I'm going insane!!!

I'm doing research right now for the Pro's of drilling in ANWR, and all the websites I view that are FOR it are Repukes and Freepers. They are disgusting and making me sick!

I have to do the "pro" side of drilling in ANWR and give a presentation on it next week for my Conservation Biology class...and since all five of us in my group were against drilling in ANWR, we had to draw straws to see who would argue FOR and AGAINST drilling in ANWR.

I got the longest straw. :(

Pretty Easy To Argue The Case.

That is the arguement. Develop that. And don't care about the wildlife. That's all you need to do. Good luck.

the economics, jobs, and the potential revenue for drilling in ANWR. My partner David has to do the other things for it.

Poor David.

Not really about ANWR but the Nation has a good article out about the Exxon Valdez and how it has never repaid the huge economic losses suffered by the locals. For instance, a man paid $1 million dollars for a fishing lease, which is now worth $60,000, wiping out his family's future. By filing endless appeals, Exxon never has to pay their claims. Many once well-to-do fishing families are bankrupt, and several heads of families have committed suicide. This kind of thing has a dampening effect on the local economy.

Fishing, guiding, trekking etc. can all be HUGE sources of income for small business/unemployed, and if this income is wiped out by ANWR or by a pipeline related accident then it's a big economic impact that truly hurts individuals and families. All for a few internat'l companies to take the money out of Alaska and to a corporate HQ in Houston or perhaps overseas?

I think you are going to have a tough row to hoe, trying to prove any real economic benefit, without out-and-out lying by omission. I feel for you.

I'm going to have to figure out a way to make the economics of drilling in ANWR seem so positive...I may even have to lie.

I'm gonna be a Republican that day. :cry: :cry: :cry: :grr: :grr: :grr:

I should say a disclaimer before or after we're done with our presentation...saying something like: "I'm really against drilling in ANWR. The "facts" and figures I'll be giving you will have been heavily bloated and made-up to fit the Republican agenda. Everything I will say has been proven to be false by the scientific community." or something to that effect.

You could use arguments like 'Eliminating pesky wildlife' Or position that clean air, water, and land is overrated....

(sorry wish I could be helpfull, good luck!)

I would feebly argue that all that oil under the ground is POISONING endangered species...........

Other than that I haven't a clue....the conservatives can't even say that the oil under ANWR is enough to decrease our dependence from imports.

As an environmentalist, I might suggest to you that you address the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge by it's given name, as the term "ANWR" was developed by energy executives and their lobbyists to attempt to make it sound faceless in the face of Congress. By the progressives and environmentalists calling it "ANWR" we are defacing it's true purpose as a wildlife refuge.

Im not trying to be anal or pretend to be one of those "holier than thou" environmentalists, Im just pointing out the fact that calling it "ANWR" the energy industry/lobby wins.

however many opt against walking to the store.

which there is NOT, then you've got to step up to the plate, and face the pitcher.
The other tactic is to say:
The Bush Administration says...
The Republicans say...
The Oil Companies say...
Wall Street says...
Then you can end it by saying:
I was directed to present the pro side of drilling in ANWR, I've done that, it has not changed my mind, and HAS ONLY SERVED TO STRENGTHEN MY RESOLVE AGAINST IT!
Actually, you may have drawn the longest straw! Good luck!
:hi:

That's a good idea. I'll use those phrases. You're a genius!

http://www.senate.gov/src/agenda/index.cfm?fuseaction=ViewArticle&article_id=93

:puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: