Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#2861
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Gerald G. McGeorge" wrote:
>
> ...................................No, these are the most obstinate, selfich
> people
> on the face ofth Earth and they deserve all the derision that comes their
> way. It's always "no, no, no", but they have no alternative solutions other
> than to live in a cave somewhere.
They aren't planning on living in a cave. That's for you. They are planning on
sitting in a warm home and being flown to environmental support functions in
private jets or driven in limos. I mean the world only has enough resources for
truly dedicated environmentalist to live well. The rest of us, well we need to
preserve those precious resources for the truly committed environmentalist -
right?
Wasn't there an environmentalist that arrived at an event in an Insight and then
drove the Insight just out of sight of the masses and got into a limo? Wasn't it
Ariana Huffington who flew across country in a private yet to attend an
SUV-bashing event? The hypocrisy on both sides is enormous.
Ed
#2862
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Gerald G. McGeorge" wrote:
>
> ...................................No, these are the most obstinate, selfich
> people
> on the face ofth Earth and they deserve all the derision that comes their
> way. It's always "no, no, no", but they have no alternative solutions other
> than to live in a cave somewhere.
They aren't planning on living in a cave. That's for you. They are planning on
sitting in a warm home and being flown to environmental support functions in
private jets or driven in limos. I mean the world only has enough resources for
truly dedicated environmentalist to live well. The rest of us, well we need to
preserve those precious resources for the truly committed environmentalist -
right?
Wasn't there an environmentalist that arrived at an event in an Insight and then
drove the Insight just out of sight of the masses and got into a limo? Wasn't it
Ariana Huffington who flew across country in a private yet to attend an
SUV-bashing event? The hypocrisy on both sides is enormous.
Ed
#2863
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Gerald G. McGeorge" wrote:
>
> ...................................No, these are the most obstinate, selfich
> people
> on the face ofth Earth and they deserve all the derision that comes their
> way. It's always "no, no, no", but they have no alternative solutions other
> than to live in a cave somewhere.
They aren't planning on living in a cave. That's for you. They are planning on
sitting in a warm home and being flown to environmental support functions in
private jets or driven in limos. I mean the world only has enough resources for
truly dedicated environmentalist to live well. The rest of us, well we need to
preserve those precious resources for the truly committed environmentalist -
right?
Wasn't there an environmentalist that arrived at an event in an Insight and then
drove the Insight just out of sight of the masses and got into a limo? Wasn't it
Ariana Huffington who flew across country in a private yet to attend an
SUV-bashing event? The hypocrisy on both sides is enormous.
Ed
#2864
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Right you are, the hypocrisy is incredible.
"C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3FA17723.669898A6@mindspring.com...
>
>
> "Gerald G. McGeorge" wrote:
>
> >
> > ...................................No, these are the most obstinate,
selfich
> > people
> > on the face ofth Earth and they deserve all the derision that comes
their
> > way. It's always "no, no, no", but they have no alternative solutions
other
> > than to live in a cave somewhere.
>
> They aren't planning on living in a cave. That's for you. They are
planning on
> sitting in a warm home and being flown to environmental support functions
in
> private jets or driven in limos. I mean the world only has enough
resources for
> truly dedicated environmentalist to live well. The rest of us, well we
need to
> preserve those precious resources for the truly committed
environmentalist -
> right?
>
> Wasn't there an environmentalist that arrived at an event in an Insight
and then
> drove the Insight just out of sight of the masses and got into a limo?
Wasn't it
> Ariana Huffington who flew across country in a private yet to attend an
> SUV-bashing event? The hypocrisy on both sides is enormous.
>
> Ed
>
"C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3FA17723.669898A6@mindspring.com...
>
>
> "Gerald G. McGeorge" wrote:
>
> >
> > ...................................No, these are the most obstinate,
selfich
> > people
> > on the face ofth Earth and they deserve all the derision that comes
their
> > way. It's always "no, no, no", but they have no alternative solutions
other
> > than to live in a cave somewhere.
