you asked to prove my point. I did and you couldn't return the favor. You go play with your alligators and I'll feed the penguins.

"Who's getting defensive?"

You are. Just look at your posts. I know you can't admit it here so that's ok.

Take this little bit of tripe you spewed ebcause you can't defend against the truth: "What was all that fictional shit you just blabbed out? Maybe you should start writing childrens books Rev. They wouldn't be able to see right through your crap as easier as everybody else does."

Says a lot right there. You are just pathetic.


"No shit Sherlock, I never said I didn't dislike him. "

You said you weren't biased. You are. You are amusing.

"What are we arguing about?"

About how you are a liar. The rest of the crap that got involved was in support of that.

"Did you miss the "B.S. about how I am biased.""

No you did though. You asked to have it pointed out where you mentioned bullshit about my opinions, one of which was how you were biased.

"I've always respected your comments about Florida and provided evidence that counters them. "

No you haven't.

"Your B.S. comments are in respect to your opinion of me, which is off-topic, so STFU. Is it clear now?"

Very clear. You're a defensive little shit that can't hack having his ass handed to him.

"You asked me for proof on why I picked Alaska. I provided it."

No I asked for proof that you weren't biased. I also asked for your reasoning that Alaska was so much more worth of the protections when you gave yourself the moniker of tree hugger.

"Those links are "bad" in your opinion, but they still provided a link between the effects of the pumping, the environment, and the economy."

No, they were fine for another argument but they didn't do anything to counter my opinion that you are biased. Frankly, you can't counter it because you already admitted it in another thread.

"If my links were "bad", then your links must be shit because they didn't connect any of these things with exception of the rigs and the reefs."

Hah, my links were just to point out the specific qualities of the Florida ecosystem. Nothing more. It was just to show you what you were willing to throw away for a non-unique ecosystem.

"However you did not provide any connection between the sites Kerry was referring too and any reefs in the area. I'm still waiting on those posts."

Now this is just a red herring. The argument isn't about the sites Kerry is for. The argument is about your bias and how the Florida ecosystem is worth protecting and in my opinion moreso to the Alaskan one. I further gave you reasons why with those links. There are more if you want to research Florida but it isn't necessary.

"Any which way this is getting boring. I do what you asked to prove my point. I did and you couldn't return the favor. You go play with your alligators and I'll feed the penguins."

You didn't prove your point though. Heh, simply pathetic. You still refuse to address the original issue, that being your bias. I stayed on task with my posts and links, you kept trying to get away from the issue with your bullshit. Yes bullshit. You and I both know you're a biased little shithead and a liar to boot. But I do agree... this is boring.

Have a nice day remaining ignorant fucktard.

My point being that you too, are doing the same. So what does that mean? Nothing. You have nothing over me.

I did prove my point--that I had a reason to pick Alaska over Florida that was not related to GWB. If you could show me that the damage caused to Florida would be greater than Alaska, then I would most likely change my mind. However you have failed to do so and I showed DIRECT evidence of the drilling in Alaska and the environmental repercussions of doing so. Again, the only thing proven is that you are a hippocrate.

"My point being that you too, are doing the same. So what does that mean? Nothing. You have nothing over me."

Doing the same? Heh, ok. I'm lying about being biased. Mmmmhmmm. I'm ignoring the issue, yup. You're right. :rolleyes:

"I did prove my point--that I had a reason to pick Alaska over Florida that was not related to GWB."

I'm sorry but you didn't prove that point. You stated why you wanted to save Alaska sure, but you didn't say why Alaska was worth saving over Florida. How many time will we go over this? Your bias got in the way. If GWB wasn't involved and you were a true tree hugger you'd see the detrimental effect would be more severe to Florida because of the uniqueness of Florida's ecosystem. He is, you aren't.

"If you could show me that the damage caused to Florida would be greater than Alaska, then I would most likely change my mind."

