Environmental damage seen from Shuttle

[gmac17]

One of the best takes I've ever read....

 

 

a small highlight of the long article:

 

Let's think back to people in 1900 in, say, New York. If they worried about people in 2000, what would they worry about? Probably: Where would people get enough horses? And what would they do about all the horseshit? Horse pollution was bad in 1900, think how much worse it would be a century later, with so many more people riding horses?

 

But of course, within a few years, nobody rode horses except for sport. And in 2000, France was getting 80% its power from an energy source that was unknown in 1900. Germany, Switzerland, Belgium and Japan were getting more than 30% from this source, unknown in 1900. Remember, people in 1900 didn't know what an atom was. They didn't know its structure. They also didn't know what a radio was, or an airport, or a movie, or a television, or a computer, or a cell phone, or a jet, an antibiotic, a rocket, a satellite, an MRI, ICU, IUD, IBM, IRA, ERA, EEG, EPA, IRS, DOD, PCP, HTML, internet. interferon, instant replay, remote sensing, remote control, speed dialing, gene therapy, gene splicing, genes, spot welding, heat-seeking, bipolar, prozac, leotards, lap dancing, email, tape recorder, CDs, airbags, plastic explosive, plastic, robots, cars, liposuction, transduction, superconduction, dish antennas, step aerobics, smoothies, twelve-step, ultrasound, nylon, rayon, teflon, fiber optics, carpal tunnel, laser surgery, laparoscopy, corneal transplant, kidney transplant, AIDS… None of this would have meant anything to a person in the year 1900. They wouldn't know what you are talking about.

 

Now. You tell me you can predict the world of 2100. Tell me it's even worth thinking about. Our models just carry the present into the future. They're bound to be wrong. Everybody who gives a moment's thought knows it.

 

I remind you that in the lifetime of most scientists now living, we have already had an example of dire predictions set aside by new technology. I refer to the green revolution. In 1960, Paul Ehrlich said, "The battle to feed humanity is over. In the 1970s the world will undergoe famines-hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death." Ten years later, he predicted four billion people would die during the 1980s, including 65 million Americans. The mass starvation that was predicted never occurred, and it now seems it isn't ever going to happen. Nor is the population explosion going to reach the numbers predicted even ten years ago. In 1990, climate modelers anticipated a world population of 11 billion by 2100. Today, some people think the correct number will be 7 billion and falling. But nobody knows for sure.

 

But it is impossible to ignore how closely the history of global warming fits on the previous template for nuclear winter. Just as the earliest studies of nuclear winter stated that the uncertainties were so great that probabilites could never be known, so, too the first pronouncements on global warming argued strong limits on what could be determined with certainty about climate change. The 1995 IPCC draft report said, "Any claims of positive detection of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability of the climate system are reduced." It also said, "No study to date has positively attributed all or part of observed climate changes to anthropogenic causes." Those statements were removed, and in their place appeared: "The balance of evidence suggests a discernable human influence on climate."

[stuckincincy]

It's Clinton's Fault! Not to mention that his administration was the most responsible to the environment of all modern day administrations. No critisizm of Bush? Nooooo, not by you.

Lemming.

398582[/snapback]

 

OK - what did the Clinton adm. do?

 

I'm aware of him signing executive orders about mercury and arsenic levels, leaving the incoming administration to hash it out. And the gasoline additive, MTBE championed by Gore - it's turned out to be a very problematical ground pollutant, as well as being implicated in causing cancer.

 

Try to answer without name-calling, if you can.

[RuntheDamnBall]

The problem with this assessment is that it denies that the green population & zero population growth movements have had any effect, while they obviously have. Our waste habits have changed to an extent (recycling, etc), higher standards have been enforced. Projections are just that, projections. They are meant to be sobering and to alter the pace. Without a doubt, most predictions made for such distant dates will not ring true; they are only based on our current information. That doesn't mean they are useless, for they show us the potential consequences of life as we live it, and force us to at least consider those facts.

 

People don't understand that being green doesn't mean one has to go live in a yert and be a subsistence farmer, taking one shower a month. It could be something as simple as pushing for more recycling in your communities, or driving a hybrid.

