As a fiscal conservative and social libertarian who has been horrified
at Dubyuh's ill thought out Iraq debacle from Day One, I found the
following website hugely amusing, if indeed anything about Dubyuh or
the Iraq debacle can be found remotely amusing:

www.SeeYaGeorge.com

Terry "Squeaks" Pulliam Burd
AAC(F)BV66.0748.CA

"If the soup had been as hot as the claret, if the claret
had been as old as the bird, and if the bird's breasts had
been as full as the waitress', it would have been a very
good dinner." Duncan Hines

To reply, remove replace "spaminator" with "cox"

On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 19:00:25 -0700, Terry Pulliam Burd
> wrote:

>As a fiscal conservative and social libertarian who has been horrified
>at Dubyuh's ill thought out Iraq debacle from Day One, I found the
>following website hugely amusing, if indeed anything about Dubyuh or
>the Iraq debacle can be found remotely amusing:
>
>www.SeeYaGeorge.com

LOL. There's quite a bit about Dumbyuh that can be found amusing...

I like the "America's New NO C.A.R.B. Diet" T-shirt.

Thanks for the link!

Mary

Terry Pulliam Burd > wrote:
> As a fiscal conservative and social libertarian who has been horrified
> at Dubyuh's ill thought out Iraq debacle from Day One, I found the
> following website hugely amusing, if indeed anything about Dubyuh or
> the Iraq debacle can be found remotely amusing:

> www.SeeYaGeorge.com

Hah! Wait 'til Michael Moore's film about dubya hits the
screens on June 25th. A priview is at http://www.fahrenheit911.com/

On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 22:41:19 -0500, MareCat
> arranged random neurons, so they
looked like this:

>LOL. There's quite a bit about Dumbyuh that can be found amusing...
>
>I like the "America's New NO C.A.R.B. Diet" T-shirt.
>
>Thanks for the link!

You don't have to be a Kerry fan to like this either:

http://www.showgeorgethedoor.org/

Terry "Squeaks" Pulliam Burd
AAC(F)BV66.0748.CA

"Regime Change Begins At Home."

To reply, remove replace "spaminator" with "cox"

You can lick whatever you want. Personally, I prefer Ben & Jerry's ice
cream.


jim



Weekend Fun wrote:

The true meaning of irony:
http://www.stickontheradio.com/lesbush.jpg

Best regards,
Bob

As a Independent voter,i think Moore is a anti-American idiot.

http://edition.cnn.com/2004/US/06/03/un.book/

I'm not happy with Iraq,it's costing far too much in American lives
and dollars.Iraq will never be a Democracy,it's surrounded by Muslim
countries that hate us,they will never allow a Democracy in their midst.

And why can't we drill for oil in ANWR? ANWR consist of 19 million
acres,only 2000 acres is needed for drilling.Oil reserves in ANWR are
estimated to be in the billions of barrels (geologist,not
Bush).pollution?well Russian explorers noted oil seeping to the surface
in many sites in the present ANWR,natives in that area used to cut out
blocs of oil soaked tundra to use as fuel for heating/cooking.One
village of 200 natives is the only inhabitants in ANWR.You want to make
the people who hate us richer? Then go right ahead,it will come back to
haunt us in the not too distant future.

On Fri, 04 Jun 2004 21:40:56 GMT, "Weekend Fun" >
wrote

Is Monica coming back to D.C.?
Pan Ohco

In article >,
(T) wrote:

> And why can't we drill for oil in ANWR? ANWR consist of 19 million
> acres,only 2000 acres is needed for drilling.Oil reserves in ANWR are
> estimated to be in the billions of barrels (geologist,not
> Bush).pollution?well Russian explorers noted oil seeping to the surface
> in many sites in the present ANWR,natives in that area used to cut out
> blocs of oil soaked tundra to use as fuel for heating/cooking.One
> village of 200 natives is the only inhabitants in ANWR.You want to make
> the people who hate us richer? Then go right ahead,it will come back to
> haunt us in the not too distant future.


Just raising fuel economy standards would save far more oil than ANWR
could produce. If the CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) for new
cars, SUVs and other light trucks was raised to an average of 40 miles
per gallon over the next 10 years, it would save nearly 2 million
barrels per day in 2012 and nearly 4 mbd by 2020. According to the Dept.
of Energy, we import 2.3 million barrels a day from the Persian Gulf,
out of 11.727 mbd gross imports. Therefore, raising our fuel economy
standards would save more than we import from the Persian Gulf. And
raising the CAFE would not only reduce our dependence on foreign oil, it
would result in cleaner air.

