So what do the Liberals do now that Saddam is captured?

Quote from C Robinson:

wow......i didn't realize you were so effected.
More...

advice to you: don't try to be funny when you're not.

not "a"ffected at all. just retaliation for months of his psycho behavior. The most pleasing form of revenge is a successful retaliation. Ask President Bush.

I am pleased.
 
Quote from James Stock:

.........so no other innocent people are the subject of this whacko's pycho behavior.
More...

can i get a spell check please? now, what were you saying about Bush?
 
Quote from C Robinson:



can i get a spell check please? now, what were you saying about Bush?
More...

Look, don't be upset that I corrected you on affected. So you made a mistake. But that's not to be confused with typing quickly and missing a letter.

Geez, you represent echotrade, 'nough said!
 
Quote from Pabst:

Football players are winners. Not many lib pricks in the NFL. :D
More...

You must have a lot of friends...... "lib pricks"???

So let me understand....a person's political beliefs (in your world) determines what kind of person they are over-all? You only respect, admire, hang out with and can be friendly with "non lib pricks"?

If your definition, as I understand it, is anything like Maverick's of what a "liberal" is, then in essence, you believe the vast majority of Americans must be "liberals" and therefore "pricks".

Keep up your open- mindedness. You are a credit to you very vocal and very small minded minority. And again, as I told Maverick, you are completely non-representative of the true American spirit.

peace,
RS
 
PARANOIA SELF DESTROYA!

This guy is really a piece of work.

Why would anyone want to follow this moron around on this website . . . If the demons get too strong for you, try using the IGNORE BUTTON.

:D
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote from Tech Analysis:


James -

I see you regged in Dec 2003 but remember Inandlong from before ("Hey - Good to see you back again")

Might you be one of those with multiple aliases?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

:confused:
 
Quote from ARogueTrader:

Posted on Sun, Dec. 14, 2003

Let it flow, let it flow?
By Molly Ivins
Creators Syndicate

I can't tell whether this administration is flaunting its cynicism, its contempt for science or its conviction that, when in power, you help your contributors and fry your enemies -- although how millions of small children and unborn fetuses came to be enemies of George W. Bush & Co. is beyond my political or theological understanding.

We are talking about the rollback announced last week in regulating mercury pollution. Except, of course, that it wasn't announced as a rollback -- it was announced as a great step forward.

This raises the always timely question "How dumb do they think we are?," and this time the answer is, "Profoundly dumb," because it is real hard to get fooled by this one. You look at the numbers and tell me.

Mercury is a neurotoxin that damages the brains and nervous systems of fetuses and young children and probably affects adults as well. It is one of the suspected, though not proven, causes of recent increases in autism, Parkinson's and Alz-heimers. It is known to cause learning and attention disabilities and mental retardation.

Eight percent of American women of childbearing age al-ready have mercury in their blood above the Environmental Protection Agency's "safe level."

Mercury emissions from power plants get into rain clouds and come down in lakes and rivers, poisoning fish and the people who eat them. Coal-fired power plants are the largest source of mercury, spewing 50 tons a year into the air -- about 40 percent of the total.

In December 2000, the EPA issued a finding requiring the maximum amount of technically achievable reduction in mercury. This was expected to result in a 90 percent mercury reduction by 2007.

Instead, the new EPA proposals downgrade mercury emissions -- particularly mercury emissions from the utility industry -- by taking it out of the "hazardous pollutant" category.

It would be funny if it weren't so sad.

Simply by implementing the laws already on the books, annual mercury emissions from power plants could be reduced to 5 tons annually by 2007. But Bush's EPA introduced a new plan last week to cap emission at 34 tons a year by 2010 and then 15 tons by 2018.

This means hundreds of more tons of mercury discharged during the next 15 years, and that many more children born brain-damaged. I'd really like to know if John Graham, Bush's cost-benefit guru at the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, factored in the cost of special ed, health care and caretaking for those kids.

The good news is that this will save the utility industry hundreds of millions of dollars -- worth every retarded child, eh?

Besides, the coal industry contributed more than $250,000 to Bush's last campaign, and you didn't. John Walke, clean air director of the Natural Resource Defense Council, called it "a grotesque giveaway."