[Buckey]

OK - what did the Clinton adm. do?

 

I'm aware of him signing executive orders about mercury and arsenic levels, leaving the incoming administration to hash it out.  And the gasoline additive, MTBE championed by Gore - it's turned out to be a very problematical ground pollutant, as well as being implicated in causing cancer.

 

Try to answer without name-calling, if you can.

399134[/snapback]

 

Look it up for yourself.

It's well documented.

But here are some tidbits for you.

 

 

 

Bruce Hamilton, the Sierra Club's national conservation director, says Clinton's environmental report card swung wildly throughout his term of office.

"Bill Clinton started out with great promise for the environment," he says. "He made some serious missteps. Still, he completed the eight years with an extremely strong record, rivaling any other presidency in modern history. It all depends [on] when you decide to take your snapshot."

 

Sun Sets on President Clinton's Environmental Legacy

© Environment News Service (ENS) 2001

January 19, 2001

By Cat Lazaroff

 

WASHINGTON, DC, January 19, 2001 (ENS) - President Bill Clinton did not complete all the environmental initiatives he had planned - or all that environmentalists would have liked. Yet Clinton's administration is likely to be remembered as one of most supportive of the environment in the nation's history.

 

President Clinton made his final address to the nation Thursday night, thanking the public for their support of his two term presidency.

 

"In all the work I have done as President - every decision I have made, every executive action I have taken, every bill I have proposed and signed," Clinton said, "I've tried to give all Americans the tools and conditions to build the future of our dreams in a good society, with a strong economy, a cleaner environment, and a freer, safer more prosperous world."

 

"Incomes are rising across the board," Clinton noted. "Our air and water are cleaner. Our food and drinking water are safer. And more of our precious land has been preserved in the continental United States than at any time in a hundred years."

 

Clinton offered some advice to the incoming administration of George W. Bush, emphasizing the need to continue paying down the federal debt while choosing "wisely" to invest in the future and meet "big challenges."

 

Clinton warned that the new global economy requires the United States to take a leadership role in combating "the degradation of the global environment," as well as the spread of "deadly weapons and disease."

 

"In our times, America cannot, and must not, disentangle itself from the world," Clinton cautioned. "If we want the world to embody our shared values, then we must assume a shared responsibility."

 

Another responsibility the new administration must shoulder, Clinton advised, is the need to continue the integration of the nation's disparate peoples and beliefs.

 

"As we become ever more diverse, we must work harder to unite around our common values and our common humanity," Clinton said. "We must work harder to overcome our differences, in our hearts and in our laws. We must treat all our people with fairness and dignity, regardless of their race, religion, gender or sexual orientation, and regardless of when they arrived in our country."

 

CLINTON'S RECORD REFLECTS IMPORTANCE OF ENVIRONMENT

 

During his eight years in office, Clinton initiated or supported dozens of major environmental initiatives, and fought repeatedly against attempts to undermine environmental protections.

 

He regularly vetoed budget bills saddled by anti-environmental riders aimed at avoiding public scrutiny. Yet he took his own back door approach to environmental protections, using executive orders to create 17 new national monuments, and expand four more, without Congressional approval. These monuments preserve more than 4.6 million acres in the lower 48 states, more than any other administration has set aside.

 

The president opened himself to criticism by his frequent use of the 1906 Antiquities Act to designate new monuments on federal lands, thereby removing those lands from most logging, mining, oil and gas exploration and other extractive uses. Critics of Clinton's land policies have pounced on the current energy crisis in California as an example of the negative effects of land protections that prohibit mining and drilling.

 

But the Interior Department said this week that it has maintained a robust energy production program on public lands throughout the Clinton administration. The Department's oil, gas and coal program, administered by the U.S. Department of the Interior through the Bureau of Land Management and the Minerals Management Service, has continued energy development on federal lands at a pace that matches, or exceeds, production levels during the Ronald Reagan years, and during the previous George Bush administration, the agency said.

