Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#1651
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <pwllb.10278$W16.410@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink. net>,
"Joe" <jo_ratner@NOSPAM.yahoo.com> wrote:
>Interesting. The best president ever was not a liberal (Reagan)...
Your opinion is not fact.
> Much
>like Unions, Liberals were useful at one time. Now their time has passed
>and they won't die off quietly...
You can join Ann Coulter and advocate killing them, I guess.
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:bn3gb2$ipg$5@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> In article <hf0lb.7706$W16.412@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.n et>,
>> "Joe" <jo_ratner@NOSPAM.yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >Lloyd,
>> >Are you a Lliberal?
>>
>> Yep, like Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and all the other founding
>fathers.
>> Like John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, FDR, and all the other great
>presidents.
>> Like Jesus and Ghandi, for that matter.
>>
>> >LLOL
>> >
>> >"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>> >news:bn1eq2$d15$2@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> >> In article <gcc8pv89e67ac5f9qmmmfesoqbih6vd168@4ax.com>,
>> >> Bill Funk <bfunk33@qwest.net> wrote:
>> >> >On Mon, 20 Oct 03 11:33:12 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>> >> >wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >>>When CAFE standards were dreampt up, it was thought that trucks were
>> >not a
>> >> >>>significant part of the automotive population, trucks were used for
>> >work,
>> >> >>>not play.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>And we should have adjusted CAFE for trucks as they started being
>used
>> >as
>> >> cars
>> >> >>are used.
>> >> >
>> >> >And what would the buyers have done then?
>> >> >Gone to >8000lb trucks?
>> >> >
>> >> >You don't seem to want to let others do what they see as needed,
>> >>
>> >> No, there always have to be limitations, for the good of society.
>> >>
>> >> >instead wanting to decide for everyone what they should have.
>> >> >Why should you get to do that?
>> >> >Maybe you should look into moving to China or Cuba, where your talents
>> >> >may actually be in demand. They are really into deciding how the
>> >> >people should live there.
>> >> >
>> >> So you'd let people drive vehicles that pollute?
>> >
>> >
>
>
"Joe" <jo_ratner@NOSPAM.yahoo.com> wrote:
>Interesting. The best president ever was not a liberal (Reagan)...
Your opinion is not fact.
> Much
>like Unions, Liberals were useful at one time. Now their time has passed
>and they won't die off quietly...
You can join Ann Coulter and advocate killing them, I guess.
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:bn3gb2$ipg$5@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> In article <hf0lb.7706$W16.412@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.n et>,
>> "Joe" <jo_ratner@NOSPAM.yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >Lloyd,
>> >Are you a Lliberal?
>>
>> Yep, like Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and all the other founding
>fathers.
>> Like John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, FDR, and all the other great
>presidents.
>> Like Jesus and Ghandi, for that matter.
>>
>> >LLOL
>> >
>> >"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>> >news:bn1eq2$d15$2@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> >> In article <gcc8pv89e67ac5f9qmmmfesoqbih6vd168@4ax.com>,
>> >> Bill Funk <bfunk33@qwest.net> wrote:
>> >> >On Mon, 20 Oct 03 11:33:12 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>> >> >wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >>>When CAFE standards were dreampt up, it was thought that trucks were
>> >not a
>> >> >>>significant part of the automotive population, trucks were used for
>> >work,
>> >> >>>not play.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>And we should have adjusted CAFE for trucks as they started being
>used
>> >as
>> >> cars
>> >> >>are used.
>> >> >
>> >> >And what would the buyers have done then?
>> >> >Gone to >8000lb trucks?
>> >> >
>> >> >You don't seem to want to let others do what they see as needed,
>> >>
>> >> No, there always have to be limitations, for the good of society.
>> >>
>> >> >instead wanting to decide for everyone what they should have.
>> >> >Why should you get to do that?
>> >> >Maybe you should look into moving to China or Cuba, where your talents
>> >> >may actually be in demand. They are really into deciding how the
>> >> >people should live there.
>> >> >
>> >> So you'd let people drive vehicles that pollute?
>> >
>> >
>
>
#1652
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <Axllb.10279$W16.3938@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink .net>,
"Joe" <jo_ratner@NOSPAM.yahoo.com> wrote:
>Brent,
>Do not confront a liberal with facts... it confuses them.
