Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#2931
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <eCbob.146$Eu7.2109481@news-text.cableinet.net>,
"Dave Milne" <jeep@_nospam_milne.info> wrote:
>Looks like Lloyd replied to every other post except this one. I guess that
>when he shouts "Learn some science", our educator didn't mean from himself.
>Interesting how he is vocal in criticizing other opinions as long as they
>don't come from other scientists, and equally has no intention in backing up
>what he believes himself.
Yes, I criticize dithering that doesn't come from science. Consider yourself
so criticized.
>
>Dave Milne, Scotland
>'99 TJ 4.0 Sahara
>
>"Dave Milne" <jeep@_nospam_milne.info> wrote in message
>news:d9Ynb.5397$QB7.49790167@news-text.cableinet.net...
>: Lloyd, what's your opinion on the sunspot theory ? This has been a long
>and
>: boring thread, but if you can give us an intelligent critique on it, I for
>: one would be genuinely interested.
>:
>: Dave Milne, Scotland
>: '99 TJ 4.0 Sahara
>:
>: "Matthew S. Whiting" <m.whiting@computer.org> wrote in message
>: news:3FA03D91.3080807@computer.org...
>: : And now another theory as to possible causation for global warming:
>: :
>: : http://www.drudgereport.com/flash2.htm
>:
>:
>
>
"Dave Milne" <jeep@_nospam_milne.info> wrote:
>Looks like Lloyd replied to every other post except this one. I guess that
>when he shouts "Learn some science", our educator didn't mean from himself.
>Interesting how he is vocal in criticizing other opinions as long as they
>don't come from other scientists, and equally has no intention in backing up
>what he believes himself.
Yes, I criticize dithering that doesn't come from science. Consider yourself
so criticized.
>
>Dave Milne, Scotland
>'99 TJ 4.0 Sahara
>
>"Dave Milne" <jeep@_nospam_milne.info> wrote in message
>news:d9Ynb.5397$QB7.49790167@news-text.cableinet.net...
>: Lloyd, what's your opinion on the sunspot theory ? This has been a long
>and
>: boring thread, but if you can give us an intelligent critique on it, I for
>: one would be genuinely interested.
>:
>: Dave Milne, Scotland
>: '99 TJ 4.0 Sahara
>:
>: "Matthew S. Whiting" <m.whiting@computer.org> wrote in message
>: news:3FA03D91.3080807@computer.org...
>: : And now another theory as to possible causation for global warming:
>: :
>: : http://www.drudgereport.com/flash2.htm
>:
>:
>
>
#2932
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <eCbob.146$Eu7.2109481@news-text.cableinet.net>,
"Dave Milne" <jeep@_nospam_milne.info> wrote:
>Looks like Lloyd replied to every other post except this one. I guess that
>when he shouts "Learn some science", our educator didn't mean from himself.
>Interesting how he is vocal in criticizing other opinions as long as they
>don't come from other scientists, and equally has no intention in backing up
>what he believes himself.
Yes, I criticize dithering that doesn't come from science. Consider yourself
so criticized.
>
>Dave Milne, Scotland
>'99 TJ 4.0 Sahara
>
>"Dave Milne" <jeep@_nospam_milne.info> wrote in message
>news:d9Ynb.5397$QB7.49790167@news-text.cableinet.net...
>: Lloyd, what's your opinion on the sunspot theory ? This has been a long
>and
>: boring thread, but if you can give us an intelligent critique on it, I for
>: one would be genuinely interested.
>:
>: Dave Milne, Scotland
>: '99 TJ 4.0 Sahara
>:
>: "Matthew S. Whiting" <m.whiting@computer.org> wrote in message
>: news:3FA03D91.3080807@computer.org...
>: : And now another theory as to possible causation for global warming:
>: :
>: : http://www.drudgereport.com/flash2.htm
>:
>:
>
>
"Dave Milne" <jeep@_nospam_milne.info> wrote:
>Looks like Lloyd replied to every other post except this one. I guess that
>when he shouts "Learn some science", our educator didn't mean from himself.
>Interesting how he is vocal in criticizing other opinions as long as they
>don't come from other scientists, and equally has no intention in backing up
>what he believes himself.
Yes, I criticize dithering that doesn't come from science. Consider yourself
so criticized.
>
>Dave Milne, Scotland
>'99 TJ 4.0 Sahara
>
>"Dave Milne" <jeep@_nospam_milne.info> wrote in message
>news:d9Ynb.5397$QB7.49790167@news-text.cableinet.net...
>: Lloyd, what's your opinion on the sunspot theory ? This has been a long
>and
>: boring thread, but if you can give us an intelligent critique on it, I for
>: one would be genuinely interested.
>:
>: Dave Milne, Scotland
>: '99 TJ 4.0 Sahara
>:
>: "Matthew S. Whiting" <m.whiting@computer.org> wrote in message
>: news:3FA03D91.3080807@computer.org...
>: : And now another theory as to possible causation for global warming:
>: :
>: : http://www.drudgereport.com/flash2.htm
>:
>:
>
>
#2933
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <3fa134cc$1$236$cc9e4d1f@news.dial.pipex.com>,
"Dori Schmetterling" <ng@nospam.co.uk> wrote:
>I suppose it depends on what you use as definition of the sun. Strictly,
>the verse implying the sun and the moon certainly comes after plants, but
>"light" in general came before that.
Did God have a big halogen lamp then?
>
>The rest of the sequence is not bad, though, is it?