 

"The facts tell a clear story: the President's actions in protecting special landscapes will not adversely affect our nation's ability to produce energy on those federal lands that are appropriate for oil, gas or coal development," said outgoing Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt. "We are producing more energy from our federal lands than ever before, but we are doing so in a prudent manner."

 

The amount of Bureau of Land Management land that the President has placed in protected status amounts to less than two percent of the BLM lands that are potentially available for energy development, Babbitt noted.

 

Just this week, Clinton opted against creating a national monument in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), to the dismay of many environmentalists. President elect Bush plans to explore options for opening part of the refuge to oil drilling, and environmentalists had hoped that Clinton would defuse that threat by designating the Arctic National Monument.

 

Clinton determined that refuge status provided sufficient protection for ANWR, perhaps more than monument status would offer.

 

Clinton chose to focus largely on developing alternative energy sources, rather than new sources of fossil fuels. His administration launched more than 50 major initiatives to improve energy efficiency and develop clean, renewable energy sources. Over the past three years, the President secured more than $3 billion - a 50 percent increase in annual funding - to research and develop clean energy technologies.

 

ENVIRONMENT, ECONOMY BOTH SUPPORTED

 

Though the nation's booming economy has begun to falter in recent weeks, the Clinton administration enjoyed a period of remarkable economic prosperity. Throughout his tenure, Clinton and his administration argued that a strong economy and a clean environment are not mutually exclusive goals.

 

When Clinton took office in 1993, lethargic federal clean up efforts had left 88 percent of the worst 1,200 toxic waste sites and their communities polluted after 12 years of federal efforts, according to White House figures. Nearly 40,000 urban industrial sites sat abandoned with no federal strategy to redevelop them.

 

Sixty-two million people lived in areas with drinking water below federal standards, and nearly 157 million people - 62 percent of the country - breathed air that failed to meet federal standards.

 

The Clinton administration strengthened the Safe Drinking Water Act, requiring America's 55,000 water utilities to provide regular reports to their customers on the quality of their drinking water. Today, more than 90 percent of Americans live in areas served by drinking water systems that meet all federal standards.

 

The number of Americans living in communities meeting clean air standards has increased by 44 million since 1992.

 

Under Clinton, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) adopted the toughest standards ever on soot and smog, ordered major reductions in tailpipe emissions from cars, light trucks and sport utility vehicles, and mandated reducing the level of sulfur in gasoline by 90 percent.

 

If these measures are fully enacted - a shaky proposition given the environmental record of the incoming administration - these measures will cut smog causing pollution from new vehicles by 77 to 95 percent.

 

In recent weeks, the Administration targeted emissions from utilities and factories that darken the skies over national parks and wilderness areas, and announced a strategy to reduce harmful emissions of smog causing nitrogen oxides and particulate matter from heavy duty trucks and diesel fuels by more than 90 percent.

 

"Cleaning up big, dirty diesel trucks is critical to meet our nation's air quality goals and to protect the public health," said John Coruthers, Jr., president of the American Lung Association.

 

In the past eight years, three times as many Superfund sites were cleaned up as in the previous 12 years. Cleanup is completed or underway at 92 percent of all Superfund sites.

 

New initiatives will help clean up brownfields - lightly polluted abandoned industrial sites in urban areas - allowing them to be redeveloped, a policy that also helps reduce suburban sprawl.

 

"This is what urban revitalization is all about," noted Mickey Herbert, the majority owner of the Bridgeport Bluefish Baseball team in Connecticut. The Bluefish play in the new Harbor Yard sports complex, built on the site of a former brownfield. "This very site, which used to be the scourge of Fairfield County, is now the region's most exciting new entertainment venue."

 

The Clinton administration took a strong stance against environmental crimes, aggressively prosecuting those who violated the nation's environmental laws. In 1999, the EPA assessed a total of $228.3 million in civil and criminal penalties, the most ever assessed and $87 million more than in 1992.

 

The EPA referred 241 criminal cases to the Justice Department in 1999 - more than twice the number referred in 1992. More than 322 defendants were charged in 1999, and 2,500 total months of sentences were handed down, more than doubling enforcement activity in each category over 1992 levels.

