Page 1 of 1
One major reason Bush needs to be beaten with a stick
Posted: 2002-11-21 03:52am
by Ewo
This is mostly some old news but since there was a post about Gore possibly being president, I thought I would share a few words about Bush. I had done a lot of research last year on the oil crisis when the government wanted to invade the Artic National Wildlife refuge to drill for oil. I am trying to work in conservation right now, so I have a huge backgroud on this stuff.
First off, most of Bush's campaign funds came from his oil supporters in Texas, where he was governor (in secret meetings held in 1999, Shell, Mobil, and Exxon gave him $58,900). They would pay him off for public immunity to their pollution levels as well.
Second, the first things Bush does in office are lighten all of the restrains put in place by the EPA (environmental protection agency) during the Clinton administration, which included increasing the acceptable levels of arsenic in the drinking water!
Third, here are a few sites for you to check out what he has done lately and how for over the past year at least, top EPA officials have been resigning in frustration. It is like they are fighting against the president when they are supposed to be working with him. To me, aside from anything doing with terrorism, Bush is a crappy president with a limited view of the future. IF he can't see that what he is doing is killing us, then Fuck him. I hope he gets arsenic poisoning or gets burned in an oil spill while at his ranch in Texas. I have a lot more to say on the issue and hundreds of sources, but was wondering how many people were aware of this and if they hate Bush too?
http://www.democrats.org/news/200203050003.html
http://www.nrdc.org/bushrecord/2002_07.asp#1016
Re: One major reason Bush needs to be beaten with a stick
Posted: 2002-11-21 04:02am
by haas mark
Ewo wrote:This is mostly some old news but since there was a post about Gore possibly being president, I thought I would share a few words about Bush. I had done a lot of research last year on the oil crisis when the government wanted to invade the Artic National Wildlife refuge to drill for oil. I am trying to work in conservation right now, so I have a huge backgroud on this stuff.
First off, most of Bush's campaign funds came from his oil supporters in Texas, where he was governor (in secret meetings held in 1999, Shell, Mobil, and Exxon gave him $58,900). They would pay him off for public immunity to their pollution levels as well.
Of course he held caucus.....but it suprises me sometimes that he would be intelligent enough to do somethinhg like that. And I can't believe that he would accept bribes. That makes me dislike him even more.
Second, the first things Bush does in office are lighten all of the restrains put in place by the EPA (environmental protection agency) during the Clinton administration, which included increasing the acceptable levels of arsenic in the drinking water!
I knew this........I can't believe he would do something like that! I mean, seriously, why, as the leader of a nation, put your citizens in danger in such a way? Incredibly Fucking Stupid, if you ask me.
Third, here are a few sites for you to check out what he has done lately and how for over the past year at least, top EPA officials have been resigning in frustration. It is like they are fighting against the president when they are supposed to be working with him. To me, aside from anything doing with terrorism, Bush is a crappy president with a limited view of the future. IF he can't see that what he is doing is killing us, then Fuck him. I hope he gets arsenic poisoning or gets burned in an oil spill while at his ranch in Texas. I have a lot more to say on the issue and hundreds of sources, but was wondering how many people were aware of this and if they hate Bush too?
http://www.democrats.org/news/200203050003.html
http://www.nrdc.org/bushrecord/2002_07.asp#1016
I don't really take to looking at the pages too much, but I second the sentiment. He should suffer through what he is putting millions of citizens through, in the long-term.
Posted: 2002-11-21 07:38am
by Mr Bean
Ok lets see
First off, most of Bush's campaign funds came from his oil supporters in Texas, where he was governor (in secret meetings held in 1999, Shell, Mobil, and Exxon gave him $58,900). They would pay him off for public immunity to their pollution levels as well.
Two parts to this
First 58,900$? HA! Thats it? Give you a comparsion, Gore Accepted Nearly 240,00$ From the Chinese Busnessmen, I'm suprised they gave him so little!, Oh and second part, I'll belive that when I see it, and so far I have not seen it
Second, the first things Bush does in office are lighten all of the restrains put in place by the EPA (environmental protection agency) during the Clinton administration, which included increasing the acceptable levels of arsenic in the drinking water!
Your single one is redicilous, Sure on the level that SOUNDS Bad,(Increasing Arsenic in water supply sounds like=bad thing)
However as it should be noted Bush "increased" them back to the previous standered set in 94 by the Goverment (Washington Post 2001) after Clinton in his last moments of office issued a few hundred presidential orders one of which was reducing the amount of arsenic put into the water by roughly sixfold the already low levels would nessitate a huge invenstment in equipment and increaese distillation times as before I I remeber correclty it was one part per 14,750 parts of water(If you drank the water it would take sixty gallons before you got the equivlant of one breath of Ciggar smoke worth of arsneic... pretty good I'd say) while Clinton in his last moments increased it to rougly 89.000 parts... A BIG jump when one is talking about such things as it means alot of extra work
Bush is a crappy president with a limited view of the future. IF he can't see that what he is doing is killing us, then Fuck him. I hope he gets arsenic poisoning or gets burned in an oil spill while at his ranch in Texas. I have a lot more to say on the issue and hundreds of sources, but was wondering how many people were aware of this and if they hate Bush too?
Threating the Sitting President is a crime, Please provided you Address so I can send Black Helecopters to your present location
Bush has yet to do anything to seriously fuck anything up yet, Drilling in the Alaskan Nature Preserve is not a insanly large problem as most make it out to be, Sure an oilspill could ruin it... So could a Oil Spill along Floridia Beachs but you don't see Floridians batting an eye when Oil Tankers pass within Ten Miles of the state.
Most of what I've heard over and over agian when it comes to drilling up there is
"What if thiers an oil spill?" "Just think what would happen if an oil spill occured!
Ect, Ect, I hear little else in the News about this except about the Threat of Oil Spills...
It was even jokeingly suggest if we only allowed Quadruple Titanium hulled Oil Tankers up how about then, the Seirra Club man on the show said no those could easily break apart...
Fokes, A Quad Titatinium Hull could probably absorb five or six Harpoon missles before it even touched the inner hull.... Maybe we could convice them if we started Ramming the Coast on purpose that it might be alot safer from Oil spill chances than the existing ones
Re: One major reason Bush needs to be beaten with a stick
Posted: 2002-11-21 09:29am
by jegs2
Ewo wrote:This is mostly some old news but since there was a post about Gore possibly being president, I thought I would share a few words about Bush. I had done a lot of research last year on the oil crisis when the government wanted to invade the Artic National Wildlife refuge to drill for oil. I am trying to work in conservation right now, so I have a huge backgroud on this stuff.
First off, most of Bush's campaign funds came from his oil supporters in Texas, where he was governor (in secret meetings held in 1999, Shell, Mobil, and Exxon gave him $58,900). They would pay him off for public immunity to their pollution levels as well.
Second, the first things Bush does in office are lighten all of the restrains put in place by the EPA (environmental protection agency) during the Clinton administration, which included increasing the acceptable levels of arsenic in the drinking water!
Third, here are a few sites for you to check out what he has done lately and how for over the past year at least, top EPA officials have been resigning in frustration. It is like they are fighting against the president when they are supposed to be working with him. To me, aside from anything doing with terrorism, Bush is a crappy president with a limited view of the future. IF he can't see that what he is doing is killing us, then Fuck him. I hope he gets arsenic poisoning or gets burned in an oil spill while at his ranch in Texas. I have a lot more to say on the issue and hundreds of sources, but was wondering how many people were aware of this and if they hate Bush too?
http://www.democrats.org/news/200203050003.html
http://www.nrdc.org/bushrecord/2002_07.asp#1016
You're a DNC operative, aren't you? All of the above parrots many liberal Democrat speaches I've heard before. Why don't I hate Bush? Frankly, I place economic well-being
and the price I have to pay for fuel
above considerations for the environment. Does that mean I don't
care about the environment? No. I just means that I care
less about the envioronment than the price of fuel, the readiness of the US Armed Forces to engage and destroy its enemies, and the security of the nation. As an apparent environmentalist, you obviously feel differently. There appear to be more folks out there who value my opinion than value yours (most of Gore's votes
not being based upon his concern for the environment, but instead other issues). It is understandable that you and others who think like you will dislike Bush. Nonetheless, I don't see Environmentalism
ever being a
deciding factor in any presidential election.
Re: One major reason Bush needs to be beaten with a stick
Posted: 2002-11-21 09:40am
by Darth Wong
jegs2 wrote:Frankly, I place economic well-being and the price I have to pay for fuel above considerations for the environment. Does that mean I don't care about the environment?
It takes balls to say that. It's the way most people feel (just look at how people vote on environmental issues as soon as they realize they'll get hit in the pocketbook or at the gas tank), but
very few will admit it openly.
Re: One major reason Bush needs to be beaten with a stick
Posted: 2002-11-21 11:40am
by meNNis
*snip*
jegs2 wrote: Why don't I hate Bush? Frankly, I place economic well-being and the price I have to pay for fuel above considerations for the environment. Does that mean I don't care about the environment? No. I just means that I care less about the envioronment than the price of fuel, the readiness of the US Armed Forces to engage and destroy its enemies, and the security of the nation. As an apparent environmentalist, you obviously feel differently. There appear to be more folks out there who value my opinion than value yours (most of Gore's votes not being based upon his concern for the environment, but instead other issues). It is understandable that you and others who think like you will dislike Bush. Nonetheless, I don't see Environmentalism ever being a deciding factor in any presidential election.
i agree whole heartedly my friend
Re: One major reason Bush needs to be beaten with a stick
Posted: 2002-11-21 12:08pm
by Stravo
Ewo wrote:This is mostly some old news but since there was a post about Gore possibly being president, I thought I would share a few words about Bush. I had done a lot of research last year on the oil crisis when the government wanted to invade the Artic National Wildlife refuge to drill for oil.
INVADE the Artic National Wildlife refuge...since when is it invasion to go into your OWN land, land I might add that the government donated to the cause. The US has the largest wildlife reserves on the continent and I'm pretty sure the world as well, look at Yosemite and Yellowstone...these are MASSIVE tracts of land set aside for presevation...oh that EVIL government.
First off, most of Bush's campaign funds came from his oil supporters in Texas, where he was governor (in secret meetings held in 1999, Shell, Mobil, and Exxon gave him $58,900). They would pay him off for public immunity to their pollution levels as well.
Oh YEAH, the Marc Rich pardons and the Chinese investors and the WHite House sleepovers in the Lincoln bedroom....SHUT THE FUCK UP ASSHOLE!!! It's $58,900 and you obviously have not put a SINGLE thought into that claim. The Democrats have been WHORES for decades on the money issue and you have the balls to whip this out as some sort of indictment?? Christ blind liberal fundies like you make me ill. Before you go point out the mote in your neighbor's eye, go pull the beam out of yours, assmonkey.
In additon I suppose that in a democracy a corporation has NO RIGHTS whatsoever eh? A company can't give money to a candidate that they support? Since when? Do we want to start saying that just because you're a big corporation that you have no rights to support those that support your agenda, that you cannot give money to those that you wish to give money to, that somehow it is immoral and evil for an oil company to support a candidate that will help them instead of hinder them yet the democrats and their allies, they can do as they please to support their candidates, give me a fucking break.
You don't like living in a capitalist democracy I suggest many other nations with a lower standard of living and a far worse environemntal record that you can go to.
Second, the first things Bush does in office are lighten all of the restrains put in place by the EPA (environmental protection agency) during the Clinton administration, which included increasing the acceptable levels of arsenic in the drinking water!