>
> They aren't planning on living in a cave. That's for you. They are
planning on
> sitting in a warm home and being flown to environmental support functions
in
> private jets or driven in limos. I mean the world only has enough
resources for
> truly dedicated environmentalist to live well. The rest of us, well we
need to
> preserve those precious resources for the truly committed
environmentalist -
> right?
>
> Wasn't there an environmentalist that arrived at an event in an Insight
and then
> drove the Insight just out of sight of the masses and got into a limo?
Wasn't it
> Ariana Huffington who flew across country in a private yet to attend an
> SUV-bashing event? The hypocrisy on both sides is enormous.
>
> Ed
>
#2865
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Right you are, the hypocrisy is incredible.
"C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3FA17723.669898A6@mindspring.com...
>
>
> "Gerald G. McGeorge" wrote:
>
> >
> > ...................................No, these are the most obstinate,
selfich
> > people
> > on the face ofth Earth and they deserve all the derision that comes
their
> > way. It's always "no, no, no", but they have no alternative solutions
other
> > than to live in a cave somewhere.
>
> They aren't planning on living in a cave. That's for you. They are
planning on
> sitting in a warm home and being flown to environmental support functions
in
> private jets or driven in limos. I mean the world only has enough
resources for
> truly dedicated environmentalist to live well. The rest of us, well we
need to
> preserve those precious resources for the truly committed
environmentalist -
> right?
>
> Wasn't there an environmentalist that arrived at an event in an Insight
and then
> drove the Insight just out of sight of the masses and got into a limo?
Wasn't it
> Ariana Huffington who flew across country in a private yet to attend an
> SUV-bashing event? The hypocrisy on both sides is enormous.
>
> Ed
>
"C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3FA17723.669898A6@mindspring.com...
>
>
> "Gerald G. McGeorge" wrote:
>
> >
> > ...................................No, these are the most obstinate,
selfich
> > people
> > on the face ofth Earth and they deserve all the derision that comes
their
> > way. It's always "no, no, no", but they have no alternative solutions
other
> > than to live in a cave somewhere.
>
> They aren't planning on living in a cave. That's for you. They are
planning on
> sitting in a warm home and being flown to environmental support functions
in
> private jets or driven in limos. I mean the world only has enough
resources for
> truly dedicated environmentalist to live well. The rest of us, well we
need to
> preserve those precious resources for the truly committed
environmentalist -
> right?
>
> Wasn't there an environmentalist that arrived at an event in an Insight
and then
> drove the Insight just out of sight of the masses and got into a limo?
Wasn't it
> Ariana Huffington who flew across country in a private yet to attend an
> SUV-bashing event? The hypocrisy on both sides is enormous.
>
> Ed
>
#2866
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Right you are, the hypocrisy is incredible.
"C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3FA17723.669898A6@mindspring.com...
>
>
> "Gerald G. McGeorge" wrote:
>
> >
> > ...................................No, these are the most obstinate,
selfich
> > people
> > on the face ofth Earth and they deserve all the derision that comes
their
> > way. It's always "no, no, no", but they have no alternative solutions
other
> > than to live in a cave somewhere.
>
> They aren't planning on living in a cave. That's for you. They are
planning on
> sitting in a warm home and being flown to environmental support functions
in
> private jets or driven in limos. I mean the world only has enough
resources for
> truly dedicated environmentalist to live well. The rest of us, well we
need to
> preserve those precious resources for the truly committed
environmentalist -
> right?
>
> Wasn't there an environmentalist that arrived at an event in an Insight
and then
> drove the Insight just out of sight of the masses and got into a limo?
Wasn't it
> Ariana Huffington who flew across country in a private yet to attend an
> SUV-bashing event? The hypocrisy on both sides is enormous.
>
> Ed
>
"C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3FA17723.669898A6@mindspring.com...
>
>
> "Gerald G. McGeorge" wrote:
>
> >
> > ...................................No, these are the most obstinate,
selfich
> > people
> > on the face ofth Earth and they deserve all the derision that comes
their
> > way. It's always "no, no, no", but they have no alternative solutions
other
> > than to live in a cave somewhere.