"Only 2000 acres" is also disingenuous, as it disregards the roads that
would have to be built, the pipelines, production facilities,
discharges, etc.

The inflated figures for the oil deposits is also a red herring, as it
relates to what is called "technically recoverable oil," which refers to
the amount of oil that could be recovered WITHOUT REGARD TO COST.
The mean amount of *economically recoverable oil* is 3.2 billion
barrels. The US consumes 20 million barrels a day, meaning that ANWR
would only yield a little over 5 months worth of oil. If we tried to
stretch that out over a measly five years, that's 1,753,425 barrels,
about 9% of daily use, which wouldn't put a dent in crude prices, even
assuming our production costs were lower than what OPEC would be
charging. (Oil reserve figures from the U.S. Geological Survey).

By contrast, the Persian Gulf contains around 674 billion barrels of
proven oil reserves; even at the most optimistic estimates, ANWR
reserves are a drop in the bucket, and would have a minimal effect on
the price of crude.

--
to respond, change "spamless.invalid" with "optonline.net"
please mail OT responses only

T wrote:

> As a Independent voter,i think Moore is a anti-American idiot.
>
>
>
>
>
>
Wow!! So, you think your drivel is thinking?
--
Alan

"If you reject the food, ignore the customs, fear the religion, and
avoid the people, you might better stay home."
--James Michener

In article >,
(T) wrote:

> As a Independent voter,i think Moore is a anti-American idiot.
>

What makes him anti-American? Because he doesn't agree with the current
administration? A democracy depends upon dissenters.

--
to respond, change "spamless.invalid" with "optonline.net"
please mail OT responses only

(T) wrote:
> And why can't we drill for oil in ANWR? ANWR consist of 19 million
>acres,only 2000 acres is needed for drilling.

False. The 2000 acres refers to what is called "footprint", and
is a measure of what the North Slope Borough can levy a property
tax on. It does *not* include garbage dumps, gravel pits, any
part of a pipeline not actually touching the ground, roads, or
parts of airports. The "footprint" for the Prudhoe Bay
industrial complex is only about 10,000 acres, yet it covers an
area of about 10 miles deep by 100 miles long and is one of the
largest industrial complexes in the world.

In fact, the "affected" part of ANWR will amount to virtually the
entire 1,500,000 acres of the 1002 Area, the "coast plain".

>Oil reserves in ANWR are
>estimated to be in the billions of barrels (geologist,not
>Bush).

The USGS says there might be 7.668 billion barrels of
technically recoverable oil in ANWR. Even at $40/barrel we
could probably only get about 6.4 billion barrels pumped out.
That is not exactly a huge amount of oil (Saudi Arabia has over
250 billion barrels of proven reserves.)

Assuming that much is actually found, adding it to the market
would amount to about a 1% increase in the supply of crude, and
might result in a 50 cents per barrel drop in the price. That
works out to about 4 cents per gallon for gasoline at the pump
for you.

Which is to say, it won't have a significant economic effect on
US dependence on foreign crude, nor will it really affect how
much it cost you to drive your car. It *will* do two things
though! It will provide many billions of dollars to the
multinational oil companies, and a few billions of dollars to
the State of Alaska.

Hence, it is reasonable for Alaskans and British Petroleum
stockholders and employees to push for drilling ANWR, but you'll
get nothing out of it.

>pollution?well Russian explorers noted oil seeping to the surface
>in many sites in the present ANWR,

No Russian explorer ever visited ANWR. They never even got
close!

>natives in that area used to cut out
>blocs of oil soaked tundra to use as fuel for heating/cooking.

Please provide a reliable cite for that. I've never heard of
it. They used seal oil and whale oil. They were aware that
coal burned and there are many coal deposits on the North Slope,
but it just isn't a good as seal or whale oil, from their
perspective.

I've never heard of an oil seep in ANWR that could be used as
you describe, or of anyone doing so.