 

CLINTON MAKES CLIMATE CHANGE A CENTRAL ISSUE

 

The Clinton administration launched the Climate Change Technology Initiative to spur the development of clean energy technologies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions that lead to global warming while saving money and creating jobs. Over the past eight years, the Clinton administration secured more than $13 billion for scientific research into the causes and possible solutions for global warming.

 

"The Clinton Administration deserves credit for seeing energy efficiency for what it is - an energy source that is essential for the economic health of our nation," said David Nemtzow, president of the Alliance to Save Energy. "The Climate Change Technology Initiative in particular is spurring new clean energy technologies that are paying off like a gusher for the American people. The important choices on energy and climate must be made with a clear eye on the contribution to the environment, the economy, national security, and international competitiveness delivered in the past and promised for the future by energy-efficiency."

 

Even the federal government has become more efficient, reducing its annual energy bill by $800 million in 1999 alone. The Clinton administration implemented new energy efficiency standards for heating and cooling equipment, water heaters, lighting, refrigerators, clothes washers and dryers, and cooking equipment, with some of these new regulations passed just this week.

 

These initiatives, when they are fully in place, will significantly reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. But Clinton failed to persuade the Senate to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, the international treaty aimed at combating climate change.

 

Under the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, 39 industrialized nations are committed to cut their greenhouse gas emissions to an average of 5.2 percent below 1990 levels by the period 2008-2012. But the Protocol will not take effect until it is ratified by 55 percent of the nations emitting at least 55 percent of the six greenhouse gases.

 

The U.S. failed to ratify the treaty during Clinton's tenure, and is even less likely to do so while George W. Bush is in office. Bush has repeatedly said that he opposes the mechanisms of the Kyoto Protocol.

 

CLINTON SET NEW STANDARD FOR LAND PRESERVATION

 

When Clinton took office, more than half the historic wetlands in the continental U.S. had been lost to development, or drained for agriculture. The previous to administrations of Reagan and Bush had created no new national monuments, and proposed mining and oil drilling operations threatened natural areas ranging from the California and Florida coasts to Yellowstone National Park.

 

President Clinton, along with Vice President Al Gore, helped set aside millions of acres as monuments, parks, wilderness or other protected areas.

 

The Clinton-Gore administration initiated a program to reverse the loss of wetlands, setting a goal of a net increase of 100,000 acres of wetlands a year by 2005.

 

In 1996, pressure from the White House helped halt the proposed Crown Butte Resources gold mine, which would have been located about three miles east of the northeast corner of Yellowstone National Park. Toxic runoff from the mine, or its planned 106 acre tailings pond, could have proved as devastating to the park as the recent cyanide spill from a Romanian gold mine, which poisoned hundreds of kilometers of rivers in Romania, Hungary and Serbia almost one year ago.

 

Clinton worked with Congress to provide dedicated and protected funding for conservation and preservation programs, including his Lands Legacy initiative. The agreement will nearly double U.S. investment in these programs, making it one of the largest investments in protecting open space in the nation's history.

 

Earlier this month, Clinton finalized a sweeping rule that bans road building in nearly 60 million acres of pristine, roadless areas of national forests, including Tongass National Forest in Alaska. Outgoing Forest Service Chief Mike Dombeck took another step this month to protect old growth forests, advising the agency to explore regulations that would ban all logging of old growth trees.

 

Clinton and Vice President Gore protected coastal areas by extending an existing moratorium on new oil leasing off most of the U.S. coast through 2012, and permanently barred new leasing in national marine sanctuaries.

 

A MIXED LEGACY, BUT CLEARLY PRO-ENVIRONMENT

 

Among Clinton's most controversial moves was the opening of permanent normal trade relations with China in May 2000. Opponents cited China's dismal record on environmental issues, and warned that ending the practice of annually reviewing China's record before approving trade removes one of America's only means of influencing China's policies.

 

Clinton also encountered criticism over the U.S. relationship with the World Trade Organization, an international coalition that has been condemned for its lax policies toward environmental protection and human rights.