Where are the WMD? Facts, please.
>Joe
>
>"Brent P" <tetraethyllead@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:Utjlb.606952$cF.273281@rwcrnsc53...
>> In article <bn3gb2$ipg$5@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> > In article <hf0lb.7706$W16.412@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.n et>,
>> > "Joe" <jo_ratner@NOSPAM.yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >>Lloyd,
>> >>Are you a Lliberal?
>> >
>> > Yep, like Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and all the other founding
>fathers.
>>
>> I don't think so. You'd call pratically everything on this page
>> "right-wing-something-or-the-other" I am sure:
>>
>> http://www.gmu.edu/departments/econo...es/wisdom.html
>> I think the first one speaks against a great number of things from the
>> democrat party in the last oh 70 years:
>>
>> "When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will
>> herald the end of the republic." -- Benjamin Franklin
>>
>> And if not that, I am sure these founding father quotes would really
>> get your panties in a bunch:
>>
>> http://www.gmu.edu/departments/econo...otes/arms.html
>>
>> Having read your writings over the years, as well as learned a fair
>> amount about the "founding fathers" I see no agreement.
>>
>> Oh, and as far as JFK is concerned, funny how if you listen to JFK's
>> speeches (recorded) keeping current views in mind, his talking about using
>> tax cuts to stimulate the economy, etc etc you'd think he was a
>> republican.....
>>
>>
>>
>
>
"Joe" <jo_ratner@NOSPAM.yahoo.com> wrote:
>Brent,
>Do not confront a liberal with facts... it confuses them.
Where are the WMD? Facts, please.
>Joe
>
>"Brent P" <tetraethyllead@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:Utjlb.606952$cF.273281@rwcrnsc53...
>> In article <bn3gb2$ipg$5@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> > In article <hf0lb.7706$W16.412@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.n et>,
>> > "Joe" <jo_ratner@NOSPAM.yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >>Lloyd,
>> >>Are you a Lliberal?
>> >
>> > Yep, like Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and all the other founding
>fathers.
>>
>> I don't think so. You'd call pratically everything on this page
>> "right-wing-something-or-the-other" I am sure:
>>
>> http://www.gmu.edu/departments/econo...es/wisdom.html
>> I think the first one speaks against a great number of things from the
>> democrat party in the last oh 70 years:
>>
>> "When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will
>> herald the end of the republic." -- Benjamin Franklin
>>
>> And if not that, I am sure these founding father quotes would really
>> get your panties in a bunch:
>>
>> http://www.gmu.edu/departments/econo...otes/arms.html
>>
>> Having read your writings over the years, as well as learned a fair
>> amount about the "founding fathers" I see no agreement.
>>
>> Oh, and as far as JFK is concerned, funny how if you listen to JFK's
>> speeches (recorded) keeping current views in mind, his talking about using
>> tax cuts to stimulate the economy, etc etc you'd think he was a
>> republican.....
>>
>>
>>
>
>
#1653
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <Axllb.10279$W16.3938@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink .net>,
"Joe" <jo_ratner@NOSPAM.yahoo.com> wrote:
>Brent,
>Do not confront a liberal with facts... it confuses them.
Where are the WMD? Facts, please.
>Joe
>
>"Brent P" <tetraethyllead@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:Utjlb.606952$cF.273281@rwcrnsc53...
>> In article <bn3gb2$ipg$5@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> > In article <hf0lb.7706$W16.412@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.n et>,
>> > "Joe" <jo_ratner@NOSPAM.yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >>Lloyd,
>> >>Are you a Lliberal?
>> >
>> > Yep, like Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and all the other founding
>fathers.
>>
>> I don't think so. You'd call pratically everything on this page
>> "right-wing-something-or-the-other" I am sure:
>>
>> http://www.gmu.edu/departments/econo...es/wisdom.html
>> I think the first one speaks against a great number of things from the
>> democrat party in the last oh 70 years:
>>
>> "When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will
>> herald the end of the republic." -- Benjamin Franklin
>>
>> And if not that, I am sure these founding father quotes would really
>> get your panties in a bunch:
>>
>> http://www.gmu.edu/departments/econo...otes/arms.html
>>
>> Having read your writings over the years, as well as learned a fair
>> amount about the "founding fathers" I see no agreement.