>One
>village of 200 natives is the only inhabitants in ANWR.You want to make

Kaktovik, an Inupiat Eskimo village on Barter Island in the
Arctic Ocean, is on the edge of ANWR. But your point is poorly
taken. There are several Gwich'in Indian villages (Arctic
Village, and Venetie are good examples) along the southern edge
of ANWR, and the boundaries were chosen *specifically* to not
include the villages but to include as much of the range of the
Porcupine Caribou herd as possible. ANWR is the result of a
treaty signed with Canada to protect the Porcupine herd because
the Gwich'in (also called "The People of the Caribou") are
totally dependent upon it. There are also parks and refuges on
the Canadian side of the border. There are about 9,000 Gwich'in
people.

>the people who hate us richer? Then go right ahead,it will come back to
>haunt us in the not too distant future.

Destroying ANWR would be a disaster.

We should note that virtually *every* caribou biologist that has
ever done any field work with North Slope caribou says that oil
exploration and production in ANWR would have a negative impact
on the Porcupine Herd. You cannot find a single qualified
biologist who will say otherwise.

--
FloydL. Davidson <http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

Scott > wrote:
>In article >,
> (T) wrote:
>
>> And why can't we drill for oil in ANWR? ANWR consist of 19 million
>> acres,only 2000 acres is needed for drilling.Oil reserves in ANWR are
>> estimated to be in the billions of barrels (geologist,not
>> Bush).pollution?well Russian explorers noted oil seeping to the surface
>> in many sites in the present ANWR,natives in that area used to cut out
>> blocs of oil soaked tundra to use as fuel for heating/cooking.One
>> village of 200 natives is the only inhabitants in ANWR.You want to make
>> the people who hate us richer? Then go right ahead,it will come back to
>> haunt us in the not too distant future.
>
>Just raising fuel economy standards would save far more oil than ANWR
>could produce. If the CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) for new
>cars, SUVs and other light trucks was raised to an average of 40 miles
>per gallon over the next 10 years, it would save nearly 2 million
>barrels per day in 2012 and nearly 4 mbd by 2020. According to the Dept.
>of Energy, we import 2.3 million barrels a day from the Persian Gulf,
>out of 11.727 mbd gross imports. Therefore, raising our fuel economy
>standards would save more than we import from the Persian Gulf. And
>raising the CAFE would not only reduce our dependence on foreign oil, it
>would result in cleaner air.

Those are excellent points. By comparison... The peak output from
Prudhoe Bay and Kuparuk came in 1988, when the Trans Alaska Pipeline
System (TAPS) delivered 2.1 million barrels a day. Today it is averaging
right at 900,000 barrels a day. It has been predicted that if ANWR
actually has the oil hoped for, at its peak the TAPS would be averaging
1.4 million barrels a day (total for everything on the North Slope).

Saudi Arabia just announced they were going to increase their
production by 2 million barrels a day.

It becomes fairly obvious that ANWR is not really very significant at
all.

>"Only 2000 acres" is also disingenuous, as it disregards the roads that
>would have to be built, the pipelines, production facilities,
>discharges, etc.
>
>The inflated figures for the oil deposits is also a red herring, as it
>relates to what is called "technically recoverable oil," which refers to
>the amount of oil that could be recovered WITHOUT REGARD TO COST.
>The mean amount of *economically recoverable oil* is 3.2 billion

That figure isn't quite right. The USGS survey is available at

http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-0028-01/fs-0028-01.htm

See Table 1. The mean average for predicted technically
recoverable oil in ANWR is 7.668 billion barrels. In Figure 6
is shows approximately 3.2 billion as the minimum expected to be
recoverable (a 95% probability, meaning they are all but certain
that amount would be found).

The mean average for economically recoverable oil is perhaps 6.4
billion barrels if the price stays above $40/barrel. Even though
that is twice the amount you are using in the following calculations,
it still demonstrates how little effect benefit there woudl be in
destroying ANWR for oil.

>barrels. The US consumes 20 million barrels a day, meaning that ANWR
>would only yield a little over 5 months worth of oil. If we tried to
>stretch that out over a measly five years, that's 1,753,425 barrels,
>about 9% of daily use, which wouldn't put a dent in crude prices, even
>assuming our production costs were lower than what OPEC would be
>charging. (Oil reserve figures from the U.S. Geological Survey).
>
>By contrast, the Persian Gulf contains around 674 billion barrels of
>proven oil reserves; even at the most optimistic estimates, ANWR
>reserves are a drop in the bucket, and would have a minimal effect on
>the price of crude.

