by raising the allowable arsenic level in our water to 5 times what it was
under Clinton, GW is poisoning our babies!

I don't like people who lose us 3 million jobs, squander our surplus, rape
the environment, steal our right to privacy, reward the wealthy, screw the
poor & middle class hard working people, make backroom kickback deals with
big oil & drug companies and poison the babies!

--





-------------------------------
Spam catcher!
-------------------------------

arizona cowboy wrote:

by raising the allowable arsenic level in our water to 5 times what it was
under Clinton, GW is poisoning our babies!



I believe he raised the limit back to exactly what it was during the
Clinton administration.

Regards,
Bob

zxcvbob wrote:
arizona cowboy wrote:

by raising the allowable arsenic level in our water to 5 times what
it was under Clinton, GW is poisoning our babies!



I believe he raised the limit back to exactly what it was during the
Clinton administration.

Regards,
Bob

Hey are you trying to spoil a good whine with FACTS?

--
Ed

http://pages.cthome.net/edhome

arizona cowboy cacheoverflowATyahoo.com wrote:
by raising the allowable arsenic level in our water to 5 times what it was
under Clinton, GW is poisoning our babies!

I don't like people who lose us 3 million jobs, squander our surplus, rape
the environment, steal our right to privacy, reward the wealthy, screw the
poor & middle class hard working people, make backroom kickback deals with
big oil & drug companies and poison the babies!

So who's perfect?

"arizona cowboy" cacheoverflowATyahoo.com wrote in

I don't like people who lose us 3 million jobs, squander our surplus,
rape the environment, steal our right to privacy, reward the wealthy,
screw the poor & middle class hard working people, make backroom
kickback deals with big oil & drug companies and poison the babies!

Am I correct in assuming that you've considered voting for someone else?


--
Dan Goodman
Journal http://dsgood.blogspot.com or
http://www.livejournal.com/users/dsgood/
Whatever you wish for me, may you have twice as much.

"arizona cowboy" cacheoverflowATyahoo.com wrote in
:

by raising the allowable arsenic level in our water to 5 times
what it was under Clinton, GW is poisoning our babies!

I don't like people who lose us 3 million jobs, squander our
surplus, rape the environment, steal our right to privacy, reward
the wealthy, screw the poor & middle class hard working people,
make backroom kickback deals with big oil & drug companies and
poison the babies!

You forgot to add: and blame it all on desperately impoverished
nations.

--

"I'm the master of low expectations."

GWB, aboard Air Force One, 04Jun2003

On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 22:50:24 -0500, "arizona cowboy"
cacheoverflowATyahoo.com wrote:

by raising the allowable arsenic level in our water to 5 times what it was
under Clinton, GW is poisoning our babies!

I don't like people who SNIP poison the babies!
Yes, it is much better to rip them apart in the uterus and then vacuum
them out.

"arizona cowboy" cacheoverflowATyahoo.com wrote in message ...
by raising the allowable arsenic level in our water to 5 times what it was
under Clinton, GW is poisoning our babies!

I don't like people who lose us 3 million jobs, squander our surplus, rape
the environment, steal our right to privacy, reward the wealthy, screw the
poor & middle class hard working people, make backroom kickback deals with
big oil & drug companies and poison the babies!

Pardon my french but why is it *always* about the ****ing babies? Old
people don't count? Teens? Middle agers? The Environment? Birds?
Squirrels? Grasshoppers? Why, whenever something bad happens to an
adult, is it "...a child could have been hurt/killed"? Sorry, but
Charles Manson (et.al.) was a baby once too, ya know.

Sheesh!

-L.
(Who likes babies just fine but also values other forms of life and
doesn't think one is inherently more deserving than the other, despite
the cries of "The BABIES!! WHAT ABOUT THE BABIES!?!)

by raising the allowable arsenic level in our water to 5 times what it was
under Clinton, GW is poisoning our babies!

Do you know what the allowable level of arsenic in water is? Did you know that
arsenic occurs naturally in water??

Rosie

Do you know what the allowable level of arsenic in water is? Did you know
that
arsenic occurs naturally in water??

Rosie

so does mercury and lead, but I don't want them in my children's water
either

are you retarded from lead in your water, and that makes you make such
stupid statements?

(-L.) wrote in message om...
"arizona cowboy" cacheoverflowATyahoo.com wrote in message ...
by raising the allowable arsenic level in our water to 5 times what it was
under Clinton, GW is poisoning our babies!

I don't like people who lose us 3 million jobs, squander our surplus, rape
the environment, steal our right to privacy, reward the wealthy, screw the
poor & middle class hard working people, make backroom kickback deals with
big oil & drug companies and poison the babies!

Pardon my french but why is it *always* about the ****ing babies? Old
people don't count? Teens? Middle agers? The Environment? Birds?
Squirrels? Grasshoppers? Why, whenever something bad happens to an
adult, is it "...a child could have been hurt/killed"? Sorry, but
Charles Manson (et.al.) was a baby once too, ya know.

Sheesh!

-L.
(Who likes babies just fine but also values other forms of life and
doesn't think one is inherently more deserving than the other, despite
the cries of "The BABIES!! WHAT ABOUT THE BABIES!?!)


Thank you. I was trying to figure out a way to say this, and along
came your post.

Cindy Hamilton

"arizona cowboy" cacheoverflowATyahoo.com wrote:

Do you know what the allowable level of arsenic in water is? Did you
know
that
arsenic occurs naturally in water??

so does mercury and lead, but I don't want them in my children's water
either

are you retarded from lead in your water, and that makes you make such
stupid statements?

