Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Impeach George W. Bush -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TigerPaw who wrote (6174)	8/22/2001 10:29:17 PM
From: jlallen	Respond to of 93284

and large dumps full of dead caribou fawn. Is there no end to your lying... JLA

To: TigerPaw who wrote (6174)	8/22/2001 10:40:04 PM
From: American Spirit	Respond to of 93284

Bush favors high energy prices,raping environment. rape.http://www.grandoldpetroleum.com/history.html In fact the two go together as the only way they can remove environmental protection is to scare us with higher energy prices. They proved what they can do when they work together from last June to this March when Jeffords move stoped them in their tracks. Here's some evidence of Bush's giveaways to Big Energy and his real goal, high energy prices and the plundering of our national treasures. And he loves the windfall profits his buddies get to as it helps keep him in power. They hand over their commission to him in the form of soft money, huge amounts of it. Even sneakier are the huge Big Energy corporate disinformation campaigns we see on TV attacking Bush's foes. This skirts campaign finance laws. You can bet there's plenty of offshore money coming in too, as much as they need. Why did McCain have no chance? Because before he even began Bush had 50 million in Big Energy money plus his father's old crony gang and string-pullers and ex-CIA and military types. He also had a friendly OPEC on his side. They owed Bush-Cheney-Powell for saving them from Iraq. They paid them back by cutting prodction in the middle of the campaign creating a very scary oil crisis which Bush promised us he was qualified to "fix". He fixed it all right, fixed us and the election. Biggest ripoff in history. They stole 3 times out tax cut before the tax cut even happened.

To: TigerPaw who wrote (6174)	8/23/2001 2:26:24 AM
From: Mephisto	Respond to of 93284

"A look behind the rhetoric reveals that at the heart of the Bush energy plan are proposals to weaken long-standing environmental safeguards. Americans fought hard over the last three decades for these protections. But the Bush plan holds the corporate energy lobby in higher esteem than ordinary Americans who breathe the air, drink the water and overwhelmingly support protecting our wilderness. Coal and oil companies, despite record profits, now seek enormous new taxpayer subsidies and relief from environmental safeguards as payback for their campaign support. Drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is but a piece of a plan that makes oil and gas exploration and development fair game on nearly all of our public lands......" "Why not tighten fuel economy standards instead? This alone could over the next 50 years, free up 15 times as much oil as could be produced by drilling in the Arctic, and it would benefit consumers much faster. The administration wants merely to "study" this option. More study? Well, we know what that means. For electricity, simply supporting the higher air conditioner efficiency standards proposed by the previous administration would save 13,000 megawatts during periods of peak demand in 2020, equivalent to the output of dozens of power plants Thirty years ago, corporate America danced across the nation dumping toxic waste into our rivers, spewing chemicals into our air and ravaging pristine public lands, all in the name of progress. In response to the horrific environmental damage of the postwar era, a broad coalition of Americans began working to represent public health, safety and environmental concerns in all levels of the government. Now we face an administration trying to unravel this work." The above is an excerpt from an article entitled, Bush vs. the American Landscape . The author is Robert Redford. It was published in the Op-Ed section of The New York Times on Wednesday, May 23, 2001, Page A29. **************************************************************** TP, I believe Bush refused to uphold the air conditioner efficiency standards proposed by the Clinton Administration. As I recall, Bush also refused to tighten safety standards in the work place for those who must work for a living. I'll have to order a copy of the Redford Op-Ed article from the archives so that we can read it. It is a very good article. - Mephisto