Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#1791
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <bn6g40$u4osv$1@ID-207166.news.uni-berlin.de>,
"Joe" <me@privacy.net (jo_ratner@yahoo.com)> wrote:
>"Where are the WMD? Facts, please"
>Ask Bill Clinton. He said they were there too.
In 2003?
> Or ask the UN who as a body
>said that he had them.
Based on US info that we now know was a bunch of lies.
>Or better yet, ask Saddam who ADMITTED to having
>them (OK, not a good source).
Again, not in 2003.
> The whole WMD "argument" is weak at best...
>He had them, you KNOW it. There is proof of it.
Then where are they?
>
>Read what Bill Clinton had to say about the matter during his reign of
>terror:
> Iraq repeatedly made false declarations about the weapons that it had left
>in its possession after the Gulf War. When UNSCOM would then uncover
>evidence that gave the lie to those declarations, Iraq would simply amend
>the reports. For example, Iraq revised its nuclear declarations four times
>within just 14 months, and it has submitted six different biological warfare
>declarations, each of which has been rejected by UNSCOM.
>
> In 1995 Hussein Kamal, Saddam's son-in-law and the chief organizer of
>Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program, defected to Jordan. He revealed
>that Iraq was continuing to conceal weapons and missiles and the capacity to
>build many more. Then and only then did Iraq admit to developing numbers of
>weapons in significant quantities--and weapons stocks. Previously it had
>vehemently denied the very thing it just simply admitted once Saddam's
>son-in-law defected to Jordan and told the truth.
>
> Now listen to this: What did it admit? It admitted, among other things, an
>offensive biological warfare capability, notably, 5,000 gallons of
>botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25
>biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs. And I might say
>UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq has actually greatly understated its
>production. . . .
>
> Next, throughout this entire process, Iraqi agents have undermined and
>undercut UNSCOM. They've harassed the inspectors, lied to them, disabled
>monitoring cameras, literally spirited evidence out of the back doors of
>suspect facilities as inspectors walked through the front door, and our
>people were there observing it and had the pictures to prove it. . . .
>
> Over the past few months, as [the weapons inspectors] have come closer and
>closer to rooting out Iraq's remaining nuclear capacity, Saddam has
>undertaken yet another gambit to thwart their ambitions by imposing
>debilitating conditions on the inspectors and declaring key sites which have
>still not been inspected off limits, including, I might add, one palace in
>Baghdad more than 2,600 acres large. . . .
>
> One of these presidential sites is about the size of Washington, D.C. . .
>..
>
> It is obvious that there is an attempt here, based on the whole history of
>this operation since 1991, to protect whatever remains of his capacity to
>produce weapons of mass destruction, the missiles to deliver them, and the
>feed stocks necessary to produce them. The UNSCOM inspectors believe that
>Iraq still has stockpiles of chemical and biological munitions, a small
>force of Scud-type missiles, and the capacity to restart quickly its
>production program and build many, many more weapons. . . .
>
> Now, let's imagine the future. What if he fails to comply and we fail to
>act, or we take some ambiguous third route, which gives him yet more
>opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction and
>continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore
>the solemn commitments that he made? Well, he will conclude that the
>international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can
>go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction.
>
> And some day, some way, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal. . . . In
>the next century, the community of nations may see more and more of the very
>kind of threat Iraq poses now--a rogue state with weapons of mass
>destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug
>traffickers, or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed.
>
> If we fail to respond today, Saddam, and all those who would follow in his
>footsteps, will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act
>with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations
>Security Council, and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction
>program.
>
>
>
So where are those huge quantities? Where is the uranium? Where are those
drones that could deliver it all here?
Lies, all a pack of lies.
"Joe" <me@privacy.net (jo_ratner@yahoo.com)> wrote:
>"Where are the WMD? Facts, please"
>Ask Bill Clinton. He said they were there too.
In 2003?
> Or ask the UN who as a body
>said that he had them.
Based on US info that we now know was a bunch of lies.
>Or better yet, ask Saddam who ADMITTED to having
>them (OK, not a good source).
Again, not in 2003.
> The whole WMD "argument" is weak at best...
>He had them, you KNOW it. There is proof of it.
Then where are they?
>
>Read what Bill Clinton had to say about the matter during his reign of
>terror:
> Iraq repeatedly made false declarations about the weapons that it had left
>in its possession after the Gulf War. When UNSCOM would then uncover
>evidence that gave the lie to those declarations, Iraq would simply amend
>the reports. For example, Iraq revised its nuclear declarations four times
>within just 14 months, and it has submitted six different biological warfare
>declarations, each of which has been rejected by UNSCOM.
>
> In 1995 Hussein Kamal, Saddam's son-in-law and the chief organizer of
>Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program, defected to Jordan. He revealed
>that Iraq was continuing to conceal weapons and missiles and the capacity to
>build many more. Then and only then did Iraq admit to developing numbers of
>weapons in significant quantities--and weapons stocks. Previously it had
>vehemently denied the very thing it just simply admitted once Saddam's
>son-in-law defected to Jordan and told the truth.
>
> Now listen to this: What did it admit? It admitted, among other things, an
>offensive biological warfare capability, notably, 5,000 gallons of
>botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25
>biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs. And I might say
>UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq has actually greatly understated its
>production. . . .
>
> Next, throughout this entire process, Iraqi agents have undermined and
>undercut UNSCOM. They've harassed the inspectors, lied to them, disabled
>monitoring cameras, literally spirited evidence out of the back doors of
>suspect facilities as inspectors walked through the front door, and our
>people were there observing it and had the pictures to prove it. . . .
>
> Over the past few months, as [the weapons inspectors] have come closer and
>closer to rooting out Iraq's remaining nuclear capacity, Saddam has
>undertaken yet another gambit to thwart their ambitions by imposing
>debilitating conditions on the inspectors and declaring key sites which have
>still not been inspected off limits, including, I might add, one palace in
>Baghdad more than 2,600 acres large. . . .
>
> One of these presidential sites is about the size of Washington, D.C. . .
>..
>
> It is obvious that there is an attempt here, based on the whole history of
>this operation since 1991, to protect whatever remains of his capacity to
>produce weapons of mass destruction, the missiles to deliver them, and the
>feed stocks necessary to produce them. The UNSCOM inspectors believe that
>Iraq still has stockpiles of chemical and biological munitions, a small
>force of Scud-type missiles, and the capacity to restart quickly its
>production program and build many, many more weapons. . . .
>
> Now, let's imagine the future. What if he fails to comply and we fail to
>act, or we take some ambiguous third route, which gives him yet more
>opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction and
>continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore
>the solemn commitments that he made? Well, he will conclude that the
>international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can
>go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction.
>
> And some day, some way, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal. . . . In
>the next century, the community of nations may see more and more of the very
>kind of threat Iraq poses now--a rogue state with weapons of mass
>destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug
>traffickers, or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed.
>
> If we fail to respond today, Saddam, and all those who would follow in his
>footsteps, will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act
>with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations
>Security Council, and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction
>program.
>
>
>
So where are those huge quantities? Where is the uranium? Where are those
drones that could deliver it all here?
Lies, all a pack of lies.
#1792
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <bn6g40$u4osv$1@ID-207166.news.uni-berlin.de>,
"Joe" <me@privacy.net (jo_ratner@yahoo.com)> wrote:
>"Where are the WMD? Facts, please"
>Ask Bill Clinton. He said they were there too.
In 2003?
> Or ask the UN who as a body
>said that he had them.
Based on US info that we now know was a bunch of lies.
>Or better yet, ask Saddam who ADMITTED to having
>them (OK, not a good source).
Again, not in 2003.
> The whole WMD "argument" is weak at best...
>He had them, you KNOW it. There is proof of it.
Then where are they?
>
>Read what Bill Clinton had to say about the matter during his reign of
>terror:
> Iraq repeatedly made false declarations about the weapons that it had left
>in its possession after the Gulf War. When UNSCOM would then uncover
>evidence that gave the lie to those declarations, Iraq would simply amend
>the reports. For example, Iraq revised its nuclear declarations four times
>within just 14 months, and it has submitted six different biological warfare
>declarations, each of which has been rejected by UNSCOM.
>
> In 1995 Hussein Kamal, Saddam's son-in-law and the chief organizer of
>Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program, defected to Jordan. He revealed
>that Iraq was continuing to conceal weapons and missiles and the capacity to
>build many more. Then and only then did Iraq admit to developing numbers of
>weapons in significant quantities--and weapons stocks. Previously it had
>vehemently denied the very thing it just simply admitted once Saddam's
>son-in-law defected to Jordan and told the truth.
