• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Alaska ANWR Leases Have a Buyer!

Well if we are factoring human health effects of oil, then oil is massively overpriced. If we eliminated the use of oil tomorrow literally 8 billion people would die. So oil is in fact a magical elixir sustaining the life of billions of human beings.

And by attempting to choke out the supply of oil, you are now a genocidal maniac thousands of times worse than Hitler.
Your gonna need a source for that fat one. By the way, it's been proven that being born will lead to the death of over 7 billion people on the planet now.
 
They can't even drive their electric vehicles without oil. They may not need the fuel, but they still need the lubricant and they need those asphalt roads to drive upon. I won't even bother to get into the all polypropylene and polyethylene products made from oil.

The problem with leftists, besides being uneducated, is that they are very myopic. Unable to see anything beyond their delusional agenda.
And it’s wierd that when these people demand we accept some contrived measure of how much oil really costs because there’s environmental and social costs to using oil, they never seem to ever apply that to battery production or production of windmill turbines which wear out and have to be built such they cannot be recycled.

of course they will in the future. The batteries and solar panels and windmills are a smoke screen so they can insist now that a cost free alternative is coming so they can eliminate fossil fuels, once they achieve their objective they’ll start applying the test to batteries and renewable power and declare we must have population control and live in pods in big cities and eat bugs.
 
Your gonna need a source for that fat one. By the way, it's been proven that being born will lead to the death of over 7 billion people on the planet now.
Lol ok man. The very idea you can run agriculture without modern transportation and technology sufficienct to feed the global population is so loony toons it’s obvious you’re just an activist with no respect for complex systems.
 
Lol ok man. The very idea you can run agriculture without modern transportation and technology sufficienct to feed the global population is so loony toons it’s obvious you’re just an activist with no respect for complex systems.
So in your eyes we should just continue using a finite resource. What happens when supplies become too expensive? It is a complex system, that's why it needs to be prepared for another model.
 
So in your eyes we should just continue using a finite resource. What happens when supplies become too expensive? It is a complex system, that's why it needs to be prepared for another model.
No, but there’s a mechanism for this, when a resource becomes scarcer then price goes up, which will either make more resources that were previously too expensive to extract profitably become viable, or will encourage more efficient use, and will encourage development of alternative systems, this process occurs naturally, no one had to ban the use of coal in ships or the use of horse drawn carts in cities. I have no problem with alternative energy, I have a problem with the idea that advancement of technology should be advanced by technocratic central control.

there is no good reason not to allow ANWR oil development since there is still market uses for oil.
 
No, but there’s a mechanism for this, when a resource becomes scarcer then price goes up, which will either make more resources that were previously too expensive to extract profitably become viable, or will encourage more efficient use, and will encourage development of alternative systems, this process occurs naturally, no one had to ban the use of coal in ships or the use of horse drawn carts in cities. I have no problem with alternative energy, I have a problem with the idea that advancement of technology should be advanced by technocratic central control.

there is no good reason not to allow ANWR oil development since there is still market uses for oil.
There is every good reason. First, stop talking about the free market relating to oil and gas, it doesn't exist. Second, no oil will flow from there for 10 years. While finite, we are in no danger of running out of oil in the near term. Third, guns and butter. Every dollar we spend on a resource that is dying is a dollar that isn't spent developing the new technology needed.
 
So in your eyes we should just continue using a finite resource.
Absolutely.
What happens when supplies become too expensive?
Alaska, Texas, and other resource dependent States become very wealthy.
It is a complex system, that's why it needs to be prepared for another model.
We also have coal.

Alaska is also the world's largest producer of lead and zinc, which are also finite. Like the gold, silver, and other heavy metal resources are all finite. That doesn't mean we shouldn't exploit, use, and profit from them.
 
Absolutely.
Alaska, Texas, and other resource dependent States become very wealthy.
We also have coal.

Alaska is also the world's largest producer of lead and zinc, which are also finite. Like the gold, silver, and other heavy metal resources are all finite. That doesn't mean we shouldn't exploit, use, and profit from them.
Lead has substitutes, zinc not so much. Fossil fuel has substitutes, Earth, not so much. Hey if AK is so wealthy, why don't you guys pay your fair share for government services rendered. AK is a taker state. Raise your taxes or cut your services. It's only fair.
1611084243979.png
 
Lead has substitutes, zinc not so much. Fossil fuel has substitutes, Earth, not so much. Hey if AK is so wealthy, why don't you guys pay your fair share for government services rendered. AK is a taker state. Raise your taxes or cut your services. It's only fair.
If there was a substitute for lead Alaska would not be the world's largest producer. There is also no substitutes for oil for numerous products. You are so myopic and uneducated that you can think of only one use for oil. There are many uses for oil, and they do not all have substitutes.