I did. By using the information you cite for Alaska it can be applied to Florida. However Alaska doesn't really have anything that is unique to that area except hairspray drinking indians. Florida has more to lose. You don't want to admit it because of your bias. That's fine.

"However you have failed to do so and I showed DIRECT evidence of the drilling in Alaska and the environmental repercussions of doing so. Again, the only thing proven is that you are a hippocrate."

Ohhh this one will be fun. the "direct" evidence you supplied can be applied to Florida. Also take the evidence of drilling in the fine state of LA.

Next, learn the definition of the word hypocrite. Also learn to spell it if you are going to throw it around in a condenscending manner. Or did you actually mean a crate that contains hippos? I usually don't care about typos but please, you are trying to come off as intelligent and failing miserably. Don't hurt yourself.

Careful, your bias is showing.

Did you read what I wrote? I didn't prove why not drilling in Alaska is better than drilling in Florida. I showed why I chose not drilling in Alaska over drilling in Florida. I believe drilling in Alaska will cause more damage and I provided studies supporting my decision. That is my opinion. Show me that drilling in Florida causes more environmental downfalls over drilling in Alaska and I will change my mind.

"I did. By using the information you cite for Alaska it can be applied to Florida. " - When did you show me this proof? How can the reports I cited by applied to Florida. I'd like to see this so please show me. Your word is not good enough Rev.

"Ohhh this one will be fun. the "direct" evidence you supplied can be applied to Florida. Also take the evidence of drilling in the fine state of LA. " - When did LA come into this? Show me the connection Rev. Is this more fiction? Again I already admitted that drilling in off-shore cites does cause damage to the environment. Again I challenge you to show me that this damage is worse than drilling in Alaska.

"Next, learn the definition of the word hypocrite. Also learn to spell it if you are going to throw it around in a condenscending manner. Or did you actually mean a crate that contains hippos? I usually don't care about typos but please, you are trying to come off as intelligent and failing miserably" - Are you actually calling me on spelling errors? BLAHAHAHAHAHAHAH! Here you go, again you are a hypocrite. Thanks for the spell check though.

P.S. - If we are running a spelling bee, condescending is spelled this way.

"I believe drilling in Alaska will cause more damage and I provided studies supporting my decision."

Not quite. you provided only enough info to state that drilling is bad. It doesn't say why it's worse than drilling in Florida. You may believe it but I believe your belief is biased because Bush is involved. Hence, you're biased and unable to make a non judgemental decision on the matter.

"Show me that drilling in Florida causes more environmental downfalls over drilling in Alaska and I will change my mind. "

I already have shown you what they have that is worth saving and compared it to Alaska. Alaska doesn't really have a unique ecosystem. Thus, I made my point and showed you why I thought the way I did. I know you refuse to accept it but it's there for everyone to see.

"When did you show me this proof? How can the reports I cited by applied to Florida. I'd like to see this so please show me."

By pointing out that the detrimental effects that can be caused in Alaska can be caused anywhere else. Byproducts produced, environmental damage, etc. Look at Louisiana, they've already been through it, same crap and damage has been done. I'm sorry you choose to turn a blind eye to it but that's your problem and not mine. You are biased. Period.

"When did LA come into this? Show me the connection Rev. Is this more fiction?"

Ok cunt I know you're reaching but try to keep up. Louisiana or LA has been ruined by the offshore drilling. You asked how the drilling would ruin Florida, I gave you an example of what has already happened. The connection is plain as day if you'd just drop the fucking bias and be open minded to what others have to say. You don't have to agree but you are a close minded twit.

I disagree with you but I gave you the opportunity to prove you weren't biased. However, you were unable to do so because you ARE biased. *shrug*

"Again I challenge you to show me that this damage is worse than drilling in Alaska."