>>
>> Oh, and as far as JFK is concerned, funny how if you listen to JFK's
>> speeches (recorded) keeping current views in mind, his talking about using
>> tax cuts to stimulate the economy, etc etc you'd think he was a
>> republican.....
>>
>>
>>
>
>
"Joe" <jo_ratner@NOSPAM.yahoo.com> wrote:
>Brent,
>Do not confront a liberal with facts... it confuses them.
Where are the WMD? Facts, please.
>Joe
>
>"Brent P" <tetraethyllead@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:Utjlb.606952$cF.273281@rwcrnsc53...
>> In article <bn3gb2$ipg$5@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> > In article <hf0lb.7706$W16.412@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.n et>,
>> > "Joe" <jo_ratner@NOSPAM.yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >>Lloyd,
>> >>Are you a Lliberal?
>> >
>> > Yep, like Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and all the other founding
>fathers.
>>
>> I don't think so. You'd call pratically everything on this page
>> "right-wing-something-or-the-other" I am sure:
>>
>> http://www.gmu.edu/departments/econo...es/wisdom.html
>> I think the first one speaks against a great number of things from the
>> democrat party in the last oh 70 years:
>>
>> "When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will
>> herald the end of the republic." -- Benjamin Franklin
>>
>> And if not that, I am sure these founding father quotes would really
>> get your panties in a bunch:
>>
>> http://www.gmu.edu/departments/econo...otes/arms.html
>>
>> Having read your writings over the years, as well as learned a fair
>> amount about the "founding fathers" I see no agreement.
>>
>> Oh, and as far as JFK is concerned, funny how if you listen to JFK's
>> speeches (recorded) keeping current views in mind, his talking about using
>> tax cuts to stimulate the economy, etc etc you'd think he was a
>> republican.....
>>
>>
>>
>
>
#1654
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <Axllb.10279$W16.3938@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink .net>,
"Joe" <jo_ratner@NOSPAM.yahoo.com> wrote:
>Brent,
>Do not confront a liberal with facts... it confuses them.
Where are the WMD? Facts, please.
>Joe
>
>"Brent P" <tetraethyllead@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:Utjlb.606952$cF.273281@rwcrnsc53...
>> In article <bn3gb2$ipg$5@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> > In article <hf0lb.7706$W16.412@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.n et>,
>> > "Joe" <jo_ratner@NOSPAM.yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >>Lloyd,
>> >>Are you a Lliberal?
>> >
>> > Yep, like Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and all the other founding
>fathers.
>>
>> I don't think so. You'd call pratically everything on this page
>> "right-wing-something-or-the-other" I am sure:
>>
>> http://www.gmu.edu/departments/econo...es/wisdom.html
>> I think the first one speaks against a great number of things from the
>> democrat party in the last oh 70 years:
>>
>> "When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will
>> herald the end of the republic." -- Benjamin Franklin
>>
>> And if not that, I am sure these founding father quotes would really
>> get your panties in a bunch:
>>
>> http://www.gmu.edu/departments/econo...otes/arms.html
>>
>> Having read your writings over the years, as well as learned a fair
>> amount about the "founding fathers" I see no agreement.
>>
>> Oh, and as far as JFK is concerned, funny how if you listen to JFK's
>> speeches (recorded) keeping current views in mind, his talking about using
>> tax cuts to stimulate the economy, etc etc you'd think he was a
>> republican.....
>>
>>
>>
>
>
"Joe" <jo_ratner@NOSPAM.yahoo.com> wrote:
>Brent,
>Do not confront a liberal with facts... it confuses them.
Where are the WMD? Facts, please.
>Joe
>
>"Brent P" <tetraethyllead@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:Utjlb.606952$cF.273281@rwcrnsc53...
>> In article <bn3gb2$ipg$5@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> > In article <hf0lb.7706$W16.412@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.n et>,
>> > "Joe" <jo_ratner@NOSPAM.yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >>Lloyd,
>> >>Are you a Lliberal?
>> >
>> > Yep, like Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and all the other founding
>fathers.
