wrote in message
...
On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 17:49:46 -0700, Stephen Trapani

wrote:

wrote:
On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 10:06:27 -0700, "Capt. JG"
wrote:

"Stephen Trapani" wrote in message
...
Capt. JG wrote:
"Stephen Trapani" wrote in message
...
Capt. JG wrote:
"Stephen Trapani" wrote in message
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...022202189.html
You provide a link to an account of a past presidents income to
disprove my statement that people are keeping close tabs on him?
To
demonstrate that you were exaggerating his income? To confirm that
he
makes most of it on the speaking circuit like I said?

Man, I'd hate to see what you would provide if you were trying to
*support* my position!

Stephen
I guess you don't remember typing, "I know he made close to that
before
he got in office," which is clearly wrong.

Man, I'd hate to see you actually look at the facts!
The article did mention that they were close to broke when Hillary
was
elected because they spent so much on campaigning, but it didn't say
how
much they made prior to that. Did you mean to post some facts about
that?

Stephen

Do your own research! The Clintons were not very well off in the
scheme
of things compared to Bush/Cheney. Please feel free to site the
instance
in the article that said the Clintons used their money for campaining
and
that was why they were broke.
"Indeed, the Clintons -- who left the White House with an estimated
$12
million in legal debts rung up during the Whitewater, campaign
fundraising
and Monica S. Lewinsky investigations..."

BTW, this was before Bill was elected. I think you need to re-read
the
article.
Remember what this discussion was about? You know, the part you were
wrong
about so you changed the subject? Don't you remember? About whether
Clinton was hiding payoffs from all the favors he did while he was
president? I said past presidents and VPs are watched carefully, so it
would be next to impossible for them to get any significant payoffs.
You
responded by claiming Clinton was making 100 million per year? Then
you
posted a link where a reporter knew his exact income?

Stephen


You can keep trying to twist the facts, but the truth is that there are
no
requirements for presidents (current or former) to publish their tax
returns. The Bushs and Cheneys were wealthy before they took office and
will
be wealthier when they leave office. The Clintons were relatively less
well
off when they got to the White House, and eventually, they paid their
debts
and Bill made a lot of money after he left office.

Bush and Cheney will make far more money for themselves (much of it
will not
be examined after they leave office) and much more for their friends.
Bush
and Cheney's "friends" are big oil, who now will not be forced to be
taxed
on money they made from the run-up of gas prices. I guess an extra $36B
is a
nice payment for Bush/Cheney and the Republicans in the Senate.

Vote McCain for four more years of the same!

It was the Bush Administration that relaxed the rules regarding oil
speculation. That certainly worked to the advantage of some folks and
heavily against the interests of MOST folks.

Way off. You know that it is foreign oil driving up the prices, right?
You must not know that the rules you refer to are wrt domestic oil
speculation. I don't know how much domestic speculation has been
stimulated as a result, but if much has, that would drive down the price
of oil. It can't drive up the price.

Stephen

I'll bet you aren't even aware that US oil companies are EXPORTING oil.
That's
right. Regardless of where they get their oil, they are always ready
willing and
able to re-sell it to whomever will pay the highest price for it. US Oil
companies regularly sell oil to places such as China who will pay more
than they
can get for it domestically. That's why drilling in Anwar won't do
anything at
all for U.S. energy needs. They want that oil so they can sell it to China
for
big bucks, not to make the US more "energy independent".

Realistically, it will be difficult to be truly energy independent. What we
need to do is make the painful transition to non-oil-based personal
transportation. I think it's a mis-statement to say we should reduce our
dependence on "foreign" oil. Rather, we should reduce our dependence on oil,
period. We can't eliminate it, but increasing CAFE standards significantly,
will reduce our demand. Much like some western Euro countries, we should be
moving much more aggressively in the direction of alternative energy.

Oh well... this isn't really about sailing, so.....

--
"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

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


I'll bet you aren't even aware that US oil companies are EXPORTING oil.
That's
right. Regardless of where they get their oil, they are always ready
willing and
able to re-sell it to whomever will pay the highest price for it. US Oil
companies regularly sell oil to places such as China who will pay more
than they
can get for it domestically. That's why drilling in Anwar won't do
anything at
all for U.S. energy needs. They want that oil so they can sell it to
China
for
big bucks, not to make the US more "energy independent".

Realistically, it will be difficult to be truly energy independent. What
we
need to do is make the painful transition to non-oil-based personal
transportation. I think it's a mis-statement to say we should reduce our
dependence on "foreign" oil. Rather, we should reduce our dependence on
oil,
period. We can't eliminate it, but increasing CAFE standards
significantly,
will reduce our demand. Much like some western Euro countries, we should
be
moving much more aggressively in the direction of alternative energy.

Oh well... this isn't really about sailing, so.....

Don't overlook the rest of the picture. Oil isn't just for powering
transportataion and heating. Every bit of plastic, including Neal's plaid
polyester leisure suit, is made from petroleum, as are many other things.

I was hoping to overlook that particular application.

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