I already provided info about the ecosystem. Losing that would be worse than losing something that isn't as unique. If you were the true tree hugger you'd understand this. You sort of act like a PETA member running around half-cocked with hardly any real supportive information for your decisions. They look at only what they can use to rant and rave about something and don't look at the bigger picture and affects of the actions they support in the grand scheme of things.

"Are you actually calling me on spelling errors? BLAHAHAHAHAHAHAH! Here you go, again you are a hypocrite. Thanks for the spell check though."

And here you go again ignoring the reasons as to why. Typical behavior for a troll. Like I said I don't normally care about typos or grammar mistakes because people are human, but if you are going to be a snide little cunt and toss around words that you don't even know the definition of then I will take you down a peg before you completely lose it.

As for my typo, yes it is. I was just typing way too fast. At any rate I was a hell of a lot closer WITH a typo than you were. So to be sure I needed clarification. Were you trying to be a shithead looking down his nose at his betters, or did you try to insult me by calling my a hippo container... I was willing to wager on the former but considering how you have been completely clueless through this whole conversation I figured I could give you the benefit of the doubt one last time.

It won't happen anymore. You've run out of grace. Reap what you have sown. You have dug your hole now you'll lie in it. Hmmm how many other Cliché's can I throw in there...

You speak with a forked tongue, try to pee on my leg and tell me it's raining, blow smoke up my ass, lie like a rug.

You are as dense as a London fog. A bubble shy of plumb. Don't have both oars in the water. Few fries short of a happy meal. Your elevator doesn't go all the way up to the top floor. The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.

How about this... you're a troll.


link]" border="0">

Since I live about 30 minutes from Florida's gulf coast I damn sure don't want any drilling in the gulf. I'll pass on the large chunks of tar littering the beach and having to use turpentine to get it off your feet. Fuck that. The gulf coast is beautiful. St. George Island [link] , which is only about an hour and a half from me has been voted one of America's most beautiful beaches and I want it to stay that way.

You still cannot prove that my bias towards Bush made me pick Alaska. Show me the damage to Florida would be greater than Alaska and I will change my mind.

Could I be biased towards Alaska because I like the "ecosystem" there more? You are obviously biased towards Florida's ecosystem. You even said you like it more because you are a diver and enjoy the reefs. Well I'm a skier and a hiker and I would prefer to vacation in Alaska over Florida. If I were to be biased, it would be because of this and not because of GWB.

"Losing that would be worse than losing something that isn't as unique. If you were the true tree hugger you'd understand this." - So you are saying the ecosystem in Florida is more important than the one in Alaska? It well could be but what information do you have to back that one up?

" You sort of act like a PETA member running around half-cocked with hardly any real supportive information for your decisions" - The info I provided was more relevant than the info you provided. So tell me how you are making a better decision on this.

"Ok cunt I know you're reaching but try to keep up. Louisiana or LA has been ruined by the offshore drilling." Really? Here since you are incapable of proving anything you say except that I didn't know how to spell hypocrite I'll help you out [link] . [link] These links actually have some figures on the loss of the coastline in Louisiana. The damage is significant in Louisiana, however they are not totally sure the oil-rigs are causing the damage. It seems experts believe that the rigs could have caused between 10 and 90 percent of the damage...a very large margin.

One thing I still don't get though...how are the rigs damaging the beaches? Spills will happen in both areas (Alaska/Florida), as we previously agreed. I'll quote from the CNN link, "Jacobi says another major culprit is offshore oil drilling. "They're ruining our territory really. They're digging the canals. They're ruining the beaches," he said." It seems that the are putting canals in and tearing up beaches for a rig that is off-shore... I don't get this one. If it is off-shore, why tear up the beaches? Maybe you can help me out since you know more on this Rev. Also, could rigs be made better as to not do so much damage?

I'm still leaning towards what, I believe, is the lesser of two evils and that is Alaska. To get any good amount of oil out of there would take a huge area of land to explore and drill from (total coverage and not just the drill sites).

