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 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:
> 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
:

> 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!?!)

(-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

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

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

"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!

"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

>
>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?

"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