Perhaps, if you knew the facts, you wouldn't have had the response you did
in the first place. When Clinton left office, he signed an executive order
to have the levels of arsenic lowered to 20% of the then current level
within 6 years. This order was based on no scientific data and had no
direct support from any scientific body, but it *did* create a major
financial cost if it were to be implemented. When Bush came into office, on
of the things his administration did was to validate this EO from the
Clinton administration. With real scientific data, the Bush administration
found that the current levels were perfectly safe. So, Bush countered
Clinton's executive order and declared the current levels (which gives the
only factual tidbit to your statement, since the current leves are 5 times
what Clinton's EO *intended* to achieve, at great costs and with little
benefit) to be safe. He then effectively tossed out Clinton's
scientifically unsupported ordered that would have done little more than
cause the Bush administration to spend alot of money for no improvement.

--
Darryl L. Pierce
Visit the Infobahn Offramp - http://mypage.org/mcpierce
"What do you care what other people think, Mr. Feynman?"
"Die for oil suckers....suckers....suckers...." - Jello Biafra

"Darryl L. Pierce" wrote in message
s.com...
"arizona cowboy" cacheoverflowATyahoo.com wrote:

Do you know what the allowable level of arsenic in water is? Did you
know
that
arsenic occurs naturally in water??

so does mercury and lead, but I don't want them in my children's water
either

are you retarded from lead in your water, and that makes you make such
stupid statements?

Perhaps, if you knew the facts, you wouldn't have had the response you did
in the first place. When Clinton left office, he signed an executive order
to have the levels of arsenic lowered to 20% of the then current level
within 6 years. This order was based on no scientific data and had no
direct support from any scientific body, but it *did* create a major
financial cost if it were to be implemented. When Bush came into office,
on
of the things his administration did was to validate this EO from the
Clinton administration. With real scientific data, the Bush administration
found that the current levels were perfectly safe. So, Bush countered
Clinton's executive order and declared the current levels (which gives the
only factual tidbit to your statement, since the current leves are 5 times
what Clinton's EO *intended* to achieve, at great costs and with little
benefit) to be safe. He then effectively tossed out Clinton's
scientifically unsupported ordered that would have done little more than
cause the Bush administration to spend alot of money for no improvement.


They aren't shy about spending money on faith based pork or entertaining the
idea of spending money on non-scientific based programs for conversion
therapy for gays. If the rule was changed, I have to think that is was
without regard to scientific fact. As they say, even a stopped clock is
right twice a day.

Vox Humana wrote:

Perhaps, if you knew the facts, you wouldn't have had the response you
did in the first place. When Clinton left office, he signed an executive
order to have the levels of arsenic lowered to 20% of the then current
level within 6 years. This order was based on no scientific data and had
no direct support from any scientific body, but it *did* create a major
financial cost if it were to be implemented. When Bush came into office,
on
of the things his administration did was to validate this EO from the
Clinton administration. With real scientific data, the Bush
administration found that the current levels were perfectly safe. So,
Bush countered Clinton's executive order and declared the current levels
(which gives the only factual tidbit to your statement, since the current
leves are 5 times what Clinton's EO *intended* to achieve, at great costs
and with little benefit) to be safe. He then effectively tossed out
Clinton's scientifically unsupported ordered that would have done little
more than cause the Bush administration to spend alot of money for no
improvement.

They aren't shy about spending money on faith based pork or entertaining
the idea of spending money on non-scientific based programs for conversion
therapy for gays. If the rule was changed, I have to think that is was
without regard to scientific fact. As they say, even a stopped clock is
right twice a day.

I think it was last Wednesday's Sean Hannity or Niel Boortz show where this
topic was discussed at length (I'm pretty such it was Boortz) and the facts
were brought up concerning Clinton's EO and Bush's shutting it down.

--
Darryl L. Pierce
Visit the Infobahn Offramp - http://mypage.org/mcpierce
"What do you care what other people think, Mr. Feynman?"
"Die for oil suckers....suckers....suckers...." - Jello Biafra

"Darryl L. Pierce" wrote in message
s.com...
Vox Humana wrote:

Perhaps, if you knew the facts, you wouldn't have had the response you
did in the first place. When Clinton left office, he signed an
executive
order to have the levels of arsenic lowered to 20% of the then current
level within 6 years. This order was based on no scientific data and
had
no direct support from any scientific body, but it *did* create a major
financial cost if it were to be implemented. When Bush came into
office,
on
of the things his administration did was to validate this EO from the
Clinton administration. With real scientific data, the Bush
administration found that the current levels were perfectly safe. So,
Bush countered Clinton's executive order and declared the current
levels
(which gives the only factual tidbit to your statement, since the
current
leves are 5 times what Clinton's EO *intended* to achieve, at great
costs
and with little benefit) to be safe. He then effectively tossed out
Clinton's scientifically unsupported ordered that would have done
little
more than cause the Bush administration to spend alot of money for no
improvement.

They aren't shy about spending money on faith based pork or entertaining
the idea of spending money on non-scientific based programs for
conversion
therapy for gays. If the rule was changed, I have to think that is was
without regard to scientific fact. As they say, even a stopped clock is
right twice a day.

I think it was last Wednesday's Sean Hannity or Niel Boortz show where
this
topic was discussed at length (I'm pretty such it was Boortz) and the
facts
were brought up concerning Clinton's EO and Bush's shutting it down.

Oh, I'm not questioning the science. I just think that facts are incidental
to Bush administration decision making. If the policy meshes with fact,
then it is coincidental. In this case it may.