Your lack of education is showing yet again. The reason Alaska receives more federal funds than its population contributes is because there are more federal assets in Alaska. Alaska has Fort Richardson, Fort Wainwright, Fort Greely, Eielson AFB, Elmondorf AFB, Clear AFS, Coast Guard bases in Kodiak, Valdez, and Juneau, as well as several National Missile Defense bases in various locations. How many States, besides Alaska, have nine military bases? Then there are all the federal agencies, from the Bureau of Land Management and FBI to the National Park Service and Federal Aviation Administration (Alaska has a lot of airports).

The federal government is obviously willing to spend a great deal more in Alaska than in any other State on a per capita basis. If you have a problem with that take it up with Congress, it has nothing to do with Alaska.

Alaska has no sales or income taxes, and it will stay that way as long as we have resources to sell.
 
If there was a substitute for lead Alaska would not be the world's largest producer. There is also no substitutes for oil for numerous products. You are so myopic and uneducated that you can think of only one use for oil. There are many uses for oil, and they do not all have substitutes.

Your lack of education is showing yet again. The reason Alaska receives more federal funds than its population contributes is because there are more federal assets in Alaska. Alaska has Fort Richardson, Fort Wainwright, Fort Greely, Eielson AFB, Clear AFS, Coast Guard bases in Kodiak, Valdez, and Juneau, as well as several National Missile Defense bases in various locations. Then there are all the federal agencies, from the Bureau of Land Management and FBI to the National Park Service to the Federal Aviation Administration (Alaska has a lot of airports).

The federal government is obviously willing to spend a great deal more in Alaska than in any other State on a per capita basis. If you have a problem with that take it up with Congress, it has nothing to do with Alaska.

Alaska has no sales or income taxes, and it will stay that way as long as we have resources to sell.
Nope. State dependency is based on Federal benefits provided not federal dollars spent. AK is more dependent on other states largesse than all but 5 other states. Your lack of taxes is a stain on your state. Cut your services or raise your taxes.
What use of oil has no substitute. Plastic bags? Asphalt? Medicines? Nope.
 
So in your eyes we should just continue using a finite resource. What happens when supplies become too expensive? It is a complex system, that's why it needs to be prepared for another model.

Paving the east side of the Kinik let all the brush apes out to go screaming to Anchorage yelling, "Drill baby drill". Then they put in electricity and made it even easier to spread their 19th century philosphy of resource rape. Alaska ain't what it used to be.
 
Nope. State dependency is based on Federal benefits provided not federal dollars spent. AK is more dependent on other states largesse than all but 5 other states. Your lack of taxes is a stain on your state. Cut your services or raise your taxes.
What use of oil has no substitute. Plastic bags? Asphalt? Medicines? Nope.
Ok then lobby congress to cut federal benefits. It is not in anyone’s control how much the feds choose to spend. There is no such thing as a “taker state” that is a political term used by leftists to shame state governments because the federal government chose to come spend money, usually on projects that don’t benefit the state in question like federal land management agencies.
 
no, none of that is socialism. I get the feeling that I’m one of only five people in the whole country who has actually read Marx.

clearly no one on the left has.
If you say you waded through Das Kapital I call bullshit. Confirmed, cocooned academics call it too academic for human consumption. It works good as a doorstop though, if you have a single volume copy, or to hold down the tarp on your woodpiles.
 
If you say you waded through Das Kapital I call bullshit. Confirmed, cocooned academics call it too academic for human consumption. It works good as a doorstop though, if you have a single volume copy, or to hold down the tarp on your woodpiles.
By “too academic” what they really mean is that it is a giant load of nonsense.

reading that book about ten years ago was what confirmed to me the universities should be purged. I have very good reading comprehension, my state used to give standardized tests for it and my score sheet would include state ranking, I was in my year in 4th, 8th, and 10th grade ranked in the top tenth percentile in the state.

so if I cannot understand a book it’s not because I’m too stupid, it’s because the author can’t write, or the translator couldn’t translate.
 
By “too academic” what they really mean is that it is a giant load of nonsense.

reading that book about ten years ago was what confirmed to me the universities should be purged. I have very good reading comprehension, my state used to give standardized tests for it and my score sheet would include state ranking, I was in my year in 4th, 8th, and 10th grade ranked in the top tenth percentile in the state.

so if I cannot understand a book it’s not because I’m too stupid, it’s because the author can’t write, or the translator couldn’t translate.
Trying to get through Das Kapital told you universities should be purged?
Say, do you know what temperature causes a book to burst into flames?
 