>
> They aren't planning on living in a cave. That's for you. They are
planning on
> sitting in a warm home and being flown to environmental support functions
in
> private jets or driven in limos. I mean the world only has enough
resources for
> truly dedicated environmentalist to live well. The rest of us, well we
need to
> preserve those precious resources for the truly committed
environmentalist -
> right?
>
> Wasn't there an environmentalist that arrived at an event in an Insight
and then
> drove the Insight just out of sight of the masses and got into a limo?
Wasn't it
> Ariana Huffington who flew across country in a private yet to attend an
> SUV-bashing event? The hypocrisy on both sides is enormous.
>
> Ed
>
#2867
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bnr4jk$kba$5@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <vq0qfm4infl337@corp.supernews.com>,
> "Douglas A. Shrader" <dshrader@nospam.com> wrote:
> >
> >"Ted Mittelstaedt" <tedm@toybox.placo.com> wrote in message
> >news:newscache$0hjinh$261$1@news.ipinc.net...
> >>
> >> "Douglas A. Shrader" <dshrader@nospam.com> wrote in message
> >> news:vptf3thq39cab0@corp.supernews.com...
> >>
> >> >
> >> > WE know he had them, we don't know what he did with them. If you
owned a
> >> > house twelve years ago, and you could not provide evidence that you
had
> >> sold
> >> > it, would it not be logical to assume you still owned it?
> >> >
> >>
> >> Not if it was a mobile trailer house, WMD's are generally pretty
mobile.
> >
> >Moving them does not change ownership, nor does it make them cease to
exist.
> >
> >>
> >> In any case who is "we". The CIA certainly wasn't claiming that Saddam
> >had
> >> WMD's
> >
> >In the case of Saddam his chemical and biological weapons are and have
> >always been called WMD's, and yes the CIA knew he had them, he has used
them
> >at least 12 times.
>
> Did he have them in 2003? If so, where are they?
You know Lloyd, if they made a list of the one hundred dumbest people on
earth, you name would be in every spot.
If I have something in 1990, and I don't get rid of it, then yes, I will
still have it in 2003. Saddam had them, he never provided any evidence that
he destroyed them, so yes, he still has them to this day until and unless
proven, PROVEN, otherwise.
Where are they? Well hidden, he had twelve years to do so, they may be
buired in the desert, he may have transfered them to another country, until
they are found we won't know. The fact that they are unaccounted for makes
it imperative that we keep looking until we do know where they are, or if he
in fact did destroy them, and simply hid that fact in an attempt to bluff
us, which is what Hans Blix is suggesting. A suggestion, I might add, he
would not have made if he and the inspectors knew they had been destroyed,
which is what you claimed, thus proving you once again a lying -------. You
really should be taking classes instead of teaching them, you have so much
to learn.
>
> >
> >> and why did the Bush administraton blow a deep-CIA agent's cover in
> >revenge?
> >
> >Speculation
> >
> >> And
> >> why haven't they come up with the name of the person in the Bush
> >> administration who
> >> released the name?
> >
> >You just claimed Bush was responsible, now you admit the identity is
> >unknown. I leave speculation to others, the truth will be known
eventually.
> >
> >>
> >> Your wasting your time attempting to use WMD's as a justification for
> >going
> >> to war
> >> in Iraq. Nukes might have been there 10 years ago, or partial nukes,
but
> >> it's preposterous
> >> to suggest they were there before the war.
> >
> >No one, including Bush, has ever claimed Sadam has or ever had Nukes. The
> >claim was that Saddam was trying to aquire them.
>
> Which turned out to be a lie.
Not at all. The claim he tried to aquire weapons grade Uranium from Nigeria
turned out to be a lie, but that does not equate to Saddam seeking to aquire
Nukes being a lie, that remains to be seen.
>
> >
> >The case is a bit stronger for
> >> bio agents,
> >> but still inconclusive.
> >
> >How so, when he has used them several times already?
>
> Where are they?