 

But these issues, while attracting vocal and highly visible protests, are less likely to be remembered as Clinton's legacy then are the tangible reminders of Clinton's pro-environment choices: the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument; acres of roadless, old growth forest; groves of windmills producing pollution free electricity.

 

Though Clinton will not go down in history as the nation's best president - just today, he publicly admitted to lying under oath to an independent prosecutor - environmentalists would certainly not call him the worst. Clinton's environmental record beats that of his immediate predecessors and seems likely to surpass that of his successor.

 

And the environment is likely to play a major role in how the next president is perceived. Two candidates ran for president last year with pro-environmental agendas - Vice President Al Gore and consumer advocate Ralph Nader. Gore captured, by a very narrow margin, the popular vote, but the Democratic candidate was defeated in the electoral college.

 

Green Party candidate Nader won about three percent of the nationwide vote, including more than 97,000 votes in Florida, the state on which the election ultimately turned.

 

That means that a solid majority of the country chose to vote for candidates with strong environmental records - a fact that George W. Bush may ignore only at his political peril.

Clinton presided over the salvage logging rider, perhaps the largest cut of publicly owned timber in U.S. history. On the other hand, he has protected more of the country's land than any president since Theodore Roosevelt.

 

Making cars and fuels cleaner. Announced the toughest standards ever for reducing harmful air pollution from auto tailpipes – an action that will make new cars 77 to 95 percent cleaner than current standards. The new rule means cleaner, healthier air for everyone as 50 million tons of smog-causing air pollution will be removed from the air over the next few decades.

 

The new standards for the first time ensure that SUV’s, mini-vans and light-duty trucks meet the same low levels of tailpipe emissions as other passenger cars.

The action also significantly reduces sulfur levels, and for the first time treats cleaner gasoline and cleaner cars as a single system for achieving cleaner air.

Cutting emissions from power plants. Took unprecedented action to reduce smog-causing pollutants from large power plants and industrial sources at 392 facilities by requiring that emissions of harmful nitrogen oxides be cut by almost half.

 

These reductions will mean healthier air for 100 million Americans, both in communities near the plants and in communities hundreds of miles away who are affected by the transport of air pollution across their states’ borders.

This action responds to petitions filed under the Clean Air Act by Connecticut, New York, Massachusetts and Pennsylvania.

Fighting for tougher clean-air standards. Approved strong new clean air standards for soot and smog that will prevent up to 15,000 premature deaths a year and improve the lives of millions of Americans who suffer from respiratory illnesses. These standards have been delayed by litigation. The Administration is pursuing this case in court.

 

Cleaning skies over national parks. Announced new federal efforts to improve air quality in our national parks and wilderness areas.

 

The new "regional haze" plan aims to restore pristine skies and unspoiled views at the Grand Canyon, Yosemite, Acadia and the Great Smoky Mountains national parks and other natural treasures that draw 290 million visitors a year.

The plan addresses air pollution from power plants, cars and factories that can cause a veil of white or brown haze to hang over many parks during much of the year.

Reducing harmful emissions from heavy-duty trucks and diesel fuels. Announced a strategy to reduce by over 90 percent harmful emissions of smog-causing nitrogen oxides and particulate matter, or soot, from heavy-duty trucks. When complete, the strategy will also lead to cleaner-burning diesel fuels.

 

In the first phase beginning in 2004, the proposed new engine standards will make gasoline trucks 78 percent cleaner and diesel trucks 40 percent cleaner. Emissions of soot will be reduced by 55,000 tons per year.

Next year in the second phase, EPA plans to propose reducing nitrogen oxides from heavy trucks by 80 to 90 percent and soot by an additional 80 to 90 percent, possibly as early as 2007.

Enforcing clean air laws. Took significant clean air enforcement actions by filing seven lawsuits against electrical utility companies in the Midwest and South.

 

Aimed at dramatically reducing smog and acid rain throughout the Midwest and along the East Coast, the enforcement action alleges that the companies’ power plants have contributed to severe environmental and public health problems.