>
> Now listen to this: What did it admit? It admitted, among other things, an
>offensive biological warfare capability, notably, 5,000 gallons of
>botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25
>biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs. And I might say
>UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq has actually greatly understated its
>production. . . .
>
> Next, throughout this entire process, Iraqi agents have undermined and
>undercut UNSCOM. They've harassed the inspectors, lied to them, disabled
>monitoring cameras, literally spirited evidence out of the back doors of
>suspect facilities as inspectors walked through the front door, and our
>people were there observing it and had the pictures to prove it. . . .
>
> Over the past few months, as [the weapons inspectors] have come closer and
>closer to rooting out Iraq's remaining nuclear capacity, Saddam has
>undertaken yet another gambit to thwart their ambitions by imposing
>debilitating conditions on the inspectors and declaring key sites which have
>still not been inspected off limits, including, I might add, one palace in
>Baghdad more than 2,600 acres large. . . .
>
> One of these presidential sites is about the size of Washington, D.C. . .
>..
>
> It is obvious that there is an attempt here, based on the whole history of
>this operation since 1991, to protect whatever remains of his capacity to
>produce weapons of mass destruction, the missiles to deliver them, and the
>feed stocks necessary to produce them. The UNSCOM inspectors believe that
>Iraq still has stockpiles of chemical and biological munitions, a small
>force of Scud-type missiles, and the capacity to restart quickly its
>production program and build many, many more weapons. . . .
>
> Now, let's imagine the future. What if he fails to comply and we fail to
>act, or we take some ambiguous third route, which gives him yet more
>opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction and
>continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore
>the solemn commitments that he made? Well, he will conclude that the
>international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can
>go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction.
>
> And some day, some way, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal. . . . In
>the next century, the community of nations may see more and more of the very
>kind of threat Iraq poses now--a rogue state with weapons of mass
>destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug
>traffickers, or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed.
>
> If we fail to respond today, Saddam, and all those who would follow in his
>footsteps, will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act
>with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations
>Security Council, and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction
>program.
>
>
>
So where are those huge quantities? Where is the uranium? Where are those
drones that could deliver it all here?
Lies, all a pack of lies.
"Joe" <me@privacy.net (jo_ratner@yahoo.com)> wrote:
>"Where are the WMD? Facts, please"
>Ask Bill Clinton. He said they were there too.
In 2003?
> Or ask the UN who as a body
>said that he had them.
Based on US info that we now know was a bunch of lies.
>Or better yet, ask Saddam who ADMITTED to having
>them (OK, not a good source).
Again, not in 2003.
> The whole WMD "argument" is weak at best...
>He had them, you KNOW it. There is proof of it.
Then where are they?
>
>Read what Bill Clinton had to say about the matter during his reign of
>terror:
> Iraq repeatedly made false declarations about the weapons that it had left
>in its possession after the Gulf War. When UNSCOM would then uncover
>evidence that gave the lie to those declarations, Iraq would simply amend
>the reports. For example, Iraq revised its nuclear declarations four times
>within just 14 months, and it has submitted six different biological warfare
>declarations, each of which has been rejected by UNSCOM.
>
> In 1995 Hussein Kamal, Saddam's son-in-law and the chief organizer of
>Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program, defected to Jordan. He revealed
>that Iraq was continuing to conceal weapons and missiles and the capacity to
>build many more. Then and only then did Iraq admit to developing numbers of
>weapons in significant quantities--and weapons stocks. Previously it had
>vehemently denied the very thing it just simply admitted once Saddam's
>son-in-law defected to Jordan and told the truth.
>
> Now listen to this: What did it admit? It admitted, among other things, an
>offensive biological warfare capability, notably, 5,000 gallons of
>botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25
>biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs. And I might say
>UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq has actually greatly understated its
>production. . . .
>
> Next, throughout this entire process, Iraqi agents have undermined and
>undercut UNSCOM. They've harassed the inspectors, lied to them, disabled
>monitoring cameras, literally spirited evidence out of the back doors of
>suspect facilities as inspectors walked through the front door, and our
>people were there observing it and had the pictures to prove it. . . .