Trying to get through Das Kapital told you universities should be purged?
Say, do you know what temperature causes a book to burst into flames?
I can read the words just fine, Marx is clearly an idealogue trying to shoehorn an ideology into a book. It is incoherent, and historically proven false. The fact only Russia in Europe actually had the communist Revolution proves Marx wrong anyway.

I read another book that insisted the temperature is 451 degrees Fahrenheit. Is it? I dunno.

let’s ask these based Chilean patriots

Chile_quema_libros_1973.JPG
 
I can read the words just fine, Marx is clearly an idealogue trying to shoehorn an ideology into a book. It is incoherent, and historically proven false. The fact only Russia in Europe actually had the communist Revolution proves Marx wrong anyway.

I read another book that insisted the temperature is 451 degrees Fahrenheit. Is it? I dunno.

let’s ask these based Chilean patriots

Chile_quema_libros_1973.JPG
Incoherent and historically proven false doesn't equal useless. Mein Kampf is incoherent at a different level and just as historically false but it doesn't mean universities should be purged. Everything anyone has ever published needs to be available in universities. Think of it as like biodiversity. As long as Marx's incoherence is there in all It's glory it can be scorned by successive classes of freshmen but if you purge it a new Marx will inevitably emerge into the void left behind and that one might be a better writer. Nature abhorring vacuums as she does.
 
Ok then lobby congress to cut federal benefits. It is not in anyone’s control how much the feds choose to spend. There is no such thing as a “taker state” that is a political term used by leftists to shame state governments because the federal government chose to come spend money, usually on projects that don’t benefit the state in question like federal land management agencies.
Pull your head out of the sand. Taker states are states that receive more in Federal benefits than they produce in federal tax revenue. It's not a left thing, although left states tend to have higher tax rates and wealthier residents. States that don't tax enough to support themselves should be shamed. Why should CA tax dollars support another states expenses?
 
Pull your head out of the sand. Taker states are states that receive more in Federal benefits than they produce in federal tax revenue. It's not a left thing, although left states tend to have higher tax rates and wealthier residents. States that don't tax enough to support themselves should be shamed. Why should CA tax dollars support another states expenses?
No, that is a comparison of federal spending. Not federal benefits. I really don’t have a problem with cutting the amount of tax dollars spent on maintaining a war machine facing Russia. Because I actually kind of like Russia. So if California residents want to not have their tax dollars go to funding are overwhelming military presence in Alaska, fine by me.
 
No, that is a comparison of federal spending. Not federal benefits. I really don’t have a problem with cutting the amount of tax dollars spent on maintaining a war machine facing Russia. Because I actually kind of like Russia. So if California residents want to not have their tax dollars go to funding are overwhelming military presence in Alaska, fine by me.
If you compare federal spending all states would be taker states.
 
Well OK then there’s nothing to argue about.
Nothing if you use your faulty equation. Something when we talk about states not paying their share and relying on other states to support them.
 
Nothing if you use your faulty equation. Something when we talk about states not paying their share and relying on other states to support them.
No, I’m using the equation that you use to get these numbers. You are using a contrived scheme
 
No, I’m using the equation that you use to get these numbers. You are using a contrived scheme
"The WalletHub analysts essentially asked how much each state receives back as a return on its federal income-tax investment. They compared the 50 states and the District of Columbia on three metrics: 1) federal spending per capita compared with every dollar paid in federal income taxes; 2) the percentage of a state’s annual revenue that comes from federal funding; and 3) the number of federal employees per capita. The third measure received only half the weight of each of the others in the calculation."
 
Trump administration issues last-minute Arctic refuge drilling leases

The Trump administration said on Tuesday it had issued drilling leases on more than 400,000 acres (160,000 hectares) of Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), delivering on a promise to fossil-fuel proponents on President Donald Trump's last full day in office.

...

The Bureau of Land Management's Alaska office said it had issued nine of the 11 leases that received bids at the agency's Jan. 6 auction. It is still working on issuing the remaining two, a spokesman said.

The Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority, which was the sole bidder for most of the acreage sold, was issued seven leases. The remaining two were issued to Alaska real estate company Knik Arm Services LLC and Regenerate Alaska Inc, a unit of Australia's 88 Energy Ltd, BLM said.

In a statement, BLM Alaska State Director Chad Padgett called the issuance "a hallmark step and a clear indication that Alaska remains important to meeting the nation's energy needs."

They need to sit on those leases until 2024, because they are not going to get the federal permits to sink wells while anti-American leftist filth are in the White House.
 
Back
Top Bottom