GW is poisoning our babies!

Discussion in 'Food and nutrition' started by Arizona Cowboy, Jan 24, 2004.

  1. 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! :)
    -------------------------------
    [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]
    lett[email protected] [email protected] [email protected]
    [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]
    [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]
    [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]
    [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]
    [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]
    [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]
    [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]
    [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]
    [email protected] [email protected]
     
    Tags:


  2. Zxcvbob

    Zxcvbob Guest

    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
     
  3. stan

    stan Guest

    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?
     
  4. Dan Goodman

    Dan Goodman Guest

    "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.
     
  5. 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 [email protected] http://pages.cthome.net/edhome
     
  6. "arizona cowboy" <cacheoverflowATyahoo.com> wrote in
    news:[email protected]:

    > 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
     
  7. X-Archive:No

    X-Archive:No Guest

    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.
     
  8. -L.

    -L. Guest

    "arizona cowboy" <cacheoverflowATyahoo.com> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
    > 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!

    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!?!)
     
  9. Rmiller

    Rmiller Guest

    >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
     
  10. > 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?
     
  11. [email protected] (-L.) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
    > "arizona cowboy" <cacheoverflowATyahoo.com> wrote in message news:<zP2dnQLP7emRoI7dRVn-
    > [email protected]>...
    > > 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!
    >

    > 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
     
  12. "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 <[email protected]> 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
     
  13. Bob Myers

    Bob Myers Guest

    "arizona cowboy" <cacheoverflowATyahoo.com> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > 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 suppose you even considered finding a more appropriate newsgroup, did you?

    Bob M.
     
  14. Vox Humana

    Vox Humana Guest

    "Darryl L. Pierce" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > "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.
     
  15. 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 <[email protected]> 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
     
  16. Pan Ohco

    Pan Ohco Guest

    "arizona cowboy" <cacheoverflowATyahoo.com> wrote in message
    news:<[email protected]>...

    >> 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
     
  17. Vox Humana

    Vox Humana Guest

    "Darryl L. Pierce" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > 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.
     
  18. 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 <[email protected]> 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
     
  19. 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
     
  20. Vox Humana

    Vox Humana Guest

    "arizona cowboy" <cacheoverflowATyahoo.com> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > 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 ...
     
Loading...