From: Cliff on

http://l1.zedo.com//log/p.html?a=722607;x=3840;g=0,0;c=305001017,305001017;i=0;n=305;s=496;s=496;g=172;m=4095;w=255;x=3853;u=miMHAwoBADQAAFjWGYsAAADE~061410;1=;2=;i=0;p=8;f=883930;h=639958;z=0.05128473358988822;y=http://c5.zedo.com//ads2/f/722607/3840/0/0/305001017/305001017/0/305/496/zz-V1-pop1270485984909.html?a=;l=;p=;
"Is BP burning sea turtles alive?"

[
VENICE, La. - A boat captain working to rescue sea turtles in the Gulf of Mexico
says he has seen BP ships burning sea turtles and other wildlife alive.

Captain Mike Ellis said in an interview posted on You Tube that the boats are
conducting controlled burns to get rid of the oil.

"They drag a boom between two shrimp boats and whatever gets caught between the
two boats, they circle it up and catch it on fire. Once the turtles are in
there, they can�t get out," Ellis said.

Ellis said he had to cut short his three-week trip rescuing the turtles because
BP quit allowing him access to rescue turtles before the burns.

"They're pretty much keeping us from doing what we need to do out there," Ellis
said.
....
]

They should at least get Palin to club them to death first, right?
--
Cliff
From: Hachiroku ハチロク on
On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 03:10:25 -0400, Cliff wrote:

> VENICE, La. - A boat captain working to rescue sea turtles in the Gulf of
> Mexico says he has seen BP ships burning sea turtles and other wildlife
> alive.

Are they aiming flamethrowers at them?

From: JoeSpareBedroom on
"Hachiroku ????" <Trueno(a)e86.GTS> wrote in message
news:aSOWn.8833$YX3.4705(a)newsfe18.iad...


> The k00ks will come out of the woodwork now, for sure.
>


You already have.


From: Hachiroku ハチロク on
On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 17:44:09 -0400, JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

> "Hachiroku ????" <Trueno(a)e86.GTS> wrote in message
> news:aSOWn.8833$YX3.4705(a)newsfe18.iad...
>
>
>> The k00ks will come out of the woodwork now, for sure.
>>
>>
>
> You already have.

See what I mean?



From: Not Me General Obama is an on
On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 18:55:57 -0500, Lookout <mrLookout(a)yahoo.com>
wrote:

>> But also, why did Obama not waive the Jones Act
>
>Off topic.

That seems to be your canned response for every comment you cannot
address. Fair enough.