OH my god, am I surprised to see an unfounded assertion that Bush is somehow poisoning all of America?!? Thats right, the Republicans are soooo evil, they LIVE to kill Americans lsowly and painfully...unfortunately you can't have that fate.
Third, here are a few sites for you to check out what he has done lately and how for over the past year at least, top EPA officials have been resigning in frustration. It is like they are fighting against the president when they are supposed to be working with him. To me, aside from anything doing with terrorism, Bush is a crappy president with a limited view of the future. IF he can't see that what he is doing is killing us, then Fuck him. I hope he gets arsenic poisoning or gets burned in an oil spill while at his ranch in Texas. I have a lot more to say on the issue and hundreds of sources, but was wondering how many people were aware of this and if they hate Bush too?
Oh yeah, good points one and all...a crappy president with lack of vision. He lacks so much vision that we are prosecuting a war on terror and identifying threats to this nation, threats democrats were more than willing to overlook.
Your list of sites is understandably biased my good friend, go pedal this shit somewhere where people care and dream of a nice socialist state they can live in.
http://www.democrats.org/news/200203050003.html
http://www.nrdc.org/bushrecord/2002_07.asp#1016
Posted: 2002-11-21 01:12pm
by phongn
Mr Bean wrote:First off, most of Bush's campaign funds came from his oil supporters in Texas, where he was governor (in secret meetings held in 1999, Shell, Mobil, and Exxon gave him $58,900). They would pay him off for public immunity to their pollution levels as well.
Two parts to this
First 58,900$? HA! Thats it? Give you a comparsion, Gore Accepted Nearly 240,00$ From the Chinese Busnessmen, I'm suprised they gave him so little!, Oh and second part, I'll belive that when I see it, and so far I have not seen it
Yes, I'd like to see the source for that allegation as well (not the China one, the Shell/Mobil/Exxon one). Multiple ones if possible, I've not been able to see anything of the sort on OpenSecrets.
A BIG jump when one is talking about such things as it means alot of extra work
IIRC, Clinton dropped it to 10ug/L from the previous standard of 50ug/L, which Bush countermanded. The EPA supports the 10ug/L standard (though their preference is 5ug/L) , but I'm currently rooting through the research to see the effects.
The EPA estimate:
EPA estimates that reducing arsenic from 50 to 10 µg/L will prevent ~ 19-25 cases of lung cancer and ~ 16-22 deaths due to lung cancer per year. In addition to these quantified benefits, there are substantial non-quantified benefits of this rule, including reducing the incidences of non-cancerous effects summarized above
It would affect appoximately 12.7 million persons.
It will cost:
EPA estimates the total national annualized costs of treatment, monitoring, reporting, recordkeeping, and administration for this rule to be approximately $181 million (using 1999 dollars at a three percent discount rate - Table 2). Most of the cost is due to the cost of installing and operating the treatment technologies needed to reduce arsenic in public water systems (both CWSs and NTNCWS). EPA estimates the total treatment cost to be approximately $177 million per year. Annual monitoring and administrative costs will be about $2.7 million and States' costs will be approximately $1 million.
(
A CWS is a public water system that serves at least 15 locations or 25 residents regularly year round (e.g., most cities and towns, apartments, and mobile home parks with their own water supplies). An NTNCWS is a public water system that is not a CWS and serves at least 25 of the same people more than 6 months of the year (e.g., schools, churches, nursing homes, and factories).)
Bush is a crappy president with a limited view of the future. IF he can't see that what he is doing is killing us, then Fuck him. I hope he gets arsenic poisoning or gets burned in an oil spill while at his ranch in Texas. I have a lot more to say on the issue and hundreds of sources, but was wondering how many people were aware of this and if they hate Bush too?
Threating the Sitting President is a crime, Please provided you Address so I can send Black Helecopters to your present location
Well, he wanted POTUS to die, though he didn't actually threaten him
(But yes, threatening him is a
bad idea. You may receive a visit from some unhappy authorities.)