>
> Over the past few months, as [the weapons inspectors] have come closer and
>closer to rooting out Iraq's remaining nuclear capacity, Saddam has
>undertaken yet another gambit to thwart their ambitions by imposing
>debilitating conditions on the inspectors and declaring key sites which have
>still not been inspected off limits, including, I might add, one palace in
>Baghdad more than 2,600 acres large. . . .
>
> One of these presidential sites is about the size of Washington, D.C. . .
>..
>
> It is obvious that there is an attempt here, based on the whole history of
>this operation since 1991, to protect whatever remains of his capacity to
>produce weapons of mass destruction, the missiles to deliver them, and the
>feed stocks necessary to produce them. The UNSCOM inspectors believe that
>Iraq still has stockpiles of chemical and biological munitions, a small
>force of Scud-type missiles, and the capacity to restart quickly its
>production program and build many, many more weapons. . . .
>
> Now, let's imagine the future. What if he fails to comply and we fail to
>act, or we take some ambiguous third route, which gives him yet more
>opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction and
>continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore
>the solemn commitments that he made? Well, he will conclude that the
>international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can
>go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction.
>
> And some day, some way, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal. . . . In
>the next century, the community of nations may see more and more of the very
>kind of threat Iraq poses now--a rogue state with weapons of mass
>destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug
>traffickers, or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed.
>
> If we fail to respond today, Saddam, and all those who would follow in his
>footsteps, will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act
>with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations
>Security Council, and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction
>program.
>
>
>
So where are those huge quantities? Where is the uranium? Where are those
drones that could deliver it all here?
Lies, all a pack of lies.
#1793
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <bn6g96$tihh9$1@ID-207166.news.uni-berlin.de>,
"Joe" <me@privacy.net (jo_ratner@yahoo.com)> wrote:
>"You can join Ann Coulter and advocate killing them, I guess"
>Well, treason is punishable by death (I think)...
I suggest you read the constitution for is "treason" is.
>
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:bn65e7$f7v$2@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> In article <pwllb.10278$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$2@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> >> >> In article <gcc8pv89e67ac5f9qmmmfesoqbih6vd168@4ax.com>,
>> >> >> Bill Funk <bfunk33@qwest.net> wrote:
>> >> >> >On Mon, 20 Oct 03 11:33:12 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd
>Parker)
>> >> >> >wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >>>When CAFE standards were dreampt up, it was thought that trucks
>were
>> >> >not a
>> >> >> >>>significant part of the automotive population, trucks were used
>for
>> >> >work,
>> >> >> >>>not play.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>And we should have adjusted CAFE for trucks as they started being
>> >used
>> >> >as
>> >> >> cars
>> >> >> >>are used.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >And what would the buyers have done then?
>> >> >> >Gone to >8000lb trucks?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >You don't seem to want to let others do what they see as needed,
>> >> >>
>> >> >> No, there always have to be limitations, for the good of society.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >instead wanting to decide for everyone what they should have.
>> >> >> >Why should you get to do that?
>> >> >> >Maybe you should look into moving to China or Cuba, where your
>talents
>> >> >> >may actually be in demand. They are really into deciding how the
>> >> >> >people should live there.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> So you'd let people drive vehicles that pollute?
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >
>> >
>
>
"Joe" <me@privacy.net (jo_ratner@yahoo.com)> wrote:
>"You can join Ann Coulter and advocate killing them, I guess"
>Well, treason is punishable by death (I think)...
I suggest you read the constitution for is "treason" is.
>
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:bn65e7$f7v$2@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> In article <pwllb.10278$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$2@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> >> >> In article <gcc8pv89e67ac5f9qmmmfesoqbih6vd168@4ax.com>,
>> >> >> Bill Funk <bfunk33@qwest.net> wrote:
>> >> >> >On Mon, 20 Oct 03 11:33:12 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd
>Parker)
>> >> >> >wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >>>When CAFE standards were dreampt up, it was thought that trucks
>were
>> >> >not a
>> >> >> >>>significant part of the automotive population, trucks were used
>for
>> >> >work,
>> >> >> >>>not play.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>And we should have adjusted CAFE for trucks as they started being
>> >used
>> >> >as
>> >> >> cars
>> >> >> >>are used.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >And what would the buyers have done then?