>>
>> I don't think so. You'd call pratically everything on this page
>> "right-wing-something-or-the-other" I am sure:
>>
>> http://www.gmu.edu/departments/econo...es/wisdom.html
>> I think the first one speaks against a great number of things from the
>> democrat party in the last oh 70 years:
>>
>> "When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will
>> herald the end of the republic." -- Benjamin Franklin
>>
>> And if not that, I am sure these founding father quotes would really
>> get your panties in a bunch:
>>
>> http://www.gmu.edu/departments/econo...otes/arms.html
>>
>> Having read your writings over the years, as well as learned a fair
>> amount about the "founding fathers" I see no agreement.
>>
>> Oh, and as far as JFK is concerned, funny how if you listen to JFK's
>> speeches (recorded) keeping current views in mind, his talking about using
>> tax cuts to stimulate the economy, etc etc you'd think he was a
>> republican.....
>>
>>
>>
>
>
#1655
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <FAllb.10282$W16.1400@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink .net>,
"Joe" <jo_ratner@NOSPAM.yahoo.com> wrote:
>"global warming is as established fact"
Yes.
>Fact? Every "fact" you post will be contradicted by an equally credible
>fact from the other (correct) side...
No. Look at the scientific literature, look at IPCC, look at NASA, look at
NOAA, look at EPA, look at National Academy of Sciences.
As I said, it's as settled as atoms, gravity, relativity, evolution, etc.
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:bn45qs$beo$1@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> In article <3fjapvs1d2qrejkbqd74rkua3k15pfpfvg@4ax.com>,
>> Bill Funk <bfunk33@qwest.net> wrote:
>> >On Tue, 21 Oct 03 10:41:33 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>> >wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >>Your SUV uses more natural resources,
>> >
>> >Than what? Your MB?
>>
>> Than pretty much any CAR.
>>
>> >>increases our dependence on foreign oil,
>> >
>> >We don't depend on foreign oil; you should know that.
>>
>> Remember what happened the 2 times it was cut off?
>>
>> >We have made a choice, for economic reasons, to use oil that is
>> >cheaper to buy than using our own.
>>
>> And we couldn't replace it tomorrow, could we?
>>
>> >Our own oil isn't intrinsically cheaper, but getting iot out of the
>> >ground has been made much more expensive by government fiat.
>> >>forces us to spend more on defending those countries,
>> >
>> >Hardly; they can use their own oil profits to defend themselves.
>>
>> Why did we go to war in Gulf War I? Why do we maintain troops and ships
>in
>> the Persian Gulf?
>>
>> >Our problem with them is that they want to govern themselves, and make
>> >their own choices as to what friends they make. That we don't like
>> >their choices shouldn't be used as an excuse for military action.
>> >>forces us to risk lives defending those countries,
>> >
>> >Where?
>> >>hurts our balance of payments,
>> >
>> >Brought on by government regulations, which in turn are brought on by
>> >those who would rather see other countries use their oil rather than
>> >our own, claiming that "it's for our children."
>> >Tree huggers don't seem to have a problem with "raping" other
>> >countries if it means our children are safe.
>> >>and increases global warming.
>> >
>> >That's truly laughable.
>> >What did we do to bring the world out of the last big ice age? BBQ too
>> >many mammoths?
>> >Why do those who claim "global warming" is both unnatural and our
>> >fault completely ignore the past?
>>
>> I suggest you learn some science; global warming is as established fact as
>> evolution, relativity, quantum behavior, etc.
>>
>> >>It's laughable that people doing so much to hurt our country drive
>> >>around with American flags on their SUVs.
>> >
>> >It's also laughable that so many who don't seem to understand their
>> >own ideals, and the consequences of them, continue to cry that those
>> >who don't believe as they do are trying to hurt the USA.
>> >For you rinformation, SUVs are not the problem so many seem to think
>> >they are. I'll put the emissions from my SUV against your MB anytime.
>> >
>
>
"Joe" <jo_ratner@NOSPAM.yahoo.com> wrote:
>"global warming is as established fact"
Yes.
>Fact? Every "fact" you post will be contradicted by an equally credible
>fact from the other (correct) side...
No. Look at the scientific literature, look at IPCC, look at NASA, look at
NOAA, look at EPA, look at National Academy of Sciences.
As I said, it's as settled as atoms, gravity, relativity, evolution, etc.