Bush has yet to do anything to seriously fuck anything up yet, Drilling in the Alaskan Nature Preserve is not a insanly large problem as most make it out to be, Sure an oilspill could ruin it... So could a Oil Spill along Floridia Beachs but you don't see Floridians batting an eye when Oil Tankers pass within Ten Miles of the state.
OTOH, you should have seen the uproar when they proposed drilling.
Posted: 2002-11-21 01:20pm
by Ewo
Mr Bean wrote:Ok lets see
Two parts to this
First 58,900$? HA! Thats it? Give you a comparsion, Gore Accepted Nearly 240,00$ From the Chinese Busnessmen, I'm suprised they gave him so little!, Oh and second part, I'll belive that when I see it, and so far I have not seen it
Your single one is redicilous, Sure on the level that SOUNDS Bad,(Increasing Arsenic in water supply sounds like=bad thing)
However as it should be noted Bush "increased" them back to the previous standered set in 94 by the Goverment (Washington Post 2001) after Clinton in his last moments of office issued a few hundred presidential orders one of which was reducing the amount of arsenic put into the water by roughly sixfold the already low levels would nessitate a huge invenstment in equipment and increaese distillation times as before I I remeber correclty it was one part per 14,750 parts of water(If you drank the water it would take sixty gallons before you got the equivlant of one breath of Ciggar smoke worth of arsneic... pretty good I'd say) while Clinton in his last moments increased it to rougly 89.000 parts... A BIG jump when one is talking about such things as it means alot of extra work
Threating the Sitting President is a crime, Please provided you Address so I can send Black Helecopters to your present location
Bush has yet to do anything to seriously fuck anything up yet, Drilling in the Alaskan Nature Preserve is not a insanly large problem as most make it out to be, Sure an oilspill could ruin it... So could a Oil Spill along Floridia Beachs but you don't see Floridians batting an eye when Oil Tankers pass within Ten Miles of the state.
Most of what I've heard over and over agian when it comes to drilling up there is
"What if thiers an oil spill?" "Just think what would happen if an oil spill occured!
Ect, Ect, I hear little else in the News about this except about the Threat of Oil Spills...
It was even jokeingly suggest if we only allowed Quadruple Titanium hulled Oil Tankers up how about then, the Seirra Club man on the show said no those could easily break apart...
Fokes, A Quad Titatinium Hull could probably absorb five or six Harpoon missles before it even touched the inner hull.... Maybe we could convice them if we started Ramming the Coast on purpose that it might be alot safer from Oil spill chances than the existing ones
Great points Bean. I respect that you just aren't trashing what I said but have stuff to back it up. I am not saying that I would like Gore either. Personally, I hate politics altogether. The $58,900 isn't a lot and there was a heck of a lot of support from the oil companies at many other instances. I can actually give some other examples later tonight and the sources if you want to see.
Oil spills aren't my primary concern either for drilling in Alaska. There are quite a few protected species of animals on the refuge who would have trouble surviving if we drilled for oil. Aside from the actual drilling, roads and buildings would be erected which would cut right through most of the preserve. IF they are going to do this, then they might just as well not call it a wildlife refuge anymore.
As for arsenic levels, that was just one example. I am really concerned that lots of EPA officials have been quitting for the same reasons; they don't want to keep "fighting" the president on environmental issues. I don't want any terrorist related politics to take a back burner to enviro issues but I don't think that they should be ignored altogether.
Plus, I didn't say I wanted to kill the president, just that I hoped he would happened into some unfortunate circumstances, ones that I wouldn't necessarily control but he could get caught in on his own.
Re: One major reason Bush needs to be beaten with a stick
Posted: 2002-11-21 01:27pm
by Knife
jegs2 wrote:Ewo wrote:This is mostly some old news but since there was a post about Gore possibly being president, I thought I would share a few words about Bush. I had done a lot of research last year on the oil crisis when the government wanted to invade the Artic National Wildlife refuge to drill for oil. I am trying to work in conservation right now, so I have a huge backgroud on this stuff.