The figures I've seen are 50 cents on the barrel, which would be
about a 4 cent per gallon reduction in the price of gasoline.

Whoop dee do, eh?

--
FloydL. Davidson <http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

On Sat, 5 Jun 2004 07:32:02 -0400, (T) wrote:

> As a Independent voter,i think Moore is a anti-American idiot.

Why do you think he's anti-American???

(T) wrote in news:2042-40C1AF32-13@storefull-
3315.bay.webtv.net:

> As a Independent voter,i think Moore is a anti-American idiot.

Democracy is strong when the people oppose their government and
question their actions at every step. Michael Moore is does that, he's
even doing it on your behalf. Obviously there should be more of him
and less of you.

--

Certainty of death. Small chance of success. What are we waiting for?

Gimli, son of Gloín

In article >,
(Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:

> That figure isn't quite right. The USGS survey is available at
>
> http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-0028-01/fs-0028-01.htm
>
> See Table 1. The mean average for predicted technically
> recoverable oil in ANWR is 7.668 billion barrels. In Figure 6
> is shows approximately 3.2 billion as the minimum expected to be
> recoverable (a 95% probability, meaning they are all but certain
> that amount would be found).
>
> The mean average for economically recoverable oil is perhaps 6.4
> billion barrels if the price stays above $40/barrel. Even though
> that is twice the amount you are using in the following calculations,
> it still demonstrates how little effect benefit there woudl be in
> destroying ANWR for oil.

Two points: As you mention, the 3.2 bbo is at the 95% probability for
economically recoverable oil (since "technically recoverable" figures
aren't realistic). The 6.4 bbo is the mean--so that simply indicates a
50/50 chance of there being that much economically recoverable oil. 3.2
bbo isn't the *minimum* expected, but the most likely amount
recoverable--i.e., "we're pretty sure there's 3.2 bbo, but there might
be more." Still, as you say, even at 6.4 bbo, it's hardly beneficial.

Second point: the figures depend upon oil remaining above $40/barrel.
OPEC claims a target price around $28 dollars a barrel, and Saudi Arabia
is going to increase production. I know some people are skeptical about
OPEC wanting to reduce world oil prices, but they have a very real
interest in doing so: lower prices means less of an impetus to find
alternatives. If prices creep up, people may actually try to reduce
their oil use. OPEC *wants* us to keep using as much oil as we do, and
not reduce energy consumption or find alternative sources. And if prices
drop, the amount of economically recoverable oil in ANWR also drops.

--
to respond, change "spamless.invalid" with "optonline.net"
please mail OT responses only

Scott > wrote:
> (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:
>
>> That figure isn't quite right. The USGS survey is available at
>>
>> http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-0028-01/fs-0028-01.htm
>>
>> See Table 1. The mean average for predicted technically
>> recoverable oil in ANWR is 7.668 billion barrels. In Figure 6
>> is shows approximately 3.2 billion as the minimum expected to be
>> recoverable (a 95% probability, meaning they are all but certain
>> that amount would be found).
>>
>> The mean average for economically recoverable oil is perhaps 6.4
>> billion barrels if the price stays above $40/barrel. Even though
>> that is twice the amount you are using in the following calculations,
>> it still demonstrates how little effect benefit there woudl be in
>> destroying ANWR for oil.
>
>Two points: As you mention, the 3.2 bbo is at the 95% probability for
>economically recoverable oil (since "technically recoverable" figures
>aren't realistic). The 6.4 bbo is the mean--so that simply indicates a
>50/50 chance of there being that much economically recoverable oil. 3.2
>bbo isn't the *minimum* expected, but the most likely amount
>recoverable--i.e., "we're pretty sure there's 3.2 bbo, but there might
>be more." Still, as you say, even at 6.4 bbo, it's hardly beneficial.

I'll stand by the f95 probability as the minimum expected. You
aren't saying anything different with "the most likely amount".

>Second point: the figures depend upon oil remaining above $40/barrel.