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:bn45qs$beo$1@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> In article <3fjapvs1d2qrejkbqd74rkua3k15pfpfvg@4ax.com>,
>> Bill Funk <bfunk33@qwest.net> wrote:
>> >On Tue, 21 Oct 03 10:41:33 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>> >wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >>Your SUV uses more natural resources,
>> >
>> >Than what? Your MB?
>>
>> Than pretty much any CAR.
>>
>> >>increases our dependence on foreign oil,
>> >
>> >We don't depend on foreign oil; you should know that.
>>
>> Remember what happened the 2 times it was cut off?
>>
>> >We have made a choice, for economic reasons, to use oil that is
>> >cheaper to buy than using our own.
>>
>> And we couldn't replace it tomorrow, could we?
>>
>> >Our own oil isn't intrinsically cheaper, but getting iot out of the
>> >ground has been made much more expensive by government fiat.
>> >>forces us to spend more on defending those countries,
>> >
>> >Hardly; they can use their own oil profits to defend themselves.
>>
>> Why did we go to war in Gulf War I? Why do we maintain troops and ships
>in
>> the Persian Gulf?
>>
>> >Our problem with them is that they want to govern themselves, and make
>> >their own choices as to what friends they make. That we don't like
>> >their choices shouldn't be used as an excuse for military action.
>> >>forces us to risk lives defending those countries,
>> >
>> >Where?
>> >>hurts our balance of payments,
>> >
>> >Brought on by government regulations, which in turn are brought on by
>> >those who would rather see other countries use their oil rather than
>> >our own, claiming that "it's for our children."
>> >Tree huggers don't seem to have a problem with "raping" other
>> >countries if it means our children are safe.
>> >>and increases global warming.
>> >
>> >That's truly laughable.
>> >What did we do to bring the world out of the last big ice age? BBQ too
>> >many mammoths?
>> >Why do those who claim "global warming" is both unnatural and our
>> >fault completely ignore the past?
>>
>> I suggest you learn some science; global warming is as established fact as
>> evolution, relativity, quantum behavior, etc.
>>
>> >>It's laughable that people doing so much to hurt our country drive
>> >>around with American flags on their SUVs.
>> >
>> >It's also laughable that so many who don't seem to understand their
>> >own ideals, and the consequences of them, continue to cry that those
>> >who don't believe as they do are trying to hurt the USA.
>> >For you rinformation, SUVs are not the problem so many seem to think
>> >they are. I'll put the emissions from my SUV against your MB anytime.
>> >
>
>
#1656
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <FAllb.10282$W16.1400@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink .net>,
"Joe" <jo_ratner@NOSPAM.yahoo.com> wrote:
>"global warming is as established fact"
Yes.
>Fact? Every "fact" you post will be contradicted by an equally credible
>fact from the other (correct) side...
No. Look at the scientific literature, look at IPCC, look at NASA, look at
NOAA, look at EPA, look at National Academy of Sciences.
As I said, it's as settled as atoms, gravity, relativity, evolution, etc.
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:bn45qs$beo$1@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> In article <3fjapvs1d2qrejkbqd74rkua3k15pfpfvg@4ax.com>,
>> Bill Funk <bfunk33@qwest.net> wrote:
>> >On Tue, 21 Oct 03 10:41:33 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>> >wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >>Your SUV uses more natural resources,
>> >
>> >Than what? Your MB?
>>
>> Than pretty much any CAR.
>>
>> >>increases our dependence on foreign oil,
>> >
>> >We don't depend on foreign oil; you should know that.
>>
>> Remember what happened the 2 times it was cut off?
>>
>> >We have made a choice, for economic reasons, to use oil that is
>> >cheaper to buy than using our own.
>>
>> And we couldn't replace it tomorrow, could we?
>>
>> >Our own oil isn't intrinsically cheaper, but getting iot out of the
>> >ground has been made much more expensive by government fiat.
>> >>forces us to spend more on defending those countries,
>> >
>> >Hardly; they can use their own oil profits to defend themselves.
>>
>> Why did we go to war in Gulf War I? Why do we maintain troops and ships
>in
>> the Persian Gulf?
>>
>> >Our problem with them is that they want to govern themselves, and make
>> >their own choices as to what friends they make. That we don't like
>> >their choices shouldn't be used as an excuse for military action.
>> >>forces us to risk lives defending those countries,
>> >
>> >Where?