>> >> >> >Gone to >8000lb trucks?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >You don't seem to want to let others do what they see as needed,
>> >> >>
>> >> >> No, there always have to be limitations, for the good of society.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >instead wanting to decide for everyone what they should have.
>> >> >> >Why should you get to do that?
>> >> >> >Maybe you should look into moving to China or Cuba, where your
>talents
>> >> >> >may actually be in demand. They are really into deciding how the
>> >> >> >people should live there.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> So you'd let people drive vehicles that pollute?
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >
>> >
>
>
#1794
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <bn6g96$tihh9$1@ID-207166.news.uni-berlin.de>,
"Joe" <me@privacy.net (jo_ratner@yahoo.com)> wrote:
>"You can join Ann Coulter and advocate killing them, I guess"
>Well, treason is punishable by death (I think)...
I suggest you read the constitution for is "treason" is.
>
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:bn65e7$f7v$2@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> In article <pwllb.10278$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$2@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> >> >> In article <gcc8pv89e67ac5f9qmmmfesoqbih6vd168@4ax.com>,
>> >> >> Bill Funk <bfunk33@qwest.net> wrote:
>> >> >> >On Mon, 20 Oct 03 11:33:12 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd
>Parker)
>> >> >> >wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >>>When CAFE standards were dreampt up, it was thought that trucks
>were
>> >> >not a
>> >> >> >>>significant part of the automotive population, trucks were used
>for
>> >> >work,
>> >> >> >>>not play.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>And we should have adjusted CAFE for trucks as they started being
>> >used
>> >> >as
>> >> >> cars
>> >> >> >>are used.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >And what would the buyers have done then?
>> >> >> >Gone to >8000lb trucks?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >You don't seem to want to let others do what they see as needed,
>> >> >>
>> >> >> No, there always have to be limitations, for the good of society.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >instead wanting to decide for everyone what they should have.
>> >> >> >Why should you get to do that?
>> >> >> >Maybe you should look into moving to China or Cuba, where your
>talents
>> >> >> >may actually be in demand. They are really into deciding how the
>> >> >> >people should live there.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> So you'd let people drive vehicles that pollute?
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >
>> >
>
>
"Joe" <me@privacy.net (jo_ratner@yahoo.com)> wrote:
>"You can join Ann Coulter and advocate killing them, I guess"
>Well, treason is punishable by death (I think)...
I suggest you read the constitution for is "treason" is.
>
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:bn65e7$f7v$2@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> In article <pwllb.10278$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$2@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> >> >> In article <gcc8pv89e67ac5f9qmmmfesoqbih6vd168@4ax.com>,
>> >> >> Bill Funk <bfunk33@qwest.net> wrote:
>> >> >> >On Mon, 20 Oct 03 11:33:12 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd
>Parker)
>> >> >> >wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >>>When CAFE standards were dreampt up, it was thought that trucks
>were
>> >> >not a
>> >> >> >>>significant part of the automotive population, trucks were used
>for
>> >> >work,
>> >> >> >>>not play.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>And we should have adjusted CAFE for trucks as they started being
>> >used
>> >> >as
>> >> >> cars
>> >> >> >>are used.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >And what would the buyers have done then?
>> >> >> >Gone to >8000lb trucks?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >You don't seem to want to let others do what they see as needed,
>> >> >>
>> >> >> No, there always have to be limitations, for the good of society.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >instead wanting to decide for everyone what they should have.
>> >> >> >Why should you get to do that?
>> >> >> >Maybe you should look into moving to China or Cuba, where your
>talents
>> >> >> >may actually be in demand. They are really into deciding how the
>> >> >> >people should live there.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> So you'd let people drive vehicles that pollute?
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >
>> >
>
>
#1795
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <bn6g96$tihh9$1@ID-207166.news.uni-berlin.de>,
"Joe" <me@privacy.net (jo_ratner@yahoo.com)> wrote:
>"You can join Ann Coulter and advocate killing them, I guess"
>Well, treason is punishable by death (I think)...
I suggest you read the constitution for is "treason" is.