Ther ones he used? Ask the hundreds of thousands of people he killed with
them. The fact you are questioning this at all proves you a heartless
bastard who would murder your own family if you thought it would benifit
you. Your support of a Dictator who murdered for sport is sickening.
>
> >What further proof could you possibly require that Saddam has them than
the
> >fact he has used them repeatedly, both against his own people and Iran?
>
> "Has" is present tense. Where are they?
You know where they are you lying bastard. Pull your liberal head out of
Gores *** and think for yourself, you sound like a parrot.
>
> >
> > It is clearly obvious to anyone with any education
> >> that basing the
> >> Iraq invasion on WMD was a lie.
> >
> >Your opinion.
> >
> >>
> >> However what is not clear to most people, even now it seems, is that
WMD's
> >> are not
> >> the only justification for a unilateral invasion of another country.
> >
> >I know of no one who thought it was. WMD were only one of the reasons.
>
> The one given to us by Bush.
And Clinton, and Clintons staff.
>
> >
> > Lloyd
> >> may be able to
> >> make a coherent argument that Bush was lying when Bush used WMD's as
> >pretext
> >> for
> >> going to war in Iraq.
> >
> >Lloyd is incapable of coherant thought, much less arqument.
> >
> > But there is absolutely no logical, reasonable, or
> >> moral argument
> >> Lloyd can make for allowing a dictator to remain in power who for fun
> >would
> >> cut the eyes
> >> and tongues of people out of their heads, who killed his own brother in
> >> broad daylight
> >> and who committed numerous other atrocities. It was a terrible
terrible
> >> thing for the
> >> nations of the world to stand idly by and allow this to continue year
> >after
> >> year, and they
> >> damn well know it, they know it even now because they all want to
pretend
> >> that Iraq
> >> doesen't exist right now. The invasion of Iraq was justified on moral
and
> >> human rights
> >> grounds, and does not need further justification. Iraqi's today,
despite
> >> the mess in the
> >> country, are better off now than they were under Saddam.
> >
> >I fully agree with you here.
> >
> >
> >>
> >> It is a shame that the President has not made this clear. But I can
tell
> >> you why he has not,
> >> because if he did, then he would have to hold his own administration up
to
> >> the same moral
> >> standards. This is why people in the Bush administration have no
problem
> >> with basically
> >> committing treason by revealing the name of one of our better CIA
agents,
> >> thank God she
> >> was in the country when they did it. In short, the Bush administration
is
> >> totally morally
> >> bankrupt. They do not believe that the invasion of Iraq was justified
on
> >> moral grounds
> >> simply because they themselves give absolutely no credit to morality.
All
> >> they care about
> >> is personal power and greed.
> >>
> >> Ted
> >
> >Your opinion. But if Bush is as bad as you think, how much worse was
> >Clinton? In my opinion Clinton was by far the worse President this
country
> >has ever had, bar none. That is my opinion.
>
> Yes, thank goodness our long national nightmare of peace and prosperity
under
> Clinton is over.
Which Clinton had nothing to do with. The economy was improving when Clinton
took over. The current recession, however, began thanks to Clinton. The more
you post, the more people see your ignorance for themselves. Keep it up.
>
> >My opinion of Lloyd is simple, he is a lying hypocrit.
> >Why do I say this? If Al Gore had won the election, and had then proceded
to
> >deal with Iraq exactly the way Bush has done, Lloyd would be singing his
> >praises. To Lloyd, as a Liberal he must publicly support any decision
made
> >by a Liberal, and he must oppose any decision made by a Conservative.
Bush
> >is wrong simply because he is a Repulican instead of a Democrat. I would
> >support the President in Iraq regardless, not because I wanted this war,
I
> >didn't, but because I do feel it had to be done, and better now than
latter.
> > You are an intelligent person Ted, I respect your opinion on this, even
the
> >parts I disagree with you on.
> >Lloyd believes himself superior to anyone who isn't a Liberal or a
> >scientist, so I can't help but take him down a few pegs. Beyond that I
> >really have no interest in discussing Iraq or politics in general, and I
> >vote for as many Democrats come election time as I do Republicans,
depends
> >on who I think is better qualified.
