|
GW is poisoning our babies!
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 |
GW is poisoning our babies!
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 |
GW is poisoning our babies!
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? |
GW is poisoning our babies!
"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. |
GW is poisoning our babies!
"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 |
GW is poisoning our babies!
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. |
GW is poisoning our babies!
"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!?!) |
GW is poisoning our 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 |
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 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? |
GW is poisoning our babies!
|
GW is poisoning our babies!
"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 |
GW is poisoning our babies!
"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. |
GW is poisoning our babies!
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 |
GW is poisoning our babies!
"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. |
GW is poisoning our babies!
Vox Humana wrote:
>> 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. Gotcha. Though, I would say in this case, they did get facts before making a choice. I don't know that Bush got the facts, but somebody did and recommended the action to him. But, I'm not that up on the details of this particular policy so can't say for sure. -- 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 |
GW is poisoning our babies!
"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 suggest that you check again.Check the levels permitted under Clinton in his earlier years. >> 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! The 3 million jobs lost were due to the downturn in the economy, that started under Clinton's watch. Check the stock market history. Surplus, where, when? Oh there was a projected surplus, but that went away during Clinton's watch. And what babies did he poison. Cites, statistics please. Pan Ohco |
GW is poisoning our babies!
Sean Hannity and Niel Boortz are two of the biggest liars on the planet
the science of course supports that arsenic is bad for people, it is rat poison!! DUH! wake up people, please try to escape the conservative cult, which preaches worship of the almighty dollar over people's health, and uses junk science to try and refute real science I cannot believe the naivity in the world |
GW is poisoning our babies!
"arizona cowboy" <cacheoverflowATyahoo.com> wrote in message ... > Sean Hannity and Niel Boortz are two of the biggest liars on the planet I don't consider it authentic lying when Sean Hannity talks because he comes across as a raving lunatic one tick away from a complete melt-down. If he was rational ... |
GW is poisoning our babies!
"arizona cowboy" <cacheoverflowATyahoo.com> wrote:
> Sean Hannity and Niel Boortz are two of the biggest liars on the planet Huh. Do you have some specific examples with references? > the science of course supports that arsenic is bad for people, it is rat > poison!! DUH! You do realize that trace amounts of *many* poisons are in your food, water and air, right? Hell, salt is a compounded of *two* lethal poisons, mate. <snip> -- 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 |
GW is poisoning our babies!
In article >, Cindy hamilton > wrote:
> > (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. Heavy metals build up in the body. Babies have the longest time to build up a dosage. As for "not inherently more deserving than the other," I assume you'll both be throwing yourself in front of a bus to save those ants that wandered into the road? Mike Beede |
GW is poisoning our babies!
Mike Beede > wrote in message >...
> In article >, Cindy hamilton > wrote: > > > > (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. > > Heavy metals build up in the body. Babies have the longest time to > build up a dosage. As for "not inherently more deserving than the other," > I assume you'll both be throwing yourself in front of a bus to save those > ants that wandered into the road? I realize that heavy metals build up, and that children have the most time to accumulate them. I don't think heavy metals are good for anyone. However, shrieking about babies will get only negative attention from me. And, no, I will not be throwing myself in front of a bus. The most important life form in the world is me, followed closely by my husband. Cindy Hamilton |
GW is poisoning our babies!
"Cindy hamilton" > wrote in message om... > Mike Beede > wrote in message >... > > In article >, Cindy hamilton > wrote: > > > > > > (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. > > > > Heavy metals build up in the body. Babies have the longest time to > > build up a dosage. As for "not inherently more deserving than the other," > > I assume you'll both be throwing yourself in front of a bus to save those > > ants that wandered into the road? > > I realize that heavy metals build up, and that children have the most time > to accumulate them. > > I don't think heavy metals are good for anyone. However, shrieking about > babies will get only negative attention from me. > > And, no, I will not be throwing myself in front of a bus. The most important > life form in the world is me, followed closely by my husband. > > Cindy Hamilton > The Dingo gawt hees baaybee! |
GW is poisoning our babies!
"arizona cowboy" <cacheoverflowATyahoo.com> wrote in message ... > Sean Hannity and Niel Boortz are two of the biggest liars on the planet I have to assume you see them at the club meetings quite often, then? > the science of course supports that arsenic is bad for people, it is rat > poison!! DUH! And a lot of people drown every year, therefore we should ban water. Table salt is half sodium and half chlorine - a highly reactive metal and a deadly poison gas. Guess we'd better get rid of all of that, too. To coin a phrase, "DUH!" > > wake up people, please try to escape the conservative cult, which preaches > worship of the almighty dollar over people's health, and uses junk science > to try and refute real science > > I cannot believe the naivity in the world And I can't believe what you think passes for "real science." Bob M. |
GW is poisoning our babies!
On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 19:43:36 -0500, "arizona cowboy"
<cacheoverflowATyahoo.com> wrote: >Sean Hannity and Niel Boortz are two of the biggest liars on the planet > >the science of course supports that arsenic is bad for people, it is rat >poison!! DUH! > >wake up people, please try to escape the conservative cult, which preaches >worship of the almighty dollar over people's health, and uses junk science >to try and refute real science > >I cannot believe the naivity in the world > I don't know about the world but I do think that before spouting any more drool, you should look up more information about arsenic. Water can be a rat killer, there are rat traps that drown rats. Pan Ohco |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:53 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FoodBanter