"Stephen Trapani" wrote in message
...
You must have lost track of what we were talking about because you are now
supporting my position. Funny. Past presidents and the like can easily do
very well income-wise speaking, writing books and a variety of legal ways,
just like Clinton has done, and so they have no reason at all to do huge
favors for anyone while they are in office.


Your contention was that politicians will not seek profit for their friends
while in office, and now you're claiming that they don't because they'll
make money after they leave office. In addition, you said that former
Presidents and VP are somehow accountable, and that their finances are
"tracked" with some requirement to do that. Both statements are patently
absurd.

You claimed that Clinton came into office well off. I provided a link that
disproved this.

I also provided a link that shows that Cheney was wealthy and will likely be
more so after he leaves office, all the while enriching his oil buddies. You
claimed that this will be closely monitored, which is also absurd.

Politicians have and will continue to break laws to enrich their friends.
Bush and Cheney are prime examples.

When asked by Martha Raddatz of ABC his reaction to 70% of the people
disagreeing with the reason and prosecution of the Iraqi war, Cheney's
response was, and I quote, "So?" Cheney would and has sacrificed what is
good for the US in the name of big oil and flawed ideology.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 19:44:58 -0700, "Capt. JG"
wrote:

Much like some western Euro countries, we should be
moving much more aggressively in the direction of alternative energy.

Iowa has had one oil well that produced 69 barrels, so they looked
elsewhere for energy. We came up with wind. The state of Iowa
manufactures windmills, and gets 5% of its electricity from them.
The rest of the world is agressively pursuing nuclear. We should be.
Turn all those surplus weapons into power, for openers. Alcohol is a
cruel hoax. Turning food into fuel is insane. The poorest people will
starve

Casady

In article ,
(Richard Casady) wrote:

On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 19:44:58 -0700, "Capt. JG"
wrote:

Much like some western Euro countries, we should be
moving much more aggressively in the direction of alternative energy.

Iowa has had one oil well that produced 69 barrels, so they looked
elsewhere for energy. We came up with wind. The state of Iowa
manufactures windmills, and gets 5% of its electricity from them.
The rest of the world is agressively pursuing nuclear. We should be.
Turn all those surplus weapons into power, for openers. Alcohol is a
cruel hoax. Turning food into fuel is insane. The poorest people will
starve

From todays' Times:

Scientists find bugs that eat waste and excrete petrol

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle4133668.ece

--
Molesworth

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 18:44:04 GMT, (Richard
Casady)
wrote:

On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 19:44:58 -0700, "Capt. JG"
wrote:

Much like some western Euro countries, we should be
moving much more aggressively in the direction of alternative energy.

Iowa has had one oil well that produced 69 barrels, so they looked
elsewhere for energy. We came up with wind. The state of Iowa
manufactures windmills, and gets 5% of its electricity from them.
The rest of the world is agressively pursuing nuclear. We should be.
Turn all those surplus weapons into power, for openers. Alcohol is a
cruel hoax. Turning food into fuel is insane. The poorest people will
starve


Yeah, but the more that starve, the fewer will be consuming energy. Over
population is the root of the entire problem, and any other "solution" is
merely
a stop-gap temporary bandaid. I'm not saying that we should let people
starve,
but I am saying we need to stop reproducing at greater than the mortality
rate.
We are past the point where "zero population growth" is enough. We need to
work
the numbers back down. I would even halt all funding for further research
into
ways to extend life. It's counterproductive to overall survival.

The right-wingnut administration promotes abstinence only programs, which
have been shown not to work. And, even the laudable efforts of the Bush
administration to provide HIV meds is tainted and diminished by the
requirement of requiring that these programs be the only ones used... Even
when a country wants to use it's own money for condom distribution, it can't
or risk losing funding for medication.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com