> >
> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
#2868
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bnr4jk$kba$5@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <vq0qfm4infl337@corp.supernews.com>,
> "Douglas A. Shrader" <dshrader@nospam.com> wrote:
> >
> >"Ted Mittelstaedt" <tedm@toybox.placo.com> wrote in message
> >news:newscache$0hjinh$261$1@news.ipinc.net...
> >>
> >> "Douglas A. Shrader" <dshrader@nospam.com> wrote in message
> >> news:vptf3thq39cab0@corp.supernews.com...
> >>
> >> >
> >> > WE know he had them, we don't know what he did with them. If you
owned a
> >> > house twelve years ago, and you could not provide evidence that you
had
> >> sold
> >> > it, would it not be logical to assume you still owned it?
> >> >
> >>
> >> Not if it was a mobile trailer house, WMD's are generally pretty
mobile.
> >
> >Moving them does not change ownership, nor does it make them cease to
exist.
> >
> >>
> >> In any case who is "we". The CIA certainly wasn't claiming that Saddam
> >had
> >> WMD's
> >
> >In the case of Saddam his chemical and biological weapons are and have
> >always been called WMD's, and yes the CIA knew he had them, he has used
them
> >at least 12 times.
>
> Did he have them in 2003? If so, where are they?
You know Lloyd, if they made a list of the one hundred dumbest people on
earth, you name would be in every spot.
If I have something in 1990, and I don't get rid of it, then yes, I will
still have it in 2003. Saddam had them, he never provided any evidence that
he destroyed them, so yes, he still has them to this day until and unless
proven, PROVEN, otherwise.
Where are they? Well hidden, he had twelve years to do so, they may be
buired in the desert, he may have transfered them to another country, until
they are found we won't know. The fact that they are unaccounted for makes
it imperative that we keep looking until we do know where they are, or if he
in fact did destroy them, and simply hid that fact in an attempt to bluff
us, which is what Hans Blix is suggesting. A suggestion, I might add, he
would not have made if he and the inspectors knew they had been destroyed,
which is what you claimed, thus proving you once again a lying -------. You
really should be taking classes instead of teaching them, you have so much
to learn.
>
> >
> >> and why did the Bush administraton blow a deep-CIA agent's cover in
> >revenge?
> >
> >Speculation
> >
> >> And
> >> why haven't they come up with the name of the person in the Bush
> >> administration who
> >> released the name?
> >
> >You just claimed Bush was responsible, now you admit the identity is
> >unknown. I leave speculation to others, the truth will be known
eventually.
> >
> >>
> >> Your wasting your time attempting to use WMD's as a justification for
> >going
> >> to war
> >> in Iraq. Nukes might have been there 10 years ago, or partial nukes,
but
> >> it's preposterous
> >> to suggest they were there before the war.
> >
> >No one, including Bush, has ever claimed Sadam has or ever had Nukes. The
> >claim was that Saddam was trying to aquire them.
>
> Which turned out to be a lie.
Not at all. The claim he tried to aquire weapons grade Uranium from Nigeria
turned out to be a lie, but that does not equate to Saddam seeking to aquire
Nukes being a lie, that remains to be seen.
>
> >
> >The case is a bit stronger for
> >> bio agents,
> >> but still inconclusive.
> >
> >How so, when he has used them several times already?
>
> Where are they?
Ther ones he used? Ask the hundreds of thousands of people he killed with
them. The fact you are questioning this at all proves you a heartless
bastard who would murder your own family if you thought it would benifit
you. Your support of a Dictator who murdered for sport is sickening.
>
> >What further proof could you possibly require that Saddam has them than
the
> >fact he has used them repeatedly, both against his own people and Iran?
>
> "Has" is present tense. Where are they?
You know where they are you lying bastard. Pull your liberal head out of
Gores *** and think for yourself, you sound like a parrot.