>> >>hurts our balance of payments,
>> >
>> >Brought on by government regulations, which in turn are brought on by
>> >those who would rather see other countries use their oil rather than
>> >our own, claiming that "it's for our children."
>> >Tree huggers don't seem to have a problem with "raping" other
>> >countries if it means our children are safe.
>> >>and increases global warming.
>> >
>> >That's truly laughable.
>> >What did we do to bring the world out of the last big ice age? BBQ too
>> >many mammoths?
>> >Why do those who claim "global warming" is both unnatural and our
>> >fault completely ignore the past?
>>
>> I suggest you learn some science; global warming is as established fact as
>> evolution, relativity, quantum behavior, etc.
>>
>> >>It's laughable that people doing so much to hurt our country drive
>> >>around with American flags on their SUVs.
>> >
>> >It's also laughable that so many who don't seem to understand their
>> >own ideals, and the consequences of them, continue to cry that those
>> >who don't believe as they do are trying to hurt the USA.
>> >For you rinformation, SUVs are not the problem so many seem to think
>> >they are. I'll put the emissions from my SUV against your MB anytime.
>> >
>
>
"Joe" <jo_ratner@NOSPAM.yahoo.com> wrote:
>"global warming is as established fact"
Yes.
>Fact? Every "fact" you post will be contradicted by an equally credible
>fact from the other (correct) side...
No. Look at the scientific literature, look at IPCC, look at NASA, look at
NOAA, look at EPA, look at National Academy of Sciences.
As I said, it's as settled as atoms, gravity, relativity, evolution, etc.
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:bn45qs$beo$1@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> In article <3fjapvs1d2qrejkbqd74rkua3k15pfpfvg@4ax.com>,
>> Bill Funk <bfunk33@qwest.net> wrote:
>> >On Tue, 21 Oct 03 10:41:33 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>> >wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >>Your SUV uses more natural resources,
>> >
>> >Than what? Your MB?
>>
>> Than pretty much any CAR.
>>
>> >>increases our dependence on foreign oil,
>> >
>> >We don't depend on foreign oil; you should know that.
>>
>> Remember what happened the 2 times it was cut off?
>>
>> >We have made a choice, for economic reasons, to use oil that is
>> >cheaper to buy than using our own.
>>
>> And we couldn't replace it tomorrow, could we?
>>
>> >Our own oil isn't intrinsically cheaper, but getting iot out of the
>> >ground has been made much more expensive by government fiat.
>> >>forces us to spend more on defending those countries,
>> >
>> >Hardly; they can use their own oil profits to defend themselves.
>>
>> Why did we go to war in Gulf War I? Why do we maintain troops and ships
>in
>> the Persian Gulf?
>>
>> >Our problem with them is that they want to govern themselves, and make
>> >their own choices as to what friends they make. That we don't like
>> >their choices shouldn't be used as an excuse for military action.
>> >>forces us to risk lives defending those countries,
>> >
>> >Where?
>> >>hurts our balance of payments,
>> >
>> >Brought on by government regulations, which in turn are brought on by
>> >those who would rather see other countries use their oil rather than
>> >our own, claiming that "it's for our children."
>> >Tree huggers don't seem to have a problem with "raping" other
>> >countries if it means our children are safe.
>> >>and increases global warming.
>> >
>> >That's truly laughable.
>> >What did we do to bring the world out of the last big ice age? BBQ too
>> >many mammoths?
>> >Why do those who claim "global warming" is both unnatural and our
>> >fault completely ignore the past?
>>
>> I suggest you learn some science; global warming is as established fact as
>> evolution, relativity, quantum behavior, etc.
>>
>> >>It's laughable that people doing so much to hurt our country drive
>> >>around with American flags on their SUVs.
>> >
>> >It's also laughable that so many who don't seem to understand their
>> >own ideals, and the consequences of them, continue to cry that those
>> >who don't believe as they do are trying to hurt the USA.
>> >For you rinformation, SUVs are not the problem so many seem to think
>> >they are. I'll put the emissions from my SUV against your MB anytime.
>> >
>
>
#1657
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <FAllb.10282$W16.1400@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink .net>,
"Joe" <jo_ratner@NOSPAM.yahoo.com> wrote:
>"global warming is as established fact"
Yes.
>Fact? Every "fact" you post will be contradicted by an equally credible
>fact from the other (correct) side...