The cases allege that these plants have expanded their facilities and output over the years without also adding required pollution controls.

Reducing air toxics. Issued several new rules to reduce emissions of air toxics from a variety of sources.

 

Proposed rules for municipal waste combusters nationwide, sharply reducing toxic air pollutants like mercury, lead and cadmium.

Issued the first federal rules to protect public health by significantly reducing harmful toxic air pollution from medical incinerators. The rules reduced mercury emissions by 94 percent and dioxin by 95 percent.

Took the strongest action ever to reduce air toxics by requiring massive reductions in pollution from a variety of industrial sources including chemical plants and petroleum refineries. This action alone called for 90 percent reductions in major air toxics and was the equivalent of taking 38 million cars off the road.

 

Clinton rode the wave of a changing West, slashing logging, setting aside roadless forests, creating sweeping national monuments and issuing endangered species protections

[stuckincincy]

Look it up for yourself.

It's well documented.

But here are some tidbits for you.

399473[/snapback]

 

 

Sweet. I was actually looking for personal knowledge, information, and insight in your own words, though...

 

Click. Click. Copy. Paste. Not good enough - I can do same and proclaim that some doofus post on some doofus site has proven that Mars is made of cheap wine, barbecue sauce, and exceedingly humorous nematodes.

 

But, you did not call me a name. Believe me, you have soared above several long-time PPP posters, so I salute you, and will maintain dialogue with you.

[Buckey]

Sweet. I was actually looking for  personal knowledge, information, and insight in your own words, though...

 

Click. Click. Copy. Paste.  Not good enough - I can do same and proclaim that some doofus post on some doofus site has proven that Mars is made of cheap wine, barbecue sauce, and exceedingly humorous nematodes.

 

But, you did not call me a name. Believe me, you have soared above several long-time PPP posters, so I salute you, and will maintain dialogue with you.  

399550[/snapback]

 

No, it's Pluto that is made of cheap wine, barbecue sauce, and exceedingly humorous nematodes.

...if I posted it in my own words you would ask for my sources... I post sources and you ask for my own words...

[Wacka]

Ban potatoes! They have arsenic in them!!

[stuckincincy]

No, it's Pluto that is made of cheap wine, barbecue sauce, and exceedingly humorous nematodes.

...if I posted it in my own words you would ask for my sources... I post sources and you ask for my own words...

399574[/snapback]

 

I want to hear what you have to say, not what others have to say. There is a place for posting sources (it's best to cite an address rather that display the site's content), but the general idea is we discuss things.

 

Now, we disagree about this topic and are unlikely to reach agreement. We both know that.

 

But as I implied in my previous post, you seem a cut above the several bombers that habituate here.

 

So keep posting; we perhaps shall be in accord on this or that issue...doubtful, perhaps , but no dialogue no possibility...eh?

[Buckey]

I want to hear what you have to say, not what others have to say. There is a place for posting sources (it's best to cite an address rather that display the site's content), but the general idea is we discuss things.

 

Now, we disagree about this topic and are unlikely to reach agreement. We both know that.

 

But as I implied in my previous post, you seem a cut above the several bombers that habituate here.

 

So keep posting; we perhaps shall be in accord on this or that issue...doubtful, perhaps  ,  but no dialogue no possibility...eh?

399610[/snapback]

 

I know that Clinton didn't have much of an eenvironmental policy in his first term. His best accomplishments and ideas came in his 2nd term, and I credit Al Gore for most of it... but at least Clinton took good advice and tried to implement it. He also dumped a lot of legislation into Bush's lap knowing his loyalty lies with his party's contributors, who would pretty much do away with any environmental regulation if they had their way. And hence Bush would look even worse as an environmentally responsible elected official (if that's posssible). Sure, as alll politicians do, he made mistakes and he cut deals that weren't environmentally beneficial to our nation as you mentioned... But all in all, Clinton/Gore had a very good record on the environment. I don't think you can suggest any other administration has done better in our lifetime IMHO.

[Ghost of BiB]

The giant asteroid is going to render this all moot, anyway.