>
> >
> > It is clearly obvious to anyone with any education
> >> that basing the
> >> Iraq invasion on WMD was a lie.
> >
> >Your opinion.
> >
> >>
> >> However what is not clear to most people, even now it seems, is that
WMD's
> >> are not
> >> the only justification for a unilateral invasion of another country.
> >
> >I know of no one who thought it was. WMD were only one of the reasons.
>
> The one given to us by Bush.
And Clinton, and Clintons staff.
>
> >
> > Lloyd
> >> may be able to
> >> make a coherent argument that Bush was lying when Bush used WMD's as
> >pretext
> >> for
> >> going to war in Iraq.
> >
> >Lloyd is incapable of coherant thought, much less arqument.
> >
> > But there is absolutely no logical, reasonable, or
> >> moral argument
> >> Lloyd can make for allowing a dictator to remain in power who for fun
> >would
> >> cut the eyes
> >> and tongues of people out of their heads, who killed his own brother in
> >> broad daylight
> >> and who committed numerous other atrocities. It was a terrible
terrible
> >> thing for the
> >> nations of the world to stand idly by and allow this to continue year
> >after
> >> year, and they
> >> damn well know it, they know it even now because they all want to
pretend
> >> that Iraq
> >> doesen't exist right now. The invasion of Iraq was justified on moral
and
> >> human rights
> >> grounds, and does not need further justification. Iraqi's today,
despite
> >> the mess in the
> >> country, are better off now than they were under Saddam.
> >
> >I fully agree with you here.
> >
> >
> >>
> >> It is a shame that the President has not made this clear. But I can
tell
> >> you why he has not,
> >> because if he did, then he would have to hold his own administration up
to
> >> the same moral
> >> standards. This is why people in the Bush administration have no
problem
> >> with basically
> >> committing treason by revealing the name of one of our better CIA
agents,
> >> thank God she
> >> was in the country when they did it. In short, the Bush administration
is
> >> totally morally
> >> bankrupt. They do not believe that the invasion of Iraq was justified
on
> >> moral grounds
> >> simply because they themselves give absolutely no credit to morality.
All
> >> they care about
> >> is personal power and greed.
> >>
> >> Ted
> >
> >Your opinion. But if Bush is as bad as you think, how much worse was
> >Clinton? In my opinion Clinton was by far the worse President this
country
> >has ever had, bar none. That is my opinion.
>
> Yes, thank goodness our long national nightmare of peace and prosperity
under
> Clinton is over.
Which Clinton had nothing to do with. The economy was improving when Clinton
took over. The current recession, however, began thanks to Clinton. The more
you post, the more people see your ignorance for themselves. Keep it up.
>
> >My opinion of Lloyd is simple, he is a lying hypocrit.
> >Why do I say this? If Al Gore had won the election, and had then proceded
to
> >deal with Iraq exactly the way Bush has done, Lloyd would be singing his
> >praises. To Lloyd, as a Liberal he must publicly support any decision
made
> >by a Liberal, and he must oppose any decision made by a Conservative.
Bush
> >is wrong simply because he is a Repulican instead of a Democrat. I would
> >support the President in Iraq regardless, not because I wanted this war,
I
> >didn't, but because I do feel it had to be done, and better now than
latter.
> > You are an intelligent person Ted, I respect your opinion on this, even
the
> >parts I disagree with you on.
> >Lloyd believes himself superior to anyone who isn't a Liberal or a
> >scientist, so I can't help but take him down a few pegs. Beyond that I
> >really have no interest in discussing Iraq or politics in general, and I
> >vote for as many Democrats come election time as I do Republicans,
depends
> >on who I think is better qualified.
> >
> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
#2869
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bnr4jk$kba$5@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <vq0qfm4infl337@corp.supernews.com>,
> "Douglas A. Shrader" <dshrader@nospam.com> wrote:
> >
> >"Ted Mittelstaedt" <tedm@toybox.placo.com> wrote in message
> >news:newscache$0hjinh$261$1@news.ipinc.net...