First off, most of Bush's campaign funds came from his oil supporters in Texas, where he was governor (in secret meetings held in 1999, Shell, Mobil, and Exxon gave him $58,900). They would pay him off for public immunity to their pollution levels as well.
Second, the first things Bush does in office are lighten all of the restrains put in place by the EPA (environmental protection agency) during the Clinton administration, which included increasing the acceptable levels of arsenic in the drinking water!
Third, here are a few sites for you to check out what he has done lately and how for over the past year at least, top EPA officials have been resigning in frustration. It is like they are fighting against the president when they are supposed to be working with him. To me, aside from anything doing with terrorism, Bush is a crappy president with a limited view of the future. IF he can't see that what he is doing is killing us, then Fuck him. I hope he gets arsenic poisoning or gets burned in an oil spill while at his ranch in Texas. I have a lot more to say on the issue and hundreds of sources, but was wondering how many people were aware of this and if they hate Bush too?
http://www.democrats.org/news/200203050003.html
http://www.nrdc.org/bushrecord/2002_07.asp#1016
You're a DNC operative, aren't you? All of the above parrots many liberal Democrat speaches I've heard before. Why don't I hate Bush? Frankly, I place economic well-being
and the price I have to pay for fuel
above considerations for the environment. Does that mean I don't
care about the environment? No. I just means that I care
less about the envioronment than the price of fuel, the readiness of the US Armed Forces to engage and destroy its enemies, and the security of the nation. As an apparent environmentalist, you obviously feel differently. There appear to be more folks out there who value my opinion than value yours (most of Gore's votes
not being based upon his concern for the environment, but instead other issues). It is understandable that you and others who think like you will dislike Bush. Nonetheless, I don't see Environmentalism
ever being a
deciding factor in any presidential election.
Whew, now I don't have to say it.
Now while I really want a viable electric car, and other niffty things that would save money, oil, and the enviroment I realize that just going cold turkey on oil is not the way. The previous administrations (note the plural) have seriously cut back on our ability to make our own black stuff. This makes us depend on suck lovely places like the middle east who plenty of people want us to keep our nose out of. So wich one do you want: the US to make its own oil and to deal with the problems inherit with it or to depend on getting oil from an unstable, political hot bed like the middle east that we have to use influence to make sure the fuel of our vehicles, industry, ships, and econemy keeps flowing thus getting us the disdain of other countries.
As for the rest, Campaign finance is a joke and any meaningfull reform is a long way from coming at this point. But if you think that Bush getting 50 grand from a special interest group is an eye opener, you need to look a little deeper into the subject. 50 grand is a drop in the bucket for politicians and their special interest group buddies.
Posted: 2002-11-21 01:32pm
by Knife
They do not want to put an oil rig on every square inch of ANWAR. I don't remeber the actual number of acres but it was rather small in comparison to the total size of the reserve.
Plenty of species "survive" with human inovations in their habitat. Just having a rig or a pipe line or ect. in the area does not mean the carribou or elk will drop dead just by seeing it.
Also I might be wrong but does not modern day oil operations have to put up insurance money to clean up any mess they might make or clean up any accidents? Just because you think it would be an affront for a deer to live in sight of a pipeline doesn't mean I want to pay $5 a gallon.
Posted: 2002-11-21 02:21pm
by Ewo
Right, getting the oil from the refuge isn't going to cause the caribou to drop dead but it will disrupt migration lines across the refuge. This will in turn cause their population to decrease.
I have spent the better half of the morning trying to track down a few sources but have to put it at a standstill until later tonight. Again, I know 50 grand isn't a lot, but it was the context that it was under. The oil companies as a whole supplied Bush with most of his campaign money. I can give totals soon. I didn't think there would be such a response to the remark.