[Buckey]

The giant asteroid is going to render this all moot, anyway.

399870[/snapback]

 

Depends on when it comes.

[stuckincincy]

The giant asteroid is going to render this all moot, anyway.

399870[/snapback]

I'm not worried. I don't eat a lot of fats for cholesterol reasons, but I have a half pound in the ole icebox for my wife and me to occasionally have for breakfast, and the other half and another pound in the freezer. And 3 gallons of cheap whiskey in the pantry, so if it hits and doesn't vaporize us, we plan to fry up and pound down the bacon, hope that our decades of homage to our Lord pays off, and let the booze take us out.

 

 

Wadda ya think? Good plan?

[Buckey]

I'm not worried. I don't eat a lot of fats for cholesterol reasons, but I have a half pound in the ole icebox for my wife and me to occasionally have for breakfast, and the other half and another pound in the freezer. And 3 gallons of cheap whiskey in the pantry, so if it hits and doesn't vaporize us, we plan to fry up and pound down the bacon, hope that our decades of homage to our Lord pays off, and let the booze take us out.

Wadda ya think? Good plan? 

399909[/snapback]

 

Sounds like a plan... Of course there is always Lipitor and Salmon oil so you can get a head start.

[Ghost of BiB]

I'm not worried. I don't eat a lot of fats for cholesterol reasons, but I have a half pound in the ole icebox for my wife and me to occasionally have for breakfast, and the other half and another pound in the freezer. And 3 gallons of cheap whiskey in the pantry, so if it hits and doesn't vaporize us, we plan to fry up and pound down the bacon, hope that our decades of homage to our Lord pays off, and let the booze take us out.

Wadda ya think? Good plan? 

399909[/snapback]

 

I have a lard and bourbon every Sunday morning just to get started.

[Buckey]

I have a lard and bourbon every Sunday morning just to get started.

399970[/snapback]

 

Fire up the smoker BIB!

[Alaska Darin]

I credit Al Gore for most of it

399841[/snapback]

You mean THIS Al Gore?

 

Find someone else to worship. I find it incredibly funny that people will fail to connect scumminess when it suites their partisan political beliefs, yet continually chastise the other side for doing the same thing.

 

It's alot of fun to watch you and Mickey slurp each other's laps, though.

 

America: For Sale. Cheap.

 

- Sincerely,

The Stupid.

[Buckey]

You mean THIS Al Gore?

 

Find someone else to worship.  I find it incredibly funny that people will fail to connect scumminess when it suites their partisan political beliefs, yet continually chastise the other side for doing the same thing.

 

It's alot of fun to watch you and Mickey slurp each other's laps, though.

 

America: For Sale.  Cheap.

 

  - Sincerely,

      The Stupid.

400019[/snapback]

 

You haven't a clue do you? But you love to embarr ass yourself.

What the F does your little link have to do with the environmental achievements of that administration? And WHO said that I worship ANY politician? Carefull, I'll sick my cat on you man.

[Wacka]

I've got a mental picture of Buckey as either a Birkenstock wearing, hemp clothed, bycycle riding, patchouli (sp?) oil smelling flower child wanna-be

 

or a 14 year old girl.

[Buckey]

I've got a mental picture of Buckey as either a Birkenstock wearing, hemp clothed, bycycle riding, patchouli (sp?) oil smelling  flower child wanna-be

 

or  a 14 year old girl.

400048[/snapback]

 

Radical determinations of others, tunnel vision, what can I say ... You are an extremist, just like our enemy.

[Alaska Darin]

You haven't a clue do you? But you love to embarr ass yourself.

What the F does your little link have to do with the environmental achievements of that administration? And WHO said that I worship ANY politician? Carefull, I'll sick my cat on you man. 

400041[/snapback]

Yeah. I'm embarrassed. Embarrassed that I can see the hypocrisy of enacting "policy" that doesn't amount to a bucket of spit while in the background making millions of dollars from raping the very environment you think they're doing a good job of protecting.

 

More on Al Gore "Environmentalist".

 

Keep lauding. They live free and clear based on stupidity.