BS: Ok, I may be overly optomistic

Subject: RE: BS: Ok, I may be overly optomistic
From: Genie
Date: 08 Nov 02 - 07:21 PM

What makes me think Bush's "experts" are wrong? Well, first of all, I don't assume that they are right or wrong based on whom they work for. On the other hand, the "experts" who disagree with them are many and just as highly credentialed.

As Nicole illustrated, it may not be as much a matter of their giving wrong answers as it is slanting the presentation by asking the wrong questions. (Remember: there are liars, damned liars, and then statisticians.)

Often, when the same questions are asked of experts from both camps, they will give similar answers.

E.g.,
"Are there more trees in our national forests than 100 years ago?"
"Is there more lumber in terms of board feet...?"
"Are there as many 200-year-old trees in America as there were 100 years ago?"
"Will a "new-growth" tree in a commercially managed forest ever be allowed to become a 200-year-old tree?"

The big timber companies and the scientists who work for them tend to ask the first question and maybe the second. Scientists interested in old growth forests also ask the latter two questions.

Subject: RE: BS: Ok, I may be overly optomistic
From: DougR
Date: 08 Nov 02 - 04:49 PM

Bobert: because it is not against the law to own a SUV.

Genie: What makes you think they are wrong?

I quoted the source for my information on the amount of oil. The Secretary of the Interior. I know ...why should I believe HER????

Fionn: I seem to recall that about 2,500 acres will be required to drill in the Anwar, out of millions of acres.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Ok, I may be overly optomistic
From: Bobert
Date: 08 Nov 02 - 04:16 PM

Man, you all care more about snail darters than people! You all make me...

Opps, sorry, I was reading Doug's lines again...

Ahhhh, I haven't read every post in this thread but is anyone talking about conservation of energy or alternative energy sources?

And can anyone tell me why folks who live in places that don't snow are allowed to own SUV's, which are a major source of pollution?

And how about railroads? How come we bail out the airlines but put the squeeze on Amtrack, which uses a lot less fuel to move people and goods than do inneficient airplanes?

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Ok, I may be overly optomistic
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 08 Nov 02 - 02:41 PM

Troll, I thought the proposal was to make about 90 per cent of the north slope available for exploration? Hard to miss the calving grounds I would have thought.

America is churning out a hundred times more carbon dioxide per person than most other countries, and I suppose will going on doing so until the Alaskan permafrost melts. (It's nearly there now - just rack that temperature up another degree or so.) That will destabilise the whole North American continent, and maybe there will be a rethink at last.

Good piece, Kat - one or yours, I assume?

DougR, as I write this, a guy on the radio (BBC) has just been explaining that Jeb is like George W, except without the intellect.

Subject: RE: BS: Ok, I may be overly optomistic
From: Genie
Date: 07 Nov 02 - 10:34 PM

Doug, I didn't tune in to Rush, but I did hear a lot of gloating from Michael Medved and Sean Hannity and a couple other far-right talking (swelled) heads on
Wednesday. To hear them tell it, this is a real mandate for Bush as a person and all of his policies, PLUS it proves what nincompoops and misguided fools the
Democrats, populists, liberals, etc. be.   

Seems like some folks when they win conveniently choose to ignore the 40 to 49.9% (sometimes more) of the voters who voted for their opponents.

BTW, Doug, what gives you the idea that Nicole was "guessing" about the amount of oil in Alaska?   I have heard figures like the ones she cited from very
knowledgeable scientific sources.   If the corporate-bought "experts" of the Bush admin. disagree with the "experts" cited by environmentalists, why do you
assume the former are right?

Nicole, you stated the facts and the relevant arguments very well.

Kat, you go, girl!

Genie

Subject: RE: BS: Ok, I may be overly optomistic
From: Troll
Date: 07 Nov 02 - 09:45 PM

The area where they are talking about exploring for oil is nowhere near the calving grounds of the Porcupine Herd. Yes, the Herd calves in the Artic Costal Plain, But the ACP encompasses a HUGE area.
It's rather like not allowing me to burn leaves in my back yard ijn North Central Florida because Washington,D.C. is having a period of bad air quality.
Yeah, we're both on the East Coast but that's the only thing we have in common.
I worked with a woman who lived up on the North Slope for 12 years. Her husband worked for BP and they said that spills were rare and dealt with quickly when they happened. There were crews whose sole job was to look for possible leaks and deal with them before they became a problem.
Maybe this has changed. That was 5 years ago.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Ok, I may be overly optomistic
From: NicoleC
Date: 07 Nov 02 - 08:07 PM

Okay, Bert, tell you what.