>
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:bn65e7$f7v$2@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> In article <pwllb.10278$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$2@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> >> >> In article <gcc8pv89e67ac5f9qmmmfesoqbih6vd168@4ax.com>,
>> >> >> Bill Funk <bfunk33@qwest.net> wrote:
>> >> >> >On Mon, 20 Oct 03 11:33:12 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd
>Parker)
>> >> >> >wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >>>When CAFE standards were dreampt up, it was thought that trucks
>were
>> >> >not a
>> >> >> >>>significant part of the automotive population, trucks were used
>for
>> >> >work,
>> >> >> >>>not play.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>And we should have adjusted CAFE for trucks as they started being
>> >used
>> >> >as
>> >> >> cars
>> >> >> >>are used.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >And what would the buyers have done then?
>> >> >> >Gone to >8000lb trucks?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >You don't seem to want to let others do what they see as needed,
>> >> >>
>> >> >> No, there always have to be limitations, for the good of society.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >instead wanting to decide for everyone what they should have.
>> >> >> >Why should you get to do that?
>> >> >> >Maybe you should look into moving to China or Cuba, where your
>talents
>> >> >> >may actually be in demand. They are really into deciding how the
>> >> >> >people should live there.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> So you'd let people drive vehicles that pollute?
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >
>> >
>
>
"Joe" <me@privacy.net (jo_ratner@yahoo.com)> wrote:
>"You can join Ann Coulter and advocate killing them, I guess"
>Well, treason is punishable by death (I think)...
I suggest you read the constitution for is "treason" is.
>
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:bn65e7$f7v$2@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> In article <pwllb.10278$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$2@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> >> >> In article <gcc8pv89e67ac5f9qmmmfesoqbih6vd168@4ax.com>,
>> >> >> Bill Funk <bfunk33@qwest.net> wrote:
>> >> >> >On Mon, 20 Oct 03 11:33:12 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd
>Parker)
>> >> >> >wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >>>When CAFE standards were dreampt up, it was thought that trucks
>were
>> >> >not a
>> >> >> >>>significant part of the automotive population, trucks were used
>for
>> >> >work,
>> >> >> >>>not play.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>And we should have adjusted CAFE for trucks as they started being
>> >used
>> >> >as
>> >> >> cars
>> >> >> >>are used.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >And what would the buyers have done then?
>> >> >> >Gone to >8000lb trucks?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >You don't seem to want to let others do what they see as needed,
>> >> >>
>> >> >> No, there always have to be limitations, for the good of society.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >instead wanting to decide for everyone what they should have.
>> >> >> >Why should you get to do that?
>> >> >> >Maybe you should look into moving to China or Cuba, where your
>talents
>> >> >> >may actually be in demand. They are really into deciding how the
>> >> >> >people should live there.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> So you'd let people drive vehicles that pollute?
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >
>> >
>
>
#1796
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <bn6gl7$t5f98$1@ID-207166.news.uni-berlin.de>,
"Joe" <me@privacy.net (jo_ratner@yahoo.com)> wrote:
>Again, shouldn't be too hard to find "facts" to contradict the facts you
>have... No, I'm not going to do it because i know you've heard it all
>already...
You can't do it because there are none on your side. It's like someone
claiming there are facts supporting creationism.
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:bn65gj$f7v$4@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> In article <FAllb.10282$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" <me@privacy.net (jo_ratner@yahoo.com)> wrote:
>Again, shouldn't be too hard to find "facts" to contradict the facts you
>have... No, I'm not going to do it because i know you've heard it all
>already...
You can't do it because there are none on your side. It's like someone
claiming there are facts supporting creationism.
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:bn65gj$f7v$4@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> In article <FAllb.10282$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.
>> >> >
>> >
>> >
>
>
#1797
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <bn6gl7$t5f98$1@ID-207166.news.uni-berlin.de>,
"Joe" <me@privacy.net (jo_ratner@yahoo.com)> wrote:
>Again, shouldn't be too hard to find "facts" to contradict the facts you
>have... No, I'm not going to do it because i know you've heard it all
>already...
You can't do it because there are none on your side. It's like someone
claiming there are facts supporting creationism.
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:bn65gj$f7v$4@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> In article <FAllb.10282$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" <me@privacy.net (jo_ratner@yahoo.com)> wrote:
>Again, shouldn't be too hard to find "facts" to contradict the facts you
>have... No, I'm not going to do it because i know you've heard it all
>already...
You can't do it because there are none on your side. It's like someone
claiming there are facts supporting creationism.
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:bn65gj$f7v$4@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> In article <FAllb.10282$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.