No, the only figure that "depends" on $40/barrel is the 6.4
figure for economically recoverable oil, and of course that was
specifically pointed out as being a figure for the absolute
maximum, which is the reason I used that particular number,
not because it happens to be relatively the current price of
oil. If you look at the USGS report, you'll notice that
even as the price goes above $40, the amount of economically
recoverable oil doesn't increase, simply because it is expected
that anything greater than the 6.4 billion barrels is going to
be *extremely* expensive to extract. At about 6.4 billion the
graph becomes virtually a vertical line, with the price going up
fast and the recoverable amount not changing.

And the point would still hold even if we used 5% probability
for technically recoverable amounts, because on the grand scale,
ANWR is just a drop in the bucket.

>OPEC claims a target price around $28 dollars a barrel, and Saudi Arabia
>is going to increase production. I know some people are skeptical about
>OPEC wanting to reduce world oil prices, but they have a very real
>interest in doing so: lower prices means less of an impetus to find
>alternatives. If prices creep up, people may actually try to reduce
>their oil use. OPEC *wants* us to keep using as much oil as we do, and
>not reduce energy consumption or find alternative sources. And if prices
>drop, the amount of economically recoverable oil in ANWR also drops.

That is a excellent point. OPEC has no desire to scare us off,
or to destroy the world economy, with high prices. The only way
they want to make more money is by increasing the demand, not by
raising the price. A healthy world economy is what increases the
demand.

--
FloydL. Davidson <http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

Try WhiteHouse.org













www.WhiteHouse.org

No thanks. I wouldn't want to catch something, like terminal
oligarchism.

--

Certainty of death. Small chance of success. What are we waiting for?

Gimli, son of Gloín

zxcvbob > wrote in news:2id192FlieblU1@uni-
berlin.de:

> http://www.stickontheradio.com/lesbush.jpg

Thirteen funny

--

Certainty of death. Small chance of success. What are we waiting for?

Gimli, son of Gloín

On 6 Jun 2004 12:18:43 GMT, Michel Boucher >
wrote:


>Democracy is strong when the people oppose their government and
>question their actions at every step. Michael Moore is does that, he's
>even doing it on your behalf. Obviously there should be more of him
>and less of you.

Hay Michel good to see you.

Now why in the world, should I think of Michael Moore ( or any other
entertainer) as a brilliant political commentator. As far as I know
he has no background in politics or international studies.

Why would his thoughts on our political scene , be any more valid then
mine. Is his access to the media the cause of his great knowledge on
the subject, or is it just the fact that he is well known that make
his views more valid?

Or is it that he has a left leaning bent, that agree with yours, that
makes him so remarkable?
Pan Ohco

"Pan Ohco" > wrote in message
...
> On 6 Jun 2004 12:18:43 GMT, Michel Boucher >
> wrote:
>
>
> >Democracy is strong when the people oppose their government and
> >question their actions at every step. Michael Moore is does that, he's
> >even doing it on your behalf. Obviously there should be more of him
> >and less of you.
>
> Hay Michel good to see you.
>
> Now why in the world, should I think of Michael Moore ( or any other
> entertainer) as a brilliant political commentator. As far as I know
> he has no background in politics or international studies.
>
> Why would his thoughts on our political scene , be any more valid then
> mine. Is his access to the media the cause of his great knowledge on
> the subject, or is it just the fact that he is well known that make
> his views more valid?
>

No one claimed that Moore's views are more valid than anyone else's. He does
however have the demonstrated skill as a film maker and interviewer to make
films that are very effective in getting at the roots of political and
social issues. If you or I had the same skill we could do the same thing -
but we don't.


--
Peter Aitken

Remove the crap from my email address before using.

Pan Ohco > wrote in
:

> On 6 Jun 2004 12:18:43 GMT, Michel Boucher >
> wrote:
>
>>Democracy is strong when the people oppose their government and
>>question their actions at every step. Michael Moore is does that,
>>he's even doing it on your behalf. Obviously there should be more
>>of him and less of you.
>
> Hay Michel good to see you.

Howyadoon?

> Now why in the world, should I think of Michael Moore ( or any
> other entertainer) as a brilliant political commentator. As far
> as I know he has no background in politics or international
> studies.

Neither does Bush but that doesn't stop you from ignoring that fact
:-)

> Why would his thoughts on our political scene , be any more valid
> then mine.

Conversely, why should they be any less valid than yours? He is a
filmmaker and has chosen to use that medium to pass judgment on the
seat of power you call the President.

