(Bobsprit) wrote in message ...
RESUME

George W. Bush
The White House, USA


ACCOMPLISHMENTS AS GOVERNOR:

I changed Texas pollution laws to favor power and oil companies,
making Texas the most polluted state in the Union.

This is a misleading statement. There are many different kinds of
pollution, and this implies Texas is highest overall or in all
categories, which it is not.

During my tenure, Houston replaced Los Angeles as the most
smog-ridden city in America.

Ozone is only one component of air pollution; there are five others,
according to the EPA. Houston surpassed L.A. in ozone only (not other
kinds of air pollution or pollution overall) and only in 1999-2000.

These will be of interest:

http://www.findarticles.com/cf_0/m12.../article.jhtml
"Anyone who claims that Houston's smog problems are equal to or worse
than L.A.'s is misinformed," says Kay Jones, a former EPA official who
now consults on air quality."

http://www.dallasnews.com/texas_sout....af.0.a4.cccba.
html
"In some ways, calling Houston America's smoggiest city misrepresented
the relative quality of air in the two cities. Los Angeles' air is
worse than Houston's in other categories. But ozone is the primary
pollutant of concern and therefore gets more attention, officials
said."

http://www.rice.edu/projects/reno/rn...lates/air.html
"Houston's number of ozone violation days are actually somewhat fewer
than in the 1980s. The difference seems to be that Los Angeles has
improved more and faster."

Those were older articles. Here's more recent info on ozone
violations:

http://www.lungusa.org/air2001/analysis02.html#c2c
State of the Air 2002
"For the third straight year, the top four most ozone-polluted
metropolitan areas were in California: Los Angeles-Riverside-Orange
County; Bakersfield; Fresno; and Visalia-Tulare-Porterville. The state
also has the five most ozone-polluted counties: San Bernadino has been
number 1 three years in a row; Kern, comes in at number 2 this year,
after claiming the number 3 spot for the previous two years; Fresno
moves up to number 3 after two years as the fourth-most polluted
county, Riverside is number 4, after two years as the second-most
polluted county; and Tulare, number five for the second year in a
row."

And overall air quality:

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory...olitan/2056693
Number of days in 2000-2002 when air quality was unhealthy
1. Riverside-San Bernardino, Ca. 445 days
2. Fresno, Ca. 421
3. Bakersfield, Ca. 409
4. Los Angeles-Long Beach, Ca. 255
5. Sacramento, Ca. 163
6. Pittsburgh, Penn. 134
7. Knoxville, Tenn. 109
8. Birmingham, Al. 100
9. Houston, Tx. 94
10. Baltimore, Md. 93

Once again -- ozone (the main component of smog) is not the only kind
of air pollution, and probably not even the most dangerous:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/science....ap/index.html
".... 1999-2001 EPA data, do not take into account a pollutant that's
considered more dangerous than smog -- tiny particles of soot
that can lodge deep in the lungs and cause heart problems and even
death."

http://bicycleaustin.info/articles/p...cise-risk.html
"Severe particulate (soot) pollution exists in many urban and desert
areas, including Los Angeles, Philadelphia, Chicago, New York City,
Salt Lake City and Phoenix, which in 1998 surpassed Riverside, Calif.,
with the nation's highest particulate levels. Levels of particulate
matter in Houston's air do not exceed the limit set in the current
national health standard for that air pollutant."

There is no good reason to spread lies and exaggerations about Houston
and Texas in the name of politics.

On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 11:03:37 -0800, "Jonathan Ganz"
wrote this crap:

What a fool you are. It's better to let 10 people go free
than have 1 innocent person go to jail.

Hmmm. I always thought all those people on death row were convicted
criminals. I didn't know there were any innocent people in jail,


Hero@Horvath

I don't spend my money on food. I spend most of my money
on women, porn, booze, and recreation. The rest of it I just waste.

On 11 Dec 2003 12:26:05 GMT, (Bobsprit) wrote this
crap:

How can Horvath know so little. On the average it costs 3 times more to
execute
someone. The legal costs involved are astronomical.

AH HA! the "legal" costs are astronomical! The actual chemicals are
cheap. So all we have to do is remove the appeals process.

The "point" is that you're wrong. It costs far more to execute someone. Period.
The appeals process is here to stay and for good reason.

You are so full of ****. You can execute someone for less than the
cost of ONE DAY in the slammer.


Hero@Horvath

I don't spend my money on food. I spend most of my money
on women, porn, booze, and recreation. The rest of it I just waste.

The "point" is that you're wrong. It costs far more to execute someone.
Period.
The appeals process is here to stay and for good reason.

You are so full of ****. You can execute someone for less than the
cost of ONE DAY in the slammer.


Even when he's wrong...and he knows it, he pretends somehow that he's right.
Pretty sad.

And a moron as well.

RB

And only you post about everyone being gay but, of course, you.
Sounds quite homophobic actually.

Yup. I'm afraid of you. Glad you live far away.

RB

I guess you don't get out much. I guess you never heard
about the Governer of Illinois commuting all the death row
sentences, because there were so many of them that were
proven innocent by DNA analysis. I guess, actually I don't
have to, you're pretty stupid.

"Horvath" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 11:03:37 -0800, "Jonathan Ganz"
wrote this crap:

What a fool you are. It's better to let 10 people go free
than have 1 innocent person go to jail.

Hmmm. I always thought all those people on death row were convicted
criminals. I didn't know there were any innocent people in jail,


Hero@Horvath

I don't spend my money on food. I spend most of my money
on women, porn, booze, and recreation. The rest of it I just waste.

You're afraid because I'm a real person with a real life, and you're
a sad little boy. Got it.

"Bobsprit" wrote in message
...
And only you post about everyone being gay but, of course, you.
Sounds quite homophobic actually.

Yup. I'm afraid of you. Glad you live far away.

RB

And, he knows from experience, having been brain dead
for quite some time.

"Horvath" wrote in message
...
On 11 Dec 2003 12:26:05 GMT, (Bobsprit) wrote this
crap:

How can Horvath know so little. On the average it costs 3 times more to
execute
someone. The legal costs involved are astronomical.

AH HA! the "legal" costs are astronomical! The actual chemicals are
cheap. So all we have to do is remove the appeals process.

The "point" is that you're wrong. It costs far more to execute someone.
Period.
The appeals process is here to stay and for good reason.

You are so full of ****. You can execute someone for less than the
cost of ONE DAY in the slammer.


Hero@Horvath

I don't spend my money on food. I spend most of my money
on women, porn, booze, and recreation. The rest of it I just waste.

Ganzy wrote...

You're afraid because I'm a real person with a real life, and you're
a sad little boy.


And I didn't change a creepy word.

RB

Could it be Ganz is the white Michael Jackson?

S.Simon


"Bobsprit" wrote in message ...
Ganzy wrote...

You're afraid because I'm a real person with a real life, and you're
a sad little boy.


And I didn't change a creepy word.

RB