The truth is that the EPA is doing nothing about mercury pollution. The decrease to 34 tons a year is a byproduct of new filtering requirements for nitrogen (causes smog) and sulfur dioxide (causes acid rain), which aren't much to write home about, either.

Mike Leavitt, new head of the EPA, defended the proposal as an emissions-trading program, like the one that has reduced acid rain. But the Environmental Defense Fund, which has endorsed the use of market-based, cap-and-trade systems for reducing some pollutants, is appalled by the mercury decision and apparently not comforted by the EPA's decision to change mercury's classification.

One reason that cap-and-trade won't work on mercury pollution is that it is pretty much site-specific. It hangs around the neighborhood it comes from, so you get dangerous pockets of it.

In a nicely dovetailed bureaucratic action, the Food and Drug Administration chimed in with a new, softer advisory on mercury-contaminated fish consumption.

Consumers Union believes that the new FDA advisory is so vague as to which fish are likely to have concentrations of mercury (those at the top of the fish food chain) that it is largely useless.

I once heard a Texas politician being begged to consider doing something "for the children of Texas." He inquired back, "Do the little bastards have a PAC?"

Well, no they don't. But they have mommies.

Their mommies can read numbers. Their mommies know the difference between 50 tons a year and 5 tons a year. Mommies know what a campaign contribution is. Mommies can tell the difference between a cynical sack of excrement and safe babies.

Mommies can get very angry.
More...

Yeah, and if environmentalists weren't completely Junk Scienced up we would have nuclear energy to spare, no mercury pollution at all.
 
Quote from Error 404:



You must have a lot of friends...... "lib pricks"???

So let me understand....a person's political beliefs (in your world) determines what kind of person they are over-all? You only respect, admire, hang out with and can be friendly with "non lib pricks"?

If your definition, as I understand it, is anything like Maverick's of what a "liberal" is, then in essence, you believe the vast majority of Americans must be "liberals" and therefore "pricks".

Keep up your open- mindedness. You are a credit to you very vocal and very small minded minority. And again, as I told Maverick, you are completely non-representative of the true American spirit.

peace,
RS
More...

You're right, RS. Most liberal's aren't pricks. They're illogical dildos.
 
Quote from maxpi:



Yeah, and if environmentalists weren't completely Junk Scienced up we would have nuclear energy to spare, no mercury pollution at all.
More...

Maybe you got your sides mixed up.

I don't think that's the case at all. At least for me. I'm a pseudo-enviro-nut and I pray for the day when nuc-a-lar power will take over.

The problem is the fossil fuels lobby which, the last time I looked, had a pretty good grip on the white house.

Most enviro-nuts out there aren't anti-nuclear power at all. Most sensible people, however, realize that nuc-a-lar power plants need to be placed far enough away from major cities to deter terrorist attacks. But with the exception of that, nuclear power kicks major ass. It hardly pollutes (plus all of the waste is gone within a few hundred years, far quicker than many of today's plastics), the waste, although expensive to store, is pretty low volume compared to the tons of soot and acid that rain down in the skies near a coal plant, is cheaper and easier to deal with than the downstream effects of global warming produced by fossil fuels, BLAH BLAH BLAH. Not to mention higher health costs for fossil fuels. Believe it or not, you could have 5 chernobyls every year and the resulting health costs would still be lower than the health costs incurred as a result of all the illnesses caused by mercury, lead, soot, etc. The deaths from coal/oil/gas aren't as dramatic as those from nuclear waste or accidents. And power plants outside of 3rd world and communist countries are pretty goddamn safe.

A little factoid -- there is more energy in the thorium in the earth's crust than all other fossil fuels combined (totally ignoring all the other forms of atomic energy). Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

Bottom line -- there is no better power than nuclear power right now. Yeah, you can say "but solar power and windmills and hydro-electric are totally clean and renewable and BLAH BLAH BLAH..." but the reality is that nobody wants fuckin' wind mills everywhere (ever been to Palm Springs?) or solar panels everywhere (ever been to Phoenix?? I gotta admit, the solar panels do look pretty fuckin' kewl, though) and that shit is SO much more expensive per KW than nuc-a-lar right now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top