> Is his access to the media the cause of his great
> knowledge on the subject, or is it just the fact that he is well
> known that make his views more valid?

You tell me.

> Or is it that he has a left leaning bent, that agree with yours,
> that makes him so remarkable?

It certainly helps. I usually find pro-Bush propaganda, and any clip
of either Ashbutt or Obergruppenführer Rumsfeldt, make a great
emetic.

--
Certainty of death. Small chance of success. What are we waiting for?

Gimli, son of Gloín

Well,not to pin heads like you.

Not at all,i don't agree with a lot the present administration is
doing,i'm just sick of these spoiled so called 'stars' who have made
their fortunes out of slamming the U.S.Let them try their crap in China
nd see what happens to them.

Russian explorers DID report of oil seepage along the north slope in
1856.Natives did cut oil soaked tundra to use as fuel.

Well,have it your way,i really don't give a damn if you want to go
on paying thru the nose for fuel,it won't hurt me even if it goes to
$10.00 a gallon.

On 06/06/2004 8:41 AM, in article
, "Michel Boucher"
> opined:

> zxcvbob > wrote in news:2id192FlieblU1@uni-
> berlin.de:
>
>> http://www.stickontheradio.com/lesbush.jpg
>
> Thirteen funny

Michel, I have to admit I fell out of my chair laughing and I AM A BUSH FAN!
--
================================================== ========================
"If George W. Bush announced that a cure for cancer had been discovered,
Democrats would complain about unemployed laboratory rats," Ann Coulter.
================================================== ========================

I will second that! Plus all that cocaine breath!!!!

Michel Boucher wrote:

> No thanks. I wouldn't want to catch something, like terminal
> oligarchism.
>

On 06/06/2004 7:58 PM, in article ,
"Dolkian" > opined:

> I will second that! Plus all that cocaine breath!!!!
>
> Michel Boucher wrote:
>
>> No thanks. I wouldn't want to catch something, like terminal
>> oligarchism.
>>
>
A fancy word for a moron who doesn't understand the US constitution series
of checks & balances.

Just one more jealous cannuck.
--
================================================== ===================
"New Orleans food is as delicious as the less criminal forms of sin."
-- Mark Twain, 1884
================================================== ===================

(T) wrote:
> Russian explorers DID report of oil seepage along the north slope in
>1856.Natives did cut oil soaked tundra to use as fuel.

Cites, please?

--
FloydL. Davidson <http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

(T) wrote:
> Well,have it your way,i really don't give a damn if you want to go
>on paying thru the nose for fuel,it won't hurt me even if it goes to
>$10.00 a gallon.

So despite the evidence proving that ANWR won't have any effect on
the price of gasoline, you want to "just do *something*".

I recall a Fire Chief explaining to a group of people why that
kind of reaction a bad idea. He recounted how a fire broke out
in an electrical box, and somebody screeched "DO SOMETHING!",
and a janitor promptly took his mop buck and doused the fire.
He was electrocuted, but the fire was not put out until the fire
department arrived.

In this case, you would destroy ANWR (and the Porcupine Caribou herd
as well as the Gwich'in culture), and still have the same high prices
for gasoline.

Do you see the problem with being that illogical?

--
FloydL. Davidson <http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

In article >,
(T) wrote:

> Russian explorers DID report of oil seepage along the north slope in
> 1856.Natives did cut oil soaked tundra to use as fuel.

Aside from your own assertions, do you have any sources to back up this
statement? Sources you can point us to?

--
to respond, change "spamless.invalid" with "optonline.net"
please mail OT responses only

No, thanks. I'd rather lick an ice cream cone.

But I'd be glad to beat Bush in '04.

Kate
--
Kate Connally
“If I were as old as I feel, I’d be dead already.”
Goldfish: “The wholesome snack that smiles back,
Until you bite their heads off.”
What if the hokey pokey really *is* what it's all about?

Second that. If not I will just vote Nader, that is if I can vote.

Kate Connally wrote:

> No, thanks. I'd rather lick an ice cream cone.
>
> But I'd be glad to beat Bush in '04.
>
> Kate

"Dog3" > wrote in message
1...
> Now we know what those rail thin chicks are doing behind closed doors.
>
> http://www.samsspace.net/blog/blog_pics/suckitin.wmv
>
> Michael

ROFLMAO! That was funny!

Bret



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----