We'll bring in the loud, smelly trucks, build a road, bring in the drills and drill and oil well in your back yard. While construction is going on, some people are going to camp out there, and occassionally folks are gonna fly in on helicopters in the middle of the night.

Will you be disturbed?

Of course you will. Most people won't have sex with the curtains open, and it seems silly to think the mating habits of species aren't going to affected by construction going on in their bedroom. Or that feeding habits aren't going to be affected by the smell of gas fumes in the kitchen.

We're talking about decade of exploratory drilling and development to get to the oil. When you are dealing with species with a lifespan of that or shorter than that, the environmental impact can be devastating.

If we could just send a guy out with a divining rod and quietly put a safe, clean and efficient drill out in the middle of no where -- which is the image you are conjuring -- then the damage would probably be insignificant. But oil exploration isn't neat and clean and quiet -- the environmental wreck of Texas is a good example -- even if some of the drills you see (those are drills than haven't found oil by the way -- we had 'em in the middle of the city in LA when I lived there) are.

Subject: RE: BS: Ok, I may be overly optomistic
From: katlaughing
Date: 07 Nov 02 - 07:30 PM

Sorry if this is a repeat for some of you, but as far as I know the statistics have not changed since this was published two years ago:

The Arctic Coastal Plain is so critical for wildlife and so rich with diversity it has been dubbed "America's Serengeti." It is the calving area for the Porcupine Caribou Herd of almost two hundred thousand. There is no nutritional alternative to the important forage the caribou find on the ACP.

   Literally millions of birds migrate from places as far flung as Asia, South America, and Chesapeake Bay to nest there; raising their young, molting, and feeding in preparation for their return migrations. It also abounds with grizzly bears, wolves, arctic foxes, and golden eagles. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has called it "the center for wildlife activity for the entire refuge."


   George W. Bush would change all of that. In the first presidential debate, he accused Al Gore of using scare tactics to win votes. In virtually the next breath he brandished his own bogey-man in the way of dependence on foreign oil. He would open up Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, in particular the Arctic Coastal Plain, to the oil field industry. The ANWR covers 19.6 million acres, almost half of it designated wilderness. The crucial part of it which Bush wants to open for exploration is a 1.5 million acre portion of Alaska's Arctic Coastal Plain. Those 1.5 million acres are the only part of the ACP which is included in the Refuge, and as such, protected. Those 1.5 million acres are also the only place which contains all of the Arctic sub-ecosystems in one protected area. The rest of the Arctic Coastal Plain, the ninety-five percent not covered by the Refuge, is already available for oil and gas exploration.


   During the Reagan administration, the Department of Interior found there was a chance of less than one in five of ever finding recoverable oil in the ANWR. If oil companies beat those odds and strike pay dirt, both the Department of Energy and the U.S. Geological Survey have said it would most likely amount to a mere 3.2 million barrels, which would only last a few months in meeting the needs of American consumers. It would also take about ten years to even hit the market. Ninety-five percent of Alaska's North Slope is available for oil exploration. Oil companies expect to step up their production on the North Slope with forecasted increases of 15-17%, all without opening any of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.


   Americans consume 25% of the world's oil. America has, at the most, reserves of 2-3% of the world's oil. Even if we sacrificed all of our wilderness areas, parks, coastlines, etc., we would never be able to become independent of foreign oil; at our present rate of consumption, there literally is not enough oil in the ground for development. Leaders, who have real vision and care about the earth as a whole and her peoples, must encourage conservation and development of alternatives such as wind and solar energies, but especially fuel cell technology. Utilising hydrocarbon fuel from natural gas, methanol, or even gasoline, fuel cells rely on chemistry, rather than combustion resulting in very few emissions compared to even the cleanest fuel combustion process.


   America pays more than $5 billion per month for imported oil. A small percentage of those monies could bring fuel cell technology to a viable commercial basis within five years; create tens of thousands of jobs; reduce life and planet-threatening pollution; and preserve such important and pristine areas as the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and Coastal Plain.


   Since Bush has been governor of Texas, it has ranked number one in the country for pollution released by manufacturing plants; number one for pollution caused by industrial plants in violation of the Clean Air Act; and, number one in greenhouse emissions. Yet, Bush would have us believe he would protect the Arctic Coastal Plain from any damage caused by oil exploration.


   Maintaining and expanding the status quo is exactly what the majority of automobile manufacturers, oil companies and related industries want to do, no matter the enviromental costs. They have found a willing partner in Bush.


