Originally Posted by T2x (Post 3019877)

The Obama administration Tuesday opposed Michigan and other states that want to close shipping locks near Chicago to prevent ravenous Asian carp from invading the Great Lakes.
.....
Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox filed a lawsuit with the nation's highest court last month. It asked that several locks on waterways south of Chicago be closed immediately as a first step toward eventually severing a century-old artificial link between the Great Lakes and the Mississippi River basin.

The waterways, including the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal, are infested with bighead and silver carp that have been migrating northward in the Mississippi and Illinois rivers for decades. They can grow up to 4 feet long and 100 pounds and are notorious for starving out other fish species.

Officials poisoned a section of the canal in December after discovering genetic material that suggested at least some carp had eluded an electric barrier and could be within 6 miles of Lake Michigan. If so, the only other obstacles between them and the lake are shipping locks and gates.

Minnesota, New York, Ohio and Wisconsin and the Canadian province of Ontario have filed documents supporting Michigan's position.

Illinois, named as a defendant in the lawsuit along with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and a Chicago agency, submitted papers Tuesday saying Michigan had not made a convincing case for an immediate court order.

Kagan said closing the locks would require using more expensive means to haul coal and other commodities between the lakes and the Mississippi River system. Switching to land transportation would cost shippers nearly 10 percent of their cargo's total value, she said.

__________________

Originally Posted by T2x (Post 3019881)

You realise that you are quoting a script out of liberal Hollywood and not the words of a space traveler from the future I hope?

Originally Posted by Catmando (Post 3019927)

So whose side are you on...the States the shippers or the fish? Or are you just against the Obama administration?

Originally Posted by T2x (Post 3019768)

If you don't think there were chemical weapons, terrorist training camps and a nuclear program in Iraq, I've got a bridge to sell you. However, I believe strongly that little Bush tried to complete his dady's unfinished business. That having been said we haven't had a logical, strategically focused Presidential administration since Reagan IMHO.

The theory that Bush had great weaknesses and therefore Obama is somehow better will only lead to the believers of that nonsense to push their collective heads further up their arses......

We have a one world socialist revolution going on and some of its leading advocates are running the US government, media and educational system. Deal with it.

Originally Posted by Catmando (Post 3020081)

Chemical weapons yes...we sold them to Saddam. UNSCOM destroyed them all by 1998 so the bu$hevik bleatings about WMDs were just weak excuses to justify their illegal invasion.

Terrorist training camps no.

Nuclear weapons program no.

W(anker) might have wanted to one-up daddy by taking out Saddam but I strongly believe his major reason for invading Iraq was 1) stopping Saddam from going off the oil bourse(shifting from the Dollar to the Euro) and 2) stopping Iraq's oil from being bought up by China and other countries that don't like us.

Originally Posted by Catmando (Post 3020060)

It is hilarious for you to call Obama a "Liberal". He is not a Liberal which can be easily seen by not only his policies but the bu$hevik policies he has retained. Obama is a Neocon.