You're viewing part of a thread.
Sorry, I just realized - that quote you gave, claiming was in my sourced link.. isn't. I just re-read it and did multiple searches. After googling your quote, I found it on a separate doi.gov article. So, thanks for mocking me for something you didn't check. You also highlighted that he had from 2021 as well, so I don't even know why you're using that as an argument. He still had 2 years.
But you're right. When I saw that like 85% of the argument of this claim is for hitting 'undo', I assumed that the 2023 date was due to political delay for posterity, not political delay per the status quo. My bad.
as the link in your source, notes…
But the largest land conservation move this year was the administration’s return to President Barack Obama’s National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) Integrated Activity Plan for the Western Arctic, which closed nearly 11 million acres to oil and gas leasing. While this was not a new protection under Biden, it restored protections that were removed under the Trump administration.
Thanks for not checking your own attempt at a 'gotcha'.
You also highlighted that he had from 2021 as well, so I don’t even know why you’re using that as an argument. He still had 2 years.
... Jesus Christ. I legitimately can't tell if you're being serious right now.
Dude, THAT quote is in my link. Yeah.
In the Arctic Refuge, Secretary of the Interior Deb Haaland has authorized the cancellation of the remaining seven oil and gas leases issued by the previous administration in the Coastal Plain. The leases were suspended in June 2021 following the issuance of Secretary’s Order (S.O.) 3401, which identified “multiple legal deficiencies in the underlying record supporting the leases.”
THIS ONE wasn't.
Edit: OK, I see what you're saying now, but you removed the OTHER hyperlink from that quote to make it readable, and there are no less that 40 links in this article. My apologies for not clicking through each and every linked article before responding. Jesus.
My apologies for not clicking through each and every linked article before responding. Jesus.
Perhaps just the ones relevant to the point you were making would have been a wise choice.
YOU used that as a counter-claim that it was done 2023 because the leases were suspended in 2021.. as a claim for 2023 being a record year? Obviously I'm not pre-researching potential counter-claims to my argument that don't make any sense.
Now, to clarify, are you arguing that the 11 million acres were ACTUALLY protected in 2021 (making the meme false) or are you saying that he DIDN'T wait, but 2023 is the earliest it could have happened? Because in that case, it would seem like you should've posted something further along the timeline than from Jan 2021 to July 2021.
YOU used that as a counter-claim that it was done 2023 because the leases were suspended in 2021… as a claim for 2023 being a record year?
No, as a counter-claim that the finalization in 2023 was just 'waiting' until the last minute, when the suspensions in 2021 show that the process had been ongoing. Jesus Christ, have you never interacted with the government at all? Do you think it works like a vending machine? Push a button, and get what you want five seconds later?
Now, to clarify, are you arguing that the 11 million acres were ACTUALLY protected in 2021 (making the meme false) or are you saying that he DIDN’T wait, but 2023 is the earliest it could have happened? Because in that case, it would seem like you should’ve posted something further along the timeline than from Jan 2021 to July 2021.
Why?
Yes, he did step 1 in January 2021. It was resolved in July 2021. What THEN?
I've already admitted that I didn't check WHY it was delayed and just assumed, but you're coming at me like I should have this concrete knowledge that of COURSE it took until September 2023, 'because see, I have proof from July 2021. Case closed.'
You assuming the government is working at its top speed of 'incredibly slow' and my assuming that the government is working at its exact speed of 'wait until you can get votes out of it' are neither proven nor disproven by the article you linked, meaning you're just shouting a data point at me that has no bearing on literally anything. I'm trying to understand why you're shilling so hard for this meme, when it is such a flimsy argument at best.
Yes, he did step 1 in January 2021. It was resolved in July 2021. What THEN?
... it wasn't resolved in July. It was suspended.
Oh, Christ.
Actually the 'It' I was referring to was the fact that Biden passed the Executive Order in January and then the Secretary of Interior passed the Secretary's Order 3401. 'Resolved' may not be the correct terminology, but since you're ignoring 85% of your own argument, it makes sense that you ignore 85% of mine.
The remaining seven leases held by the sole lessee covered 365,000 acres in the Coastal Plain.
Oh, also, those leases that you're hyper-focused on account for less than half a percent of the conserved 10.6 million acres.
Actually the ‘It’ I was referring to was the fact that Biden passed the Executive Order in January and then the Secretary of Interior passed the Secretary’s Order 3401. ‘Resolved’ may not be the correct terminology, but since you’re ignoring 85% of your own argument, it makes sense that you ignore 85% of mine.
So your argument is that because the suspension occurred, the issue was resolved, despite the fact that the suspension was only the first major step in the process.
Jesus Christ.
Oh, also, those leases that you’re hyper-focused on account for less than half a percent of the conserved 10.6 million acres.
Okay...
-
365,000 is ~3.5% of 10.6 million. That failure to fact check even your most basic assertions tracks with your conduct thus far.
-
I didn't 'hyper-focus' on those leases. I pointed out that the suspension of those leases was the first step in the process. If you can't even be arsed to read the sources, I don't really know what you expect. Me to spoon-feed you?
We're done here.
You've routinely ignored the majority of my posts for insignificant details while ignoring giant glaring issues. 88% of your original argument is just hitting 'undo' from the worst president for the environment in history. (No i didnt fact check because you'll just respond to it instead of the rest of this.)
The meme is bad and I'm sorry if it's OC, because it reads like simping for Biden in a Trumpian way. There's better propaganda.
-