Lastly, even if we had total access to all the world's oil, we should keep in mind that we are almost a the peak of oil "production". After this, we will have to drain the harder to reach resources and then what? I think the government needs to put a little more money into things like the hybrid car and other transport means to counter the oil shortage that will undoubtedly occur within the next few decades.
Posted: 2002-11-21 02:29pm
by Joe
Bah, we're not in danger or running out of fossil fuels anytime soon.
And Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge is just a fancy name for "vast, frozen, desolate, mosquito-ridden wasteland."
Posted: 2002-11-21 02:34pm
by Mr Bean
Right, getting the oil from the refuge isn't going to cause the caribou to drop dead but it will disrupt migration lines across the refuge. This will in turn cause their population to decrease.
IMO in the existing Drilling Locations they Simply rasied the Pipe-Line Ten feet off the Ground, after a week the local caribou ignore it and go right about Migrating
Lastly, even if we had total access to all the world's oil, we should keep in mind that we are almost a the peak of oil "production". After this, we will have to drain the harder to reach resources and then what? I think the government needs to put a little more money into things like the hybrid car and other transport means to counter the oil shortage that will undoubtedly occur within the next few decades
What do we do?
Go Nuclear Simple, (OMG! Scaaaaaaaaary Nuclear Power Plants, BOO!
)
Posted: 2002-11-21 02:36pm
by Joe
Mr Bean wrote:Right, getting the oil from the refuge isn't going to cause the caribou to drop dead but it will disrupt migration lines across the refuge. This will in turn cause their population to decrease.
IMO in the existing Drilling Locations they Simply rasied the Pipe-Line Ten feet off the Ground, after a week the local caribou ignore it and go right about Migrating
Lastly, even if we had total access to all the world's oil, we should keep in mind that we are almost a the peak of oil "production". After this, we will have to drain the harder to reach resources and then what? I think the government needs to put a little more money into things like the hybrid car and other transport means to counter the oil shortage that will undoubtedly occur within the next few decades
What do we do?
Go Nuclear Simple, (OMG! Scaaaaaaaaary Nuclear Power Plants, BOO!
)
I don't think we can do that, too many small-minded bigots out there who are terrified of nuclear power, which in reality isn't all that dangerous and probably fairly clean compared to many other forms of energy (burning coal, for example). I think we're stuck with oil for a while.
Posted: 2002-11-21 03:02pm
by Ted
Mr Bean wrote:Threating the Sitting President is a crime, Please provided you Address so I can send Black Helecopters to your present location
Why is it a crime to threaten PotUS, when it isn't a crime to threaten anyone else? Wasn't it Abe Lincon who said no-one is above the law?
Mr Bean wrote:Bush has yet to do anything to seriously fuck anything up yet, Drilling in the Alaskan Nature Preserve is not a insanly large problem as most make it out to be, Sure an oilspill could ruin it... So could a Oil Spill along Floridia Beachs but you don't see Floridians batting an eye when Oil Tankers pass within Ten Miles of the state.
Most of what I've heard over and over agian when it comes to drilling up there is
"What if thiers an oil spill?" "Just think what would happen if an oil spill occured!
It wasn't an oil spill that was the problem, it was the fact that the last remaining large caribou herds migrated across where the proposed pipe-line would have gone, preventing them from reaching their major feeding ground in the summer.
Also, it would've taken land away from the Inuit without any recompense.
Posted: 2002-11-21 03:05pm
by Mr Bean
Why is it a crime to threaten PotUS, when it isn't a crime to threaten anyone else? Wasn't it Abe Lincon who said no-one is above the law?
Exuse me Ted but it IS a Cimre to threaten anyone however the President understanbly gets much faster response time than anyone else
It wasn't an oil spill that was the problem, it was the fact that the last remaining large caribou herds migrated across where the proposed pipe-line would have gone, preventing them from reaching their major feeding ground in the summer.
