Quote:
Originally posted by Dave Jackson:
Jack and Jacob:

You are digressing. Osama bin Laden had NOTHING to do with our current environmental issues, so I will not take the time to point out that one of you is horribly misinformed and the other is completely baseless.

ET (liked your movie but refuse to play $25 to see it remastered with my family, sorry):

I don't recall anyone blaming the current administration for the mismanagement of the last 100 years as, obviously, that would be ridiculous. Instead, we are talking about his actions over the last 14 months that have obviously had a decidedly anti-environment bend to them. From pushing to open up that plot of land in Alaska for oil drilling (would take YEARS to develop and supply only 6 months of oil) to appointing a woman to the head of the EPA whose trying to limit the amount that a company can be charged to help clean a superfund site that THEY polluted. There's a larger list of his "accomplishments" that I have at home that I'd be happy to put up here for those who want to know.

In short, Bush has proven that he will completely disregard environmental concerns so that his corporate buddies that paid for his campaign will get paid back tenfold. Anyone who has so far tried to argue against this fact has not shown where this is incorrect and has, instead, mounted a failed effort to deflect it off to some other unrelated tangent.

Also, don't get me started with Clinton. That ******* was more right of center than some moderate Republicans, and otherwise would have BEEN a Republican except for some leftover beliefs from his college days somehow sticking around. Not that he DID anything with them.
Estimates indicate that there is most likely near 10 years worth of oil up there, not 6 months.