> >>
> >> "Douglas A. Shrader" <dshrader@nospam.com> wrote in message
> >> news:vptf3thq39cab0@corp.supernews.com...
> >>
> >> >
> >> > WE know he had them, we don't know what he did with them. If you
owned a
> >> > house twelve years ago, and you could not provide evidence that you
had
> >> sold
> >> > it, would it not be logical to assume you still owned it?
> >> >
> >>
> >> Not if it was a mobile trailer house, WMD's are generally pretty
mobile.
> >
> >Moving them does not change ownership, nor does it make them cease to
exist.
> >
> >>
> >> In any case who is "we". The CIA certainly wasn't claiming that Saddam
> >had
> >> WMD's
> >
> >In the case of Saddam his chemical and biological weapons are and have
> >always been called WMD's, and yes the CIA knew he had them, he has used
them
> >at least 12 times.
>
> Did he have them in 2003? If so, where are they?
You know Lloyd, if they made a list of the one hundred dumbest people on
earth, you name would be in every spot.
If I have something in 1990, and I don't get rid of it, then yes, I will
still have it in 2003. Saddam had them, he never provided any evidence that
he destroyed them, so yes, he still has them to this day until and unless
proven, PROVEN, otherwise.
Where are they? Well hidden, he had twelve years to do so, they may be
buired in the desert, he may have transfered them to another country, until
they are found we won't know. The fact that they are unaccounted for makes
it imperative that we keep looking until we do know where they are, or if he
in fact did destroy them, and simply hid that fact in an attempt to bluff
us, which is what Hans Blix is suggesting. A suggestion, I might add, he
would not have made if he and the inspectors knew they had been destroyed,
which is what you claimed, thus proving you once again a lying -------. You
really should be taking classes instead of teaching them, you have so much
to learn.
>
> >
> >> and why did the Bush administraton blow a deep-CIA agent's cover in
> >revenge?
> >
> >Speculation
> >
> >> And
> >> why haven't they come up with the name of the person in the Bush
> >> administration who
> >> released the name?
> >
> >You just claimed Bush was responsible, now you admit the identity is
> >unknown. I leave speculation to others, the truth will be known
eventually.
> >
> >>
> >> Your wasting your time attempting to use WMD's as a justification for
> >going
> >> to war
> >> in Iraq. Nukes might have been there 10 years ago, or partial nukes,
but
> >> it's preposterous
> >> to suggest they were there before the war.
> >
> >No one, including Bush, has ever claimed Sadam has or ever had Nukes. The
> >claim was that Saddam was trying to aquire them.
>
> Which turned out to be a lie.
Not at all. The claim he tried to aquire weapons grade Uranium from Nigeria
turned out to be a lie, but that does not equate to Saddam seeking to aquire
Nukes being a lie, that remains to be seen.
>
> >
> >The case is a bit stronger for
> >> bio agents,
> >> but still inconclusive.
> >
> >How so, when he has used them several times already?
>
> Where are they?
Ther ones he used? Ask the hundreds of thousands of people he killed with
them. The fact you are questioning this at all proves you a heartless
bastard who would murder your own family if you thought it would benifit
you. Your support of a Dictator who murdered for sport is sickening.
>
> >What further proof could you possibly require that Saddam has them than
the
> >fact he has used them repeatedly, both against his own people and Iran?
>
> "Has" is present tense. Where are they?
You know where they are you lying bastard. Pull your liberal head out of
Gores *** and think for yourself, you sound like a parrot.
>
> >
> > It is clearly obvious to anyone with any education
> >> that basing the
> >> Iraq invasion on WMD was a lie.
> >
> >Your opinion.
> >
> >>
> >> However what is not clear to most people, even now it seems, is that
WMD's
> >> are not
> >> the only justification for a unilateral invasion of another country.
> >
> >I know of no one who thought it was. WMD were only one of the reasons.
>
> The one given to us by Bush.
And Clinton, and Clintons staff.
>
> >
> > Lloyd
> >> may be able to
> >> make a coherent argument that Bush was lying when Bush used WMD's as
> >pretext
> >> for
> >> going to war in Iraq.