No. Look at the scientific literature, look at IPCC, look at NASA, look at
NOAA, look at EPA, look at National Academy of Sciences.
As I said, it's as settled as atoms, gravity, relativity, evolution, etc.
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:bn45qs$beo$1@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> In article <3fjapvs1d2qrejkbqd74rkua3k15pfpfvg@4ax.com>,
>> Bill Funk <bfunk33@qwest.net> wrote:
>> >On Tue, 21 Oct 03 10:41:33 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>> >wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >>Your SUV uses more natural resources,
>> >
>> >Than what? Your MB?
>>
>> Than pretty much any CAR.
>>
>> >>increases our dependence on foreign oil,
>> >
>> >We don't depend on foreign oil; you should know that.
>>
>> Remember what happened the 2 times it was cut off?
>>
>> >We have made a choice, for economic reasons, to use oil that is
>> >cheaper to buy than using our own.
>>
>> And we couldn't replace it tomorrow, could we?
>>
>> >Our own oil isn't intrinsically cheaper, but getting iot out of the
>> >ground has been made much more expensive by government fiat.
>> >>forces us to spend more on defending those countries,
>> >
>> >Hardly; they can use their own oil profits to defend themselves.
>>
>> Why did we go to war in Gulf War I? Why do we maintain troops and ships
>in
>> the Persian Gulf?
>>
>> >Our problem with them is that they want to govern themselves, and make
>> >their own choices as to what friends they make. That we don't like
>> >their choices shouldn't be used as an excuse for military action.
>> >>forces us to risk lives defending those countries,
>> >
>> >Where?
>> >>hurts our balance of payments,
>> >
>> >Brought on by government regulations, which in turn are brought on by
>> >those who would rather see other countries use their oil rather than
>> >our own, claiming that "it's for our children."
>> >Tree huggers don't seem to have a problem with "raping" other
>> >countries if it means our children are safe.
>> >>and increases global warming.
>> >
>> >That's truly laughable.
>> >What did we do to bring the world out of the last big ice age? BBQ too
>> >many mammoths?
>> >Why do those who claim "global warming" is both unnatural and our
>> >fault completely ignore the past?
>>
>> I suggest you learn some science; global warming is as established fact as
>> evolution, relativity, quantum behavior, etc.
>>
>> >>It's laughable that people doing so much to hurt our country drive
>> >>around with American flags on their SUVs.
>> >
>> >It's also laughable that so many who don't seem to understand their
>> >own ideals, and the consequences of them, continue to cry that those
>> >who don't believe as they do are trying to hurt the USA.
>> >For you rinformation, SUVs are not the problem so many seem to think
>> >they are. I'll put the emissions from my SUV against your MB anytime.
>> >
>
>
"Joe" <jo_ratner@NOSPAM.yahoo.com> wrote:
>"global warming is as established fact"
Yes.
>Fact? Every "fact" you post will be contradicted by an equally credible
>fact from the other (correct) side...
No. Look at the scientific literature, look at IPCC, look at NASA, look at
NOAA, look at EPA, look at National Academy of Sciences.
As I said, it's as settled as atoms, gravity, relativity, evolution, etc.
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:bn45qs$beo$1@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> In article <3fjapvs1d2qrejkbqd74rkua3k15pfpfvg@4ax.com>,
>> Bill Funk <bfunk33@qwest.net> wrote:
>> >On Tue, 21 Oct 03 10:41:33 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>> >wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >>Your SUV uses more natural resources,
>> >
>> >Than what? Your MB?
>>
>> Than pretty much any CAR.
>>
>> >>increases our dependence on foreign oil,
>> >
>> >We don't depend on foreign oil; you should know that.
>>
>> Remember what happened the 2 times it was cut off?
>>
>> >We have made a choice, for economic reasons, to use oil that is
>> >cheaper to buy than using our own.
>>
>> And we couldn't replace it tomorrow, could we?
>>
>> >Our own oil isn't intrinsically cheaper, but getting iot out of the
>> >ground has been made much more expensive by government fiat.
>> >>forces us to spend more on defending those countries,
>> >
>> >Hardly; they can use their own oil profits to defend themselves.
>>
>> Why did we go to war in Gulf War I? Why do we maintain troops and ships
>in
>> the Persian Gulf?