>> >> >
>> >
>> >
>
>
#1798
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <bn6gl7$t5f98$1@ID-207166.news.uni-berlin.de>,
"Joe" <me@privacy.net (jo_ratner@yahoo.com)> wrote:
>Again, shouldn't be too hard to find "facts" to contradict the facts you
>have... No, I'm not going to do it because i know you've heard it all
>already...
You can't do it because there are none on your side. It's like someone
claiming there are facts supporting creationism.
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:bn65gj$f7v$4@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> In article <FAllb.10282$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" <me@privacy.net (jo_ratner@yahoo.com)> wrote:
>Again, shouldn't be too hard to find "facts" to contradict the facts you
>have... No, I'm not going to do it because i know you've heard it all
>already...
You can't do it because there are none on your side. It's like someone
claiming there are facts supporting creationism.
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:bn65gj$f7v$4@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> In article <FAllb.10282$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.
>> >> >
>> >
>> >
>
>
#1799
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <7OAlb.1739$HS4.3963@attbi_s01>,
tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>In article <gqcdpv8kjiq0tr3gbqd96g9fk50jal4l2t@4ax.com>, Bill Funk wrote:
>> On Tue, 21 Oct 03 16:44:28 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:
>
>>>>>Your SUV uses more natural resources,
>>>>Than what? Your MB?
>>>Than pretty much any CAR.
>> Nice backpeddle.
>
>Dr. Parker ignored my asking him about his MB, but from this response
>we can conclude that his fuel economy threshold is somewhere below that
>of his MB. Therefore any SUV that meets or exceeds the fuel economy
>of lloyd's MB should be acceptable, right lloyd?
>
>
Sure, I'll agree to that. Beat 20/26 and I'll agree your SUV isn't a
gas-guzzling, ----------supporting hog. (It still blocks other drivers' view
and tends to roll over, however...)
tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>In article <gqcdpv8kjiq0tr3gbqd96g9fk50jal4l2t@4ax.com>, Bill Funk wrote:
>> On Tue, 21 Oct 03 16:44:28 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:
>
>>>>>Your SUV uses more natural resources,
>>>>Than what? Your MB?
>>>Than pretty much any CAR.
>> Nice backpeddle.
>
>Dr. Parker ignored my asking him about his MB, but from this response
>we can conclude that his fuel economy threshold is somewhere below that
>of his MB. Therefore any SUV that meets or exceeds the fuel economy
>of lloyd's MB should be acceptable, right lloyd?
>
>
Sure, I'll agree to that. Beat 20/26 and I'll agree your SUV isn't a
gas-guzzling, ----------supporting hog. (It still blocks other drivers' view
and tends to roll over, however...)
#1800
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <7OAlb.1739$HS4.3963@attbi_s01>,
tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>In article <gqcdpv8kjiq0tr3gbqd96g9fk50jal4l2t@4ax.com>, Bill Funk wrote:
>> On Tue, 21 Oct 03 16:44:28 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:
>
>>>>>Your SUV uses more natural resources,
>>>>Than what? Your MB?
>>>Than pretty much any CAR.
>> Nice backpeddle.
>
>Dr. Parker ignored my asking him about his MB, but from this response
>we can conclude that his fuel economy threshold is somewhere below that
>of his MB. Therefore any SUV that meets or exceeds the fuel economy
>of lloyd's MB should be acceptable, right lloyd?
>
>
Sure, I'll agree to that. Beat 20/26 and I'll agree your SUV isn't a
gas-guzzling, ----------supporting hog. (It still blocks other drivers' view
and tends to roll over, however...)
tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>In article <gqcdpv8kjiq0tr3gbqd96g9fk50jal4l2t@4ax.com>, Bill Funk wrote:
>> On Tue, 21 Oct 03 16:44:28 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:
>
>>>>>Your SUV uses more natural resources,
>>>>Than what? Your MB?
>>>Than pretty much any CAR.
>> Nice backpeddle.
>
>Dr. Parker ignored my asking him about his MB, but from this response
>we can conclude that his fuel economy threshold is somewhere below that
>of his MB. Therefore any SUV that meets or exceeds the fuel economy
>of lloyd's MB should be acceptable, right lloyd?
>
>
Sure, I'll agree to that. Beat 20/26 and I'll agree your SUV isn't a
gas-guzzling, ----------supporting hog. (It still blocks other drivers' view
and tends to roll over, however...)