> >
> >Lloyd is incapable of coherant thought, much less arqument.
> >
> > But there is absolutely no logical, reasonable, or
> >> moral argument
> >> Lloyd can make for allowing a dictator to remain in power who for fun
> >would
> >> cut the eyes
> >> and tongues of people out of their heads, who killed his own brother in
> >> broad daylight
> >> and who committed numerous other atrocities. It was a terrible
terrible
> >> thing for the
> >> nations of the world to stand idly by and allow this to continue year
> >after
> >> year, and they
> >> damn well know it, they know it even now because they all want to
pretend
> >> that Iraq
> >> doesen't exist right now. The invasion of Iraq was justified on moral
and
> >> human rights
> >> grounds, and does not need further justification. Iraqi's today,
despite
> >> the mess in the
> >> country, are better off now than they were under Saddam.
> >
> >I fully agree with you here.
> >
> >
> >>
> >> It is a shame that the President has not made this clear. But I can
tell
> >> you why he has not,
> >> because if he did, then he would have to hold his own administration up
to
> >> the same moral
> >> standards. This is why people in the Bush administration have no
problem
> >> with basically
> >> committing treason by revealing the name of one of our better CIA
agents,
> >> thank God she
> >> was in the country when they did it. In short, the Bush administration
is
> >> totally morally
> >> bankrupt. They do not believe that the invasion of Iraq was justified
on
> >> moral grounds
> >> simply because they themselves give absolutely no credit to morality.
All
> >> they care about
> >> is personal power and greed.
> >>
> >> Ted
> >
> >Your opinion. But if Bush is as bad as you think, how much worse was
> >Clinton? In my opinion Clinton was by far the worse President this
country
> >has ever had, bar none. That is my opinion.
>
> Yes, thank goodness our long national nightmare of peace and prosperity
under
> Clinton is over.
Which Clinton had nothing to do with. The economy was improving when Clinton
took over. The current recession, however, began thanks to Clinton. The more
you post, the more people see your ignorance for themselves. Keep it up.
>
> >My opinion of Lloyd is simple, he is a lying hypocrit.
> >Why do I say this? If Al Gore had won the election, and had then proceded
to
> >deal with Iraq exactly the way Bush has done, Lloyd would be singing his
> >praises. To Lloyd, as a Liberal he must publicly support any decision
made
> >by a Liberal, and he must oppose any decision made by a Conservative.
Bush
> >is wrong simply because he is a Repulican instead of a Democrat. I would
> >support the President in Iraq regardless, not because I wanted this war,
I
> >didn't, but because I do feel it had to be done, and better now than
latter.
> > You are an intelligent person Ted, I respect your opinion on this, even
the
> >parts I disagree with you on.
> >Lloyd believes himself superior to anyone who isn't a Liberal or a
> >scientist, so I can't help but take him down a few pegs. Beyond that I
> >really have no interest in discussing Iraq or politics in general, and I
> >vote for as many Democrats come election time as I do Republicans,
depends
> >on who I think is better qualified.
> >
> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
#2870
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bnr4q5$kba$9@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <Cj0ob.59593$Fm2.41498@attbi_s04>,
> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>
> Another fool who believes what he reads on right-wing web sites:
As opposed to your left wing sites heh?
>
> >In article <bnpmk701sae@enews3.newsguy.com>, Gerald G. McGeorge wrote:
> >
> >> Ironically, there's a piece in today's USA Today regarding the key
research
> >> green have used since the 80's to promote the CO2 / global warming
theory.
> >> In a nutshell, the green's much-heralded research which concluded that
> >> global temps had increased at a dramatic, unprecedented rate over the
> second
> >> half of the 20th century has been challenged and proven faulty, that in
> >> reality the climate cycle over that period of time was NOT abnormal.
> >
> >I think I've found the paper mentioned in the article:
> >http://www.multi-science.co.uk/ee_openaccess.htm
> >http://www.multi-science.co.uk/mcintyre_02.pdf
> >
> >