PETITION TO STOP AL GORE AND LEFT-WING ENVIRONMENTAL WACKOS !

Michael Johnson > wrote in
:

> The trouble is he can't do it without Congress gong along with it.

He also can't do it without the state itself allowing it. The Guvernator
has already said "nein" to drilling off the coast of California. I don't
know why the states have veto power over thism, but they do.

On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 23:25:46 GMT, Joe > wrote:

>Spike > wrote in
:
>
<SNIP>
>
>As for the Chinese drilling in the Gulf, I have to doubt it. The Gulf
>(at least the eastern part) is already locked up in a protective zone
>that prohibits any drilling. Here's a recent article:
>http://preview.tinyurl.com/5a7oeg
>
>You and Michael have basically got it right IMO. The reason we're in
>this current mess is simply due to greed and politics. And the American
>people are slowly but surely waking up to this fact.
That only applies to the Florida coast. The fact that the Chinese may
not be drilling "off shore" is of little import when the serious side
is that in addition to scarfing up more and more oil from places like
the Middle East, is that they would be in cahoots with the Cubans to
siphon off oil from our side of the globe. A win win for the Commies
in Cuba.

On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 21:53:00 -0400, "dwight" >
wrote:

>"Joe" > wrote in message
. ..
>> Spike > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 16:40:31 -0400, Michael Johnson >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Joe wrote:
>>>>> Michael Johnson > wrote in
>>>>> :
>>>>>
>>>>>> Columbotrek wrote:
>>>>>>> Dwight D. Eisenhower wrote:
>>>>>>>> http://www.grassfire.org/106/petitio...16641789&NID=1
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>> <SNIP>
>>>
>>> It is reported that the CHINESE are now drilling in the Gulf of MEXICO
>>> just off the LA coastal range. And our own government won't help it's
>>> own. Not that it does us much good if we don't have the refinery
>>> capacity to handle more.
>>
>> That's the other side of the coin. Those bastids don't want to build
>> more refineries because they're making money hand over fist as it is
>> now.
>
>It pains me, knowing that WE have provided billions in subsidies for the oil
>companies, to hear one of their spokesmen saying that they severely
>underestimated the need for increased refining capabilities. No shortage of
>oil, just a shortage of gas.
>
>Can we get any of that money back?
>
>dwight
>
Of course not. That's like will Congress and the IRS return the
billions squandered on pork and other wasteful projects, and because
they can't seem to balance their checkbook?????

Michael Johnson wrote:
> John C. wrote:
>> "Michael Johnson" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> <SNIP>
>>> Also, the Supreme Court will like go very liberal if Obama is elected.
>>> The latest ruling giving terrorists the legal rights of a US citizen was
>>> one of the worst decisions I have ever seen. It will have horrible
>>> effects on our ability to fight these guys. Now we can't interrogate
>>> like we should and they can request an attorney and clam up. This
>>> decision will definitely cost American lives in the future. With
>>> decisions like these we can't afford a more liberal Supreme Court and,
>>> for me, is all the reason I need to vote for McCain. I'll do it while
>>> holding my nose though.
>>
>> I'm having a hard time remembering the last election where I voted
>> _for_ a
>> candidate. The SOP seems to have become voting _against_ a candidate.
>> A sad
>> state of affairs. <sigh>
>
> The last president I voted for was Reagan in 1980 and 1984. Before that
> I was too young to vote. What is even sadder is I can't think of ONE
> politician I would wholeheartedly vote for to be president.

Ralph Nader???

--



"I imagine Lamie sitting at a stop sign,
waiting for it to change" - Burgess Krell

"You send email. You're abusive. It's appropriate
to this newsgroup. Neener neener. - Marc Bissonnette

"there certainly does seem to be an internet predator here,
but anyone who posts publicly 'attn police officer'
is most likely a very large part of the problem. - Bob

Joe wrote:
> Michael Johnson > wrote in
> :
>
>> John C. wrote:
>>> "Michael Johnson" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>> <SNIP>
>>>> Also, the Supreme Court will like go very liberal if Obama is
>>>> elected. The latest ruling giving terrorists the legal rights of a
>>>> US citizen was one of the worst decisions I have ever seen. It will
>>>> have horrible effects on our ability to fight these guys. Now we
>>>> can't interrogate like we should and they can request an attorney
>>>> and clam up. This decision will definitely cost American lives in
>>>> the future. With decisions like these we can't afford a more
>>>> liberal Supreme Court and, for me, is all the reason I need to vote
>>>> for McCain. I'll do it while holding my nose though.
>>> I'm having a hard time remembering the last election where I voted
>>> _for_ a candidate. The SOP seems to have become voting _against_ a
>>> candidate. A sad state of affairs. <sigh>
>> The last president I voted for was Reagan in 1980 and 1984. Before
>> that I was too young to vote. What is even sadder is I can't think of
>> ONE politician I would wholeheartedly vote for to be president.
>
> I might vote for Colin Powell (as opposed to against anyone else), but
> the problem is that those worthy of becoming president won't run because
> they know better.

Or they have something in their past that they don't want drug out in
front of the public. Even though it has nothing to do with their
ability to be an excellent president. IMO, we need to draft a CEO of a
larger well run company that gets a high rating from its employees and
let that person straighten out all this mess we are in.