   If we really want our planet to remain viable, thus affording generations to come, literally, a chance at life, we have to say no to Bush's bogey-man of foreign oil dependence. We have to say no to prolonged and continued dependence on any oil. We have to say no to raping pristine wilderness and exploitation of our planet's resources. We must demand more monies for development of affordable technologies, now which can give hope of a better lifetime for those generations to come.

© October 10, 2000 K. LaFrance
All rights reserved

Subject: RE: BS: Ok, I may be overly optomistic
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Nov 02 - 07:18 PM

Doug, the last I knew, the Secretary of the Interior was a woman; a Bush appointee. He sent Bugs Bunny to guard the carrots.

Subject: RE: BS: Ok, I may be overly optomistic
From: Gareth
Date: 07 Nov 02 - 06:41 PM

Well DougR - I hate to dump on your parade, but been there, suffered the wounds, seen that Bitch strutting the Walk.

Spent my time trying to organize us leftys in Conservative Kent. Ploughed the lonly furrow, took the ridicule. Took the hatred.

Then Yeee Haaa ! As Slim Pickens said when they dropped him and the Bomb.

The Conservative Party vapourised - and fast disappearing down the memory hole.

What goes arround comes arround.

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: Ok, I may be overly optomistic
From: toadfrog
Date: 07 Nov 02 - 06:27 PM

Bert: That's a non starter. One doesn't guage the effect of oil drilling by whether you can tell the oil well is there. You get the real full effect of oil drilling when the oil spills. And maybe kills all the wildlife in the bay. And up in the arctic, where the ecology is very fragile, building roads and running big pipelines over the ground, also have a serious effect on the environment.

There is also the problem, up there in Alaska, that the pipelines are not well maintained. And workers who report problems with maintenance get fired. Because middle and lower management at Alyeska are looking forward to careers with large oil companies, and look out for their interests, no matter what senior management at Alyeska says. And the State of Alaska lives from its oil revenues and would never dream of interfering.

Would you believe, instead of paying taxes, Alaskans are paid subsidies from those oil revenues! No wonder they are all a bunch of Republicans!

Subject: RE: BS: Ok, I may be overly optomistic
From: DougR
Date: 07 Nov 02 - 05:12 PM

Bert: You're right of course (he says sheepishly), I have been having a good time. :>)

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Ok, I may be overly optomistic
From: Bert
Date: 07 Nov 02 - 02:36 AM

After George W. is through, because of term limits, Jeb can take over!

Yup, you're probably right there Doug. And then we'll have Neil of Silverado fame.

The best thing that has come out of this election is that I have been able to enjoy watching my Ol' buddy Doug have fun.

NicoleC, I'm a great lover of our environment and think that we should do everything in our power to protect it. But we do our cause no good if we get our facts wrong. Drilling for oil has little impact on our environment. I have seen many oil wells in The Middle East and quite honestly you don't know that they are there. A small nodding donkey in an area smaller than the average back yard, and that area is being taken over again by desert flora and fauna.

What we need to worry about is the pollution cased by BURNING fossil fuels. Conventional Power stations, automobiles and heat pollution from cities are much more damaging.
Then there's the garbage created by our throwaway society.

We would serve our cause much more by repairing our appliances, and recycling our glass, cans, paper etc.. Then using smaller cars (or, heaven forbid, bicycles) and lobbying the powers that be to work towards using nuclear, solar and wind energy in place of fossil fuels.

Don't weaken our cause by making a big deal about irrelevant things.

Subject: RE: BS: Ok, I may be overly optomistic
From: DougR
Date: 07 Nov 02 - 12:12 AM

I have no illusions as to what I will be doing in 2012, Nicole, my friend, so will you take notes and let me know what happens later? :>)

Doug

Subject: RE: BS: Ok, I may be overly optomistic
From: NicoleC
Date: 06 Nov 02 - 04:37 PM

Doug, "many years supply" means they will be pumping oil for years. It doesn't mean it's a significant dent in what the US uses or can solely supply the US for years. It's how you word it for spin. (Which is why I specific not just a time frame, but how much in that time range.) Like when they say it will only affect 2500 acres of land... that's just counting the physical footprint of the drills and well!

Of course, when dealing with oil drilling, there could be absolutely nothing up there, or the largest reserve in the world. Talk about how much oil there is is based purely on the geologists' speculation.