They already got around that problem, In the regions where drilling goes on they rasied the Pipe line until it was ten feet in the air, and as they though the Caribou ignored it
Also, it would've taken land away from the Inuit without any recompense.
The Inuit don't live there the US Goverment owns that land FYI
Posted: 2002-11-21 07:40pm
by Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi
Really, the only land being affected by oil drilling in AWNR would be 2,000 acres of rocks and tundra. It's not like we're strip-mining Mount McKinley.
It also seems that some environmentalists seem to be opposed to any power source. Hydroelectric power harms the fish. Wind power is harmful to birds. Solar panels have toxic paint. Nuclear power is "dangerous" (The only problem with nuclear, IMO, is disposing of the waste). And so on.
Re: One major reason Bush needs to be beaten with a stick
Posted: 2002-11-21 08:28pm
by Enlightenment
Ewo wrote:I have a lot more to say on the issue and hundreds of sources, but was wondering how many people were aware of this and if they hate Bush too?
Shut up. Has no one told you that criticising a Republican president during wartime is unAmerican and treasonous? Report to the reeducation camp immediately.
Posted: 2002-11-21 08:49pm
by phongn
Mr Bean wrote:Why is it a crime to threaten PotUS, when it isn't a crime to threaten anyone else? Wasn't it Abe Lincon who said no-one is above the law?
Exuse me Ted but it IS a Cimre to threaten anyone however the President understanbly gets much faster response time than anyone else
I realise Ted is from Canada, but I would not be suprised if someone from one of his own government agencies would give a person a nice little chat as well should they threaten POTUS.
It wasn't an oil spill that was the problem, it was the fact that the last remaining large caribou herds migrated across where the proposed pipe-line would have gone, preventing them from reaching their major feeding ground in the summer.
They already got around that problem, In the regions where drilling goes on they rasied the Pipe line until it was ten feet in the air, and as they though the Caribou ignored it
I've heard rumours that the caribou are beginning to consider the Pipeline a safe-zone because you aren't supposed to discharge a weapon within a considerable distance from it.
Re: One major reason Bush needs to be beaten with a stick
Posted: 2002-11-21 08:50pm
by phongn
Enlightenment wrote:Ewo wrote:I have a lot more to say on the issue and hundreds of sources, but was wondering how many people were aware of this and if they hate Bush too?
Shut up. Has no one told you that criticising a Republican president during wartime is unAmerican and treasonous? Report to the reeducation camp immediately.
Any other wonderfully constructive comments to add, Enlightenment?
Re: One major reason Bush needs to be beaten with a stick
Posted: 2002-11-21 11:11pm
by Enlightenment
phongn wrote:Any other wonderfully constructive comments to add, Enlightenment?
Sure. Americans are
ignoring these little problems with Shrubby because it's viewed as unAmerican to criticise the US president during wartime. It's simply one of the larger flaws in (what passes for) American culture that dissent isn't socially tolerated.
Posted: 2002-11-21 11:19pm
by Mr Bean
Sure. Americans are ignoring these little problems with Shrubby because it's viewed as unAmerican to criticise the US president during wartime. It's simply one of the larger flaws in (what passes for) American culture that dissent isn't socially tolerated.
Realy? When CNN anchors called the President a Warmongerer for three weeks I don't recall them being shiped off
To quote Jefferson, Dissent is the lifeblood of discusion but one should never dissent simply TO dissent
Re: One major reason Bush needs to be beaten with a stick
Posted: 2002-11-22 02:10am
by Knife
Enlightenment wrote:phongn wrote:Any other wonderfully constructive comments to add, Enlightenment?
Sure. Americans are
ignoring these little problems with Shrubby because it's viewed as unAmerican to criticise the US president during wartime. It's simply one of the larger flaws in (what passes for) American culture that dissent isn't socially tolerated.
Ignoring? What the hell are you talking about? There has been nothing BUT criticism and dissent for 6 months now. Try purusing just about any news channel, newspaper, news magazine, and any political rag to find some criticism of the President.