FYI - some more info on the original topic (the kerry bashing) supporting both sides Bush/Kerry. [link] - "He also endorsed the state's campaign to use federal royalties from offshore drilling to restore Louisiana's vanishing coastal marshes." [link]

"You still cannot prove that my bias towards Bush made me pick Alaska. Show me the damage to Florida would be greater than Alaska and I will change my mind."

First I don't have to.you admitted to being biased. Beign biased keeps you from making unbiased decisions. Hence, your bias got in the way.

Second, I already have. You are choosing to ignore it because you can't admit you are biased even when you have flat out said you are. So no, you won't change your mind. You have already proven yourself to be a liar and are just doing it again making statements like that knowing full well your needs have already been met.

"Could I be biased towards Alaska because I like the "ecosystem" there more?"

Perhaps but you said you were a tree hugger. A real tre hugger would have sided with the place that has more to lose. The rarer animals, and habitats. Note the PETA reference. They'll rant about hunting animals and not think about the population control that helps to keep OTHER ANIMALS from being killed off for good.

"You are obviously biased towards Florida's ecosystem."

Not really. I'm not letting personal feelings interfere. I would save both if I could but if I had to pick one I would choose the one that has more to lose. You can find the same ecosystem that is in Alaska elsewhere in the world. If I was biased to any ecosystem it would be Hawaii's because that is where I grew up and have a fondness for the place. The tourists have destroyed the island of Oahu and the others are not far behind.

"You even said you like it more because you are a diver and enjoy the reefs."

I can dive in Alaska too. I cited the loss of reefs as one of the reasons Florida would suffer more. Please, lets not twist things in an attempt to salvage your loss hmmm? I also hike and backpack etc. Oil rigs in Alaska wouldn't affect that.

"If I were to be biased, it would be because of this and not because of GWB."

And you are lying again. Really unbecoming.

"So you are saying the ecosystem in Florida is more important than the one in Alaska? It well could be but what information do you have to back that one up?"

I'm saying exactly what I have been saying. There is more to lose in Florida because of it's uniqueness. I have already provided you with the information. You are refusing to accept it. You are close minded because of your bias.

"The info I provided was more relevant than the info you provided. So tell me how you are making a better decision on this. "

Because I can apply the info correctly where you pick and choose what bits you want to use while ignoring the rest or refusing to accept that the same problems apply to all areas the rigs are put up.

"The damage is significant in Louisiana, however they are not totally sure the oil-rigs are causing the damage. It seems experts believe that the rigs could have caused between 10 and 90 percent of the damage...a very large margin."

Right, I'm very sure none of the studies were funder by the oil companies. Non of the "Experts" were paid for by the folks making money on the rigs. At any rate, the damage is still there and it applies to anywhere the rigs are placed, whether it's Alaska or Florida. Again, Florida has more to lose. Your bias keeps you arguing for the sake or argument.

"If it is off-shore, why tear up the beaches? Maybe you can help me out since you know more on this Rev. Also, could rigs be made better as to not do so much damage?"

Well thats kind of like the issue with the on shore rigs. Tearing up the place for roads, pileline, housing, etc. Same goes for the rigs except people get to live on the rig. They still need to have a place for the oil to go. Even the "off shore" stuff involves a lot of land use. Off shore is a bit of a misnomer because it isn't entirely just a hunk of metal sitting in one spot on the ocean.

One would hope rigs could be made better but you have to look at government regulations and businesses and how they work with eachother. The requirements are fairly minimal (my opinion) regarding spills and safety and businesses will put the least amount of money into the operation that they have to in order to operate and maximize profit. Along with that you have to deal with retarded workers who aren't necessarily the most environmentally friendly bunch. :D

The same arguments of course hold true for land based drilling. Sure the whole system could be improved with redundant piping to prevent spills and corrosion etc. but they aren't going to waste that kind of money when it is cheaper to just pay a fine. (Yes this is the bit of tree hugger coming out in me)

"To get any good amount of oil out of there would take a huge area of land to explore and drill from (total coverage and not just the drill sites)."