I would be less cynical about the subject if the proponents of exploration in ANWAR weren't the same people deadset against reducing usage. Whether it be a miniscule bump in gas mileage, supporting renewable fuel research or encouraging the consumption of local goods and foods, the folks that want to drill are the ones who stand to make money from selling oil. They don't give a hoot about reducing our dependance on foreign oil or any kind of oil, but it makes for a good soundbite on CNN.

Cheney himself said that he didn't think conservation could be a part of an energy policy. Meanwhile, Californians averted an energy crisis last summer by small conservation measures. What the legislators and government couldn't do, the citizens did. I thumb my nose at Cheney's mockery of conservation. (Meanwhile, the Bush ranch is very nearly a Texas model for energy efficiency. How's that for irony?)

With average US cars being sold with a LOWER gas mileage now than they did during the "oil crisis" of the 70's, I have sworn that I will not buy anything from any US automaker until there are significant improvements in the gas mileage of there overall the product line. But as long as automotive companies fight legislation to improve their technology, I'll give my money to overseas car makers who do make the effort.

It'll be interesting to see what happens in CA in 2012. Either US car companies will have to pull out of the CA market entirely (12% of their total sales), or once again CA environmental legislation will force big polluters to come into the modern era.

Subject: RE: BS: Ok, I may be overly optomistic
From: DougR
Date: 06 Nov 02 - 04:13 PM

Hmmmm. Your information on the amount of oil there differs completely from the projection made by the Secretary of the Interior on NPR a few months ago. Now which one is probably a better "guesser?" He projection was many years supply, and that it is is one of the largest pools of oil in the United States.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Ok, I may be overly optomistic
From: NicoleC
Date: 06 Nov 02 - 02:18 PM

Riiiight, Doug. And I'm the Queen of California.

The oil in Alaska they want to drill for won't be a) accessible for about 10 years, and b) there isn't that much up there to being with. About 3 months worth (if we used only that oil for a span of time.)

The issue behind drilling in Alaska is not that they think they'll get much oil -- it's a test case for allowing private companies access to resources on nationally protected and nationally owned land.

In other words, private companies selling to the public what already belongs to the public, on land that the public has determined has more important resources than finite ones -- i.e. beauty and biological diversity.

And I got a bridge in San Francisco I can sell you for cheap :)

Subject: RE: BS: Ok, I may be overly optomistic
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Nov 02 - 02:18 PM

Ah well, remember how in the long run the consequences of Thatcherism look very much as if they could well have permanently destroyed the Conservative Party as a serious contender for power in the UK.

Always assuming there is a long run.

Subject: RE: BS: Ok, I may be overly optomistic
From: DougR
Date: 06 Nov 02 - 02:16 PM

Tweed: I took your advice and listened to Rush Limbaugh this morning. No gloating that I could discern.

I think it was interesting that he was on NBC with Tom Brokaw and Tim Russert last night. I watched Fox News Network and CNN though.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Ok, I may be overly optomistic
From: DougR
Date: 06 Nov 02 - 02:05 PM

Hey Bobert, hold on now! Here you are taking credit for forseeing the results of this election. Everybody KNOWS it was Kendall! Remember the thread where he made the prediction? It's still active I believe.

Kendall could tuck his crystal ball under his arm, go to either the national headquarters of the Republican or Democratic party between now and the next election and walk away with a huge contract to forcast the election in 2004. He could buy a whole herd of Llamas! He could travel, and be on TV and radio talk shows! People would point to him when he walks down the street. So Bobert, don't take from Kendall his due!

Hey, I just thought of another plus due to the election. Now we won't have to be so covetous of Iraq's oil, we can drill for it right here in the USofA! Maybe Bush will call the war off! Stay tuned.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Ok, I may be overly optomistic
From: CarolC
Date: 06 Nov 02 - 09:53 AM

Here you go, DougR...

Jeb can take over!

I'd say that's about the size of it.

Subject: RE: BS: Ok, I may be overly optomistic
From: DougR
Date: 06 Nov 02 - 02:17 AM

Well Ted, don't fret. I don't covet anything you have. :>)

Sometimes I got discouraged, being in a community where I am in the real minority political wise, but then something comes along and lifts my spirits. Something like an election. The people have spoken, as they did when they elected President Bush, and I feel very good tonight. I know most of you are disappointed, and I do feel for you, but the ball is in the president's court now, and we will have to wait and see if he can be an effective leader. He has the House, he has the Senate, and now he has to deliver.