"Spike" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 21:53:00 -0400, "dwight" >
> wrote:
>
>>
>>It pains me, knowing that WE have provided billions in subsidies for the
>>oil
>>companies, to hear one of their spokesmen saying that they severely
>>underestimated the need for increased refining capabilities. No shortage
>>of
>>oil, just a shortage of gas.
>>
>>Can we get any of that money back?
>>
>>dwight
>>
> Of course not. That's like will Congress and the IRS return the
> billions squandered on pork and other wasteful projects, and because
> they can't seem to balance their checkbook?????

The Democrats have the reputation (earned or not) of tax-and-spend, while
the Republicans (the party of fiscal responsibility) have been an absolute
disgrace over the past decade. Having control of the national purse strings
seems to be too much temptation for both parties. That's why we need a
strong third party alternative.

I handle the books here at the home front, and I'm pretty good at NOT
spending more than we bring in. I haven't yet borrowed money from a foreign
country to buy that 60" plasma that my grandchildren (unborn to date) will
have to pay for.

I offer my services as candidate for President in 2012.

Problem is, in order to return the country to a sound fiscal footing, I'll
need a majority of like-minded individuals elected to Congress. The
President can lead, advise, and veto, but Congress decides what we do with
all that money.

dwight

Joe wrote:
> Michael Johnson > wrote in
> :
>
>> elaich wrote:
>>> Michael Johnson > wrote in
>>> :
>>>
>>>> The trouble is he can't do it without Congress gong along with it.
>>> He also can't do it without the state itself allowing it. The
>>> Guvernator has already said "nein" to drilling off the coast of
>>> California. I don't know why the states have veto power over thism,
>>> but they do.
>> The states have no jurisdiction over territorial waters. The Federal
>> government could run it right up Arnold's ass if they chose to do it.
>
> Don't know about other states, but Florida currently outlaws drilling a
> certain number of miles off the coast. Don't recall the exact number.

The only area a state can control is within its boundaries. My guess is
that all states that bound oceans have their borders set at the point
where water hits the land at mean sea level. Maybe I'll do a Google
search later and see what I can find. I am assuming Florida has the
same restraints as Virginia.

"Michael Johnson" > wrote in message
...
> Spike wrote:
>> On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 23:25:46 GMT, Joe > wrote:
>>
>>> Spike > wrote in
>>> :
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 16:40:31 -0400, Michael Johnson >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>> <SNIP>
>>> You and Michael have basically got it right IMO. The reason we're in
>>> this current mess is simply due to greed and politics. And the American
>>> people are slowly but surely waking up to this fact.
>> Just about everything in the way the world works can be put down to
>> greed. One must recall that, were it not for greed, Euros would still
>> be afraid of falling over the edge of the world, and the Americas
>> would be populated by American Indians from one end to the other. :0)
>> (Ask them what they think of illegal immigration!:0)
>
> If we want to carry it further the native Americans came here from Asia,
> Europe and/or Africa so they aren't really "native" at all. They just got
> here first. Then once they were here they fought over territory between
> them. Had the native Americans been the ones with the superior technology
> and had gone to Europe, they would have done the same thing to the
> Europeans that the Europeans did to them. Just look at what the Aztec,
> Mayans and Incas did to their neighbors in the Western Hemisphere to know
> this is true. Nearly every race humans on the planet can lay claim to
> some type of abuse at the hands of another race. One just needs to go
> back in time far enough to find it.

As President, I intend to declare a World Get Over It Day. Let's all agree
to stop using history as an excuse, and deal with the realities of today. We
can't change yesterday, but we can certainly understand what is today, and
move forward into tomorrow without all of the useless baggage.

While I still harbor ill will against the throne of England for
dispossessing my Scottish forebears, I think I've been fairly successful at
making peace with the facts of my existence. My family castle may lie in
ruins, but that hasn't stopped me from trying to better my personal
situation.

dwight

Michael Johnson > wrote in
:

> John C. wrote:
>> "Michael Johnson" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> <SNIP>
>>> Also, the Supreme Court will like go very liberal if Obama is
>>> elected. The latest ruling giving terrorists the legal rights of a
>>> US citizen was one of the worst decisions I have ever seen. It will
>>> have horrible effects on our ability to fight these guys. Now we
>>> can't interrogate like we should and they can request an attorney
>>> and clam up. This decision will definitely cost American lives in
>>> the future. With decisions like these we can't afford a more
>>> liberal Supreme Court and, for me, is all the reason I need to vote
>>> for McCain. I'll do it while holding my nose though.
>>
>> I'm having a hard time remembering the last election where I voted
>> _for_ a candidate. The SOP seems to have become voting _against_ a
>> candidate. A sad state of affairs. <sigh>
>
> The last president I voted for was Reagan in 1980 and 1984. Before
> that I was too young to vote. What is even sadder is I can't think of
> ONE politician I would wholeheartedly vote for to be president.

I might vote for Colin Powell (as opposed to against anyone else), but
the problem is that those worthy of becoming president won't run because
they know better.

Michael Johnson > wrote in
:

> elaich wrote:
>> Michael Johnson > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> The trouble is he can't do it without Congress gong along with it.
>>
>> He also can't do it without the state itself allowing it. The
>> Guvernator has already said "nein" to drilling off the coast of
>> California. I don't know why the states have veto power over thism,
>> but they do.
>
> The states have no jurisdiction over territorial waters. The Federal
> government could run it right up Arnold's ass if they chose to do it.

Don't know about other states, but Florida currently outlaws drilling a
certain number of miles off the coast. Don't recall the exact number.