But they are limited to the specific portion that has been set aside for that. Also while I do agree Alaska is a beautiful area and has a lot going for it, the rigging would have the same effect as the general clear cutting for lumber in order to accomodate roads, housing, etc. For Florida, they can eliminate at least a little bit of this (living on the rig vs. buildign new housing) but they end up destroying more and not being able to use what they destroy (i.e. lumber for housing etc.)

I've seen a few pipelines before and they aren't always as intrusive and catastrophic as some folks want people to believe. The biggest concern is leaks, and fumes etc. which go on in both places.

Now regarding the Kerry/Bush thing. I hate to get into it but why should anyone want to support Kerry on this matter? He wants to do the opposite of what people seem to want. The Governor of Florida doesn't want rigs regardless of the agreements in place. Alaska seems to welcome the drilling rigs because it will boost the economy, and there IS land set aside for this.

I'll stand by my original opinion that he's just a snake looking to endear himself to many while not fully comitting to an action, riding the coat-tails of others so he can blame them if it is a big mess in the end.

But that's another rant for another day.

You claim I have all these faults yet you exhibit them yourself also. You are being biased Rev. You hate Kerry so you picked Florida over Alaska. Right? You say you picked Florida has more to loose but you can't prove that. Going by your logic (you know how my brain works since it works as everybody else's does, including your own (prove that one fucktard)), you have chosen Florida over Alaska because you do not like Kerry. Work your way out of that one.

Alaska's ecosystem can be found elsewhere? Read the article's I posted and maybe you will learn something. Since you know the worlds ecosystem where else can it be found? Why can't Florida's ecosystem be found elsewhere? Why is Florida's ecosystem more important than Alaska's? You are making no sense at this point. Frankly, they only thing you have had over me in this argument was my incorrect spelling of hypocrite. A minor mistake compared to the entire lack of logic and comparison you have shown in your arguments. What's the term? Your tin hat is...

"There is more to lose in Florida because of it's uniqueness. I have already provided you with the information" - A couple of sites about tall grass and alligators is not proof of Florida's uniqueness? Crap Rev, I got tall grass in NJ and Alligators can be found all over S.E. America.

"You are choosing to ignore it because you can't admit you are biased even when you have flat out said you are." - I'll say it again since you CANNOT GET IT INTO YOUR FUCKING SKULL...I am biased towards Bush but that bias did not affect my decision in picking Alaska over Florida. STFU about it, you have no proof to argue your point of this. You only have a bunch of illogical fiction that you have made up about me.

After your smoke and mirrors disappear Rev, what's going to left on your stage Rev? A little dancing monkey that's what. You want a banana with some of that fiction you have on your dish?

Now that I'm passed about the part you are pissing me off with. * Deep Breath * I'll try to be more friendly now.

"I'll stand by my original opinion that he's just a snake looking to endear himself to many while not fully committing to an action, riding the coat-tails of others so he can blame them if it is a big mess in the end. " I agree. He does seem to be very vague/half-commiting about things. In comparison to Bush, at least Bush is clear on his policies. People may not like them but he is definitely clear about them.

Fact about Alaska: 2000 acres are set aside for pumps. To effectively get the oil out of these 2000 acres, 1.5 million acres will be affected by roadways, pipelines, and gravel mines. Not to mention the support needed for the human elements, electricity, water, food, communications. There is a lot to loose in 1.5 million acres. Is this land more valuable than Florida? Neither of us can prove either case at this point so lets stop arguing about it. I like the trees and you like the fish. Let's drop our biases and our argument at that. OK?

"You claim I have all these faults yet you exhibit them yourself also. You are being biased Rev."

Not so. I hate both parties because they are both fuckups. So the bias doesn't really matter as they nullify eachother. I don't like Bush's policies regarding the environment for the most part.