And now I'm heading for my foxhole. Fire away! :>)

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Ok, I may be overly optomistic
From: Genie
Date: 06 Nov 02 - 02:05 AM

Janet, Nicole? Janet who? In what race? (Reno lost in Florida's Democratic primary.)

But you and I, great minds that we obviously are, are on the same wavelength re that backlash thing.

On the other hand, as Ted reminds us, they're gonna have the courts, too -- not just the Supremes. And the disaster that can come from that will last a LONG time!

If the Repubs take the Senate, too, let's see how much Dubya is inclined to "work across the aisle" and be "a uniter, not a divider."

Genie

Subject: RE: BS: Ok, I may be overly optomistic
From: M.Ted
Date: 06 Nov 02 - 01:34 AM

The conservative republicans have got the white house, the supreme court, the senate, and the house of representatives--about the only hope we have is that they get to fighting among themselves over who gets which of our few remaining possesions--

Subject: RE: BS: Ok, I may be overly optomistic
From: NicoleC
Date: 06 Nov 02 - 01:28 AM

You know, I feel sorry for Camejo -- the Green candidate for CA Gov. He's the non-slimey choice, but tons of people voted defensively instead of telling both Davis and Simon to take a hike. Still, he pulled in 3% -- not bad in the lowest Gov voter turnout ever in CA history.

How ya'll folks feeling in Florida? You've got your own nose-holding race, but it looks like Jeb has won. I don't like his politics, but I think he's more capable dealing with that kind of power than Janet.

Well, Doug, maybe Bobert's right. The Repubs'll take the whole shootin' match and we'll watch the nuclear waste get dumped in Nevada, the Alaskan ecosystem destroyed for the sake of a relatively paltry amount of oil, SS retirement money go to stock brokers instead of the citizens who paid into the program, more hand-holding of corporate tax corruption like Enron and Auther Anderson, and women denied basic medical care.

But there's a "problem" -- historically, US governments that lean too far toward one party suffer a backlash. I wouldn't be surprised to see the Repubs lose the Senate and the White House in 2004 and 2006.

Subject: RE: BS: Ok, I may be overly optomistic
From: DougR
Date: 06 Nov 02 - 12:43 AM

Geeze! It appears my side is going to do much better than anticipated. Well, as some country singer sang, "Some got to win and some got to lose, goodtime Charlie's got the blues."

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Ok, I may be overly optomistic
From: NicoleC
Date: 06 Nov 02 - 12:31 AM

OUCH! I just checked the preliminary results, and so far only one of the Propositions is going the way I voted. One I really wanted to pass -- same day voter registration at the polls -- is going to get killed by a landslide. Oh well, it could be written better.

So I guess we're selling another $30 billion dollars in bonds for causes that have no oversight whatsoever. When they say it "won't raise taxes," does anyone ever realize we have to PAY THAT BACK WITH TAX MONEY!!!

LOL... at least my State Rep is winning by a landslide. Now, am I the only one that thinks it's ironic that the states are moving toward Democratic governors, while voting Republican for Congress? I'm all for checks and balances, but there's not a lot the states can do unless you're a biggie like CA and can tell the Attorney General to go stuff himself over medical marijuana.

But I like my Federal government nice and locked up so they gotta to talk to each other and compromise... my fave would be a Green President, Dem House and Repub Senate :D

Assuming the Repubs get control over both houses of Congress, hold on to your wallets. The corporations are gonna get tax breaks and you and me are gonna have to pay the difference. I may have to start cheating on my taxes.

Subject: RE: BS: Ok, I may be overly optomistic
From: catspaw49
Date: 06 Nov 02 - 12:24 AM

"Should" makes everything possible. I see where our convicted and imprisoned Congressman, James Trafficant, expelled by the House after his conviction, managed to pull in 13% of the vote in his district.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Ok, I may be overly optomistic
From: DougR
Date: 06 Nov 02 - 12:24 AM

I guess you folks in California had a limited choice, Nicole. Amazing that a state so populated couldn't come up with two more acceptable candidates. That's the way things go, I guesss.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Ok, I may be overly optomistic
From: NicoleC
Date: 06 Nov 02 - 12:19 AM

I'd be Queen of California, but there won't be any money left for the royal treasury whether Simon or Davis wins.

It's bad enough that Davis's policy is for sale, but at least he stays sold instead of whining he didn't get enough money.

The election for Gov is too close to call here. Davis *should* have been way ahead, but that only goes to show that polls aren't always accurate.

Subject: RE: BS: Ok, I may be overly optomistic
From: DougR
Date: 06 Nov 02 - 12:16 AM

I love you folks! You are the greatest!