>>
>> >Our problem with them is that they want to govern themselves, and make
>> >their own choices as to what friends they make. That we don't like
>> >their choices shouldn't be used as an excuse for military action.
>> >>forces us to risk lives defending those countries,
>> >
>> >Where?
>> >>hurts our balance of payments,
>> >
>> >Brought on by government regulations, which in turn are brought on by
>> >those who would rather see other countries use their oil rather than
>> >our own, claiming that "it's for our children."
>> >Tree huggers don't seem to have a problem with "raping" other
>> >countries if it means our children are safe.
>> >>and increases global warming.
>> >
>> >That's truly laughable.
>> >What did we do to bring the world out of the last big ice age? BBQ too
>> >many mammoths?
>> >Why do those who claim "global warming" is both unnatural and our
>> >fault completely ignore the past?
>>
>> I suggest you learn some science; global warming is as established fact as
>> evolution, relativity, quantum behavior, etc.
>>
>> >>It's laughable that people doing so much to hurt our country drive
>> >>around with American flags on their SUVs.
>> >
>> >It's also laughable that so many who don't seem to understand their
>> >own ideals, and the consequences of them, continue to cry that those
>> >who don't believe as they do are trying to hurt the USA.
>> >For you rinformation, SUVs are not the problem so many seem to think
>> >they are. I'll put the emissions from my SUV against your MB anytime.
>> >
>
>
#1658
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <3F95ED02.300F7ABD@itis.com>, Aardwolf <se1aard1@itis.com> wrote:
>
>
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>> A 68 Charger puts out over 100X the emissions of a new car, so it's foolish
to
>> claim it's "indistinguishable" from one.
>
>_Virtually_ indistinguishable--when both are _also_ compared to a gross
polluter,
>which puts out, by definition, far, far more than either.
>
>--Aardwolf.
>
>
Like cutting off a finger is "virtually indistinguishable" from not, compared
to getting your head cut off, I guess.
>
>
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>> A 68 Charger puts out over 100X the emissions of a new car, so it's foolish
to
>> claim it's "indistinguishable" from one.
>
>_Virtually_ indistinguishable--when both are _also_ compared to a gross
polluter,
>which puts out, by definition, far, far more than either.
>
>--Aardwolf.
>
>
Like cutting off a finger is "virtually indistinguishable" from not, compared
to getting your head cut off, I guess.
#1659
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <3F95ED02.300F7ABD@itis.com>, Aardwolf <se1aard1@itis.com> wrote:
>
>
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>> A 68 Charger puts out over 100X the emissions of a new car, so it's foolish
to
>> claim it's "indistinguishable" from one.
>
>_Virtually_ indistinguishable--when both are _also_ compared to a gross
polluter,
>which puts out, by definition, far, far more than either.
>
>--Aardwolf.
>
>
Like cutting off a finger is "virtually indistinguishable" from not, compared
to getting your head cut off, I guess.
>
>
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>> A 68 Charger puts out over 100X the emissions of a new car, so it's foolish
to
>> claim it's "indistinguishable" from one.
>
>_Virtually_ indistinguishable--when both are _also_ compared to a gross
polluter,
>which puts out, by definition, far, far more than either.
>
>--Aardwolf.
>
>
Like cutting off a finger is "virtually indistinguishable" from not, compared
to getting your head cut off, I guess.
#1660
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <3F95ED02.300F7ABD@itis.com>, Aardwolf <se1aard1@itis.com> wrote:
>
>
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>> A 68 Charger puts out over 100X the emissions of a new car, so it's foolish
to
>> claim it's "indistinguishable" from one.
>
>_Virtually_ indistinguishable--when both are _also_ compared to a gross
polluter,
>which puts out, by definition, far, far more than either.
>
>--Aardwolf.
>
>
Like cutting off a finger is "virtually indistinguishable" from not, compared
to getting your head cut off, I guess.
>
>
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>> A 68 Charger puts out over 100X the emissions of a new car, so it's foolish
to
>> claim it's "indistinguishable" from one.
>
>_Virtually_ indistinguishable--when both are _also_ compared to a gross
polluter,
>which puts out, by definition, far, far more than either.
>
>--Aardwolf.
>
>
Like cutting off a finger is "virtually indistinguishable" from not, compared
to getting your head cut off, I guess.