"Going by your logic (you know how my brain works since it works as everybody else's does, including your own (prove that one fucktard)), you have chosen Florida over Alaska because you do not like Kerry. Work your way out of that one."

That made no sense whatsoever. However I have already shown why I picked Florida. I already stated I dislike Bush's policies regarding the environment. So sadly, you have nothing. Again.

The second paragraph isn't even worth addressing. You lost and can't admit it. You clearly wish to remain ignorant, a liar, and in general a child so that's your choice and it is something you have to live with.

"A couple of sites about tall grass and alligators is not proof of Florida's uniqueness?"

Again ignoring what damages your argument. Very sad. Very pathetic. I pity you.

"STFU about it, you have no proof to argue your point of this. You only have a bunch of illogical fiction that you have made up about me."

I have proof and have shown that proof. Sorry but your bias does influence you. It's keeping you from admitting the truth now. The only fallacies in logic that are running rampant are yours chum. As for making things up... I don't need to. You have clearly stated the issues yourself.

"After your smoke and mirrors disappear Rev, what's going to left on your stage Rev? A little dancing monkey that's what. You want a banana with some of that fiction you have on your dish? "

I suppose I could feed you a banana. But if you already have one to offer then I suppose I don't need one to feed your dancing ass. Your logic fails yet again.

"Now that I'm passed about the part you are pissing me off with. * Deep Breath * I'll try to be more friendly now. "

Oh you POOR VICTIM. You are a biased little liar. Plain and simple. Don't like it? STFU then. People will call you on each and every glaring error you make. I'll dig a bit deeper and really give it to you.

Now regarding your comment about acerage loss. Do you really believe we'll lose 1.5 million square acres for those 2k? Florida also has trees. Perhaps you missed that when looking for your referencs to grass and aligators. The Florida wetlands are unique. If you want to see more of alaska, just look at all the northern Canadian territories. But OK we'll drop it so we can stop hearing you whine (even though you are unable to set aside your biases.)

"Do you really believe we'll lose 1.5 million square acres for those 2k?" - Nope, but I believe they will be all affected in some way. Stop hearing me whine, what about you. How are you being any different than I?

"Oh you POOR VICTIM" - Huh, a victim of what? You? Don't give yourself so much credit.

"That made no sense whatsoever. However I have already shown why I picked Florida. I already stated I dislike Bush's policies regarding the environment. So sadly, you have nothing. Again. " - It made sense little troll. Answer the question, don't weasel out of it with an attack on me. And I wasn't referring to a bias on Bush you fucktard. Read the FUCKING WORDS where it says you are biased towards Kerry. Damn you are so frigging stupid. "So sadly you have nothing, again."

"I have proof and have shown that proof." - Again I will ask the question (what is it, six, seven times now?). Show me the proof that I have picked Alaska over Florida because I am biased towards Bush. What logic are you including in your argument that supports this? Saying that I admitted to being biased towards Bush is not enough since that does not answer the question. I am not ignoring any facts about anything. I should be ignoring you though.

"I have proof and have shown that proof. Sorry but your bias does influence you." - You have tried to show that Florida's ecosystem is more important than Alaska's. You did a shitty job at it and I even through you a banana and gave some hard facts supporting your argument. Bottom line is neither of us can prove which are is more important. When it comes down to it our biases of the areas are what is driving the decisions. End of argument 1. Argument 2, again show me how my bias towards Bush caused me to pick Florida over Alaska? I'll say it twice in this post so hopefully you will actually answer the question with some logic and evidence that both pertain to the question and not your fictional gibberish. Do not bring up the comparisons of the ecosystems of Florida and Alaska. They have nothing to do with me and GWB.

The only one that has lost is you Rev. You must be getting hungry dancing around so much. Are you sure you want to give up your banana?

Hey I found a toy for my little monkey-boy [link] No monkey boy that's not a banana! ;)