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Ok, I may be overly optomistic
From: catspaw49
Date: 06 Nov 02 - 12:15 AM

Okay King.......I give up........You can have the position. You do realize though that royal families are required to maintain strict bloodlines so there's a lot of inbreeding goes on. ........oh well hell, that's no big deal to you, being from Mississippi and all........Yeah, I reckon you can make it big as King. Think I can get a spot as Court Jester or something? That way I wouldn't have to get all involved in the inbreeding stuff. I just can't get my mind around the idea of marrying my cousin......I'd fuck her, but marry her?.........nah, not my thing............

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Ok, I may be overly optomistic
From: artbrooks
Date: 06 Nov 02 - 12:14 AM

Well, I guess I need to focus inward, on the resounding win by the forces of righteousness (or should that be lefteousness?...is that a word?) in New Mexico.

Subject: RE: BS: Ok, I may be overly optomistic
From: Tweed
Date: 06 Nov 02 - 12:01 AM

LONG LIVE KING KENKHANDU! His Royal Majesty of Mississippi, Lord of the Land Where the Blues Began!
I would suggest, Yore Majesty, that you might enlist Othar Turner and his Hill Country Fife and Drums corps to be the official royal orchestra.

Long Live the KING!

Subject: RE: BS: Ok, I may be overly optomistic
From: khandu
Date: 05 Nov 02 - 11:36 PM

Well, I got sick of it all and earlier this year I proclaimed myself King of Mississippi. Now, I haven't yet had time to implement my changes but they will be coming like a slow train.

I write this to suggest that other states follow suit. Maybe some of my fellow Catters will become King of their state and we can really make this world a grand place.

Just in case, Ohio is not considered by the King of Mississippi to be a state, so Spaw, you cannot be King!

His Highness, King Kenkhandu

Subject: RE: BS: Ok, I may be overly optomistic
From: Bobert
Date: 05 Nov 02 - 11:26 PM

Ol' hillbilly Bobert called this thing three weeks ago and Iz here to say GREAT! What America needs is unfettered access to the wallets of the working class by the Repubs. This is the best thing that has ever happened for the Green Party. By 2004, the Green Party will get it's 5% and into the real world. The Repubs will have no excuses and the Dems are nothin' but excuses. So, bring it on, Boss Hog. America needs to see just who you are. You are the corporate fat cats who rip off people's dreams. You are the folks who will bring back the gas station abortions. You are the "ruling class". Have fun. Knock yourselves out with your abuses of the folks who serve you, wipw your mama's buttsa in nursing homes, get up at 4:00 in the am to build your houses, make the crap that you think you deserve. Yeah, have fun, but watch out, because the Green Party is your next concern. Waht are you gonna do when you are found out to have no pants on?

Yep, I have hoped for this day for so long. This is then beginning of the end. We will not be fooled again....

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Ok, I may be overly optomistic
From: Tweed
Date: 05 Nov 02 - 11:16 PM

I give up...I've never seen a bigger lot of liars and slanderous bastards garner so much support from so many stingy tightass fools.

DougR, Have you ever heard a hog crow like a rooster? Listen to Rush Limbaugh tomorrow!

Subject: RE: BS: Ok, I may be overly optomistic
From: Genie
Date: 05 Nov 02 - 11:07 PM

Well, Doug, I wouldn't hatchet my counts before they chicken, of course. But if the projections you see as optimistic are borne out, there may be a silver lining for us moderate-to-leftists, populists, non-hawk, environmentally concerned believers in civil liberties. If the Republican "right" controls the White House and Congress over the next two years, they'll have a chance to show their true colors and really scare the electorate before the 2004 elections. I'd be really surprised if you guys can prevail both now and in 2004.

But, as Yogi Berra wisely observed, "it ain't over till it's over."

Regards,
Genie

Subject: RE: BS: Ok, I may be overly optomistic
From: catspaw49
Date: 05 Nov 02 - 10:57 PM

Yeah right Doug.......I see though that George is about to shitcan his economic advisors which can't hurt anything. Hopefully he'll hire a bunch of Clinton's guys who had a far better handle on the budget than the current crop of nabobs.

Spaw

Subject: BS: Ok, I may be overly optomistic
From: DougR
Date: 05 Nov 02 - 10:45 PM

It appears, though, that my side is looking very good in the national elections in the USofA. The world can relax. The USofA is going to be in good hands!

After George W. is through, because of term limits, Jeb can take over!

It was a very good day!

DougR