Which one? The one where man comes first and then animals, or the one where
the animals are made first and then man last?
>
>Then there is the question of the definition of a "day".
If you don't take this part of the Bible literally, how can you demand people
take any part of it literally?
>
>Does Creationism require a belief in Joshua stopping the sun?
Taking the Bible literally does.
>
>
>If we had been there in a Sebring convertible with the roof off we could
>have seen for ourselves.
>
>
>As regards a flood, it is interesting that some sort of flood has been
>reported in a number of old, unrelated texts, IIRC.
>
World-wide, as the Bible says? where did the water drain off to?
>DAS
"Dori Schmetterling" <ng@nospam.co.uk> wrote:
>I suppose it depends on what you use as definition of the sun. Strictly,
>the verse implying the sun and the moon certainly comes after plants, but
>"light" in general came before that.
Did God have a big halogen lamp then?
>
>The rest of the sequence is not bad, though, is it?
Which one? The one where man comes first and then animals, or the one where
the animals are made first and then man last?
>
>Then there is the question of the definition of a "day".
If you don't take this part of the Bible literally, how can you demand people
take any part of it literally?
>
>Does Creationism require a belief in Joshua stopping the sun?
Taking the Bible literally does.
>
>
>If we had been there in a Sebring convertible with the roof off we could
>have seen for ourselves.
>
>
>As regards a flood, it is interesting that some sort of flood has been
>reported in a number of old, unrelated texts, IIRC.
>
World-wide, as the Bible says? where did the water drain off to?
>DAS
#2934
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <3fa134cc$1$236$cc9e4d1f@news.dial.pipex.com>,
"Dori Schmetterling" <ng@nospam.co.uk> wrote:
>I suppose it depends on what you use as definition of the sun. Strictly,
>the verse implying the sun and the moon certainly comes after plants, but
>"light" in general came before that.
Did God have a big halogen lamp then?
>
>The rest of the sequence is not bad, though, is it?
Which one? The one where man comes first and then animals, or the one where
the animals are made first and then man last?
>
>Then there is the question of the definition of a "day".
If you don't take this part of the Bible literally, how can you demand people
take any part of it literally?
>
>Does Creationism require a belief in Joshua stopping the sun?
Taking the Bible literally does.
>
>
>If we had been there in a Sebring convertible with the roof off we could
>have seen for ourselves.
>
>
>As regards a flood, it is interesting that some sort of flood has been
>reported in a number of old, unrelated texts, IIRC.
>
World-wide, as the Bible says? where did the water drain off to?
>DAS
"Dori Schmetterling" <ng@nospam.co.uk> wrote:
>I suppose it depends on what you use as definition of the sun. Strictly,
>the verse implying the sun and the moon certainly comes after plants, but
>"light" in general came before that.
Did God have a big halogen lamp then?
>
>The rest of the sequence is not bad, though, is it?
Which one? The one where man comes first and then animals, or the one where
the animals are made first and then man last?
>
>Then there is the question of the definition of a "day".
If you don't take this part of the Bible literally, how can you demand people
take any part of it literally?
>
>Does Creationism require a belief in Joshua stopping the sun?
Taking the Bible literally does.
>
>
>If we had been there in a Sebring convertible with the roof off we could
>have seen for ourselves.
>
>
>As regards a flood, it is interesting that some sort of flood has been
>reported in a number of old, unrelated texts, IIRC.
>
World-wide, as the Bible says? where did the water drain off to?
>DAS
#2935
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <3fa134cc$1$236$cc9e4d1f@news.dial.pipex.com>,
"Dori Schmetterling" <ng@nospam.co.uk> wrote:
>I suppose it depends on what you use as definition of the sun. Strictly,
>the verse implying the sun and the moon certainly comes after plants, but
>"light" in general came before that.
Did God have a big halogen lamp then?
>
>The rest of the sequence is not bad, though, is it?
Which one? The one where man comes first and then animals, or the one where
the animals are made first and then man last?
>
>Then there is the question of the definition of a "day".
If you don't take this part of the Bible literally, how can you demand people
take any part of it literally?
>
>Does Creationism require a belief in Joshua stopping the sun?
Taking the Bible literally does.
>
>
>If we had been there in a Sebring convertible with the roof off we could
>have seen for ourselves.
>
>
>As regards a flood, it is interesting that some sort of flood has been
>reported in a number of old, unrelated texts, IIRC.
>
World-wide, as the Bible says? where did the water drain off to?
>DAS
"Dori Schmetterling" <ng@nospam.co.uk> wrote:
>I suppose it depends on what you use as definition of the sun. Strictly,
>the verse implying the sun and the moon certainly comes after plants, but
>"light" in general came before that.
Did God have a big halogen lamp then?
>
>The rest of the sequence is not bad, though, is it?
Which one? The one where man comes first and then animals, or the one where
the animals are made first and then man last?
>
>Then there is the question of the definition of a "day".
If you don't take this part of the Bible literally, how can you demand people
take any part of it literally?
>
>Does Creationism require a belief in Joshua stopping the sun?
Taking the Bible literally does.
>
>
>If we had been there in a Sebring convertible with the roof off we could
>have seen for ourselves.
>
>
>As regards a flood, it is interesting that some sort of flood has been
>reported in a number of old, unrelated texts, IIRC.
>
World-wide, as the Bible says? where did the water drain off to?
>DAS
#2936
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <vq34d3l91vhid5@corp.supernews.com>,
"The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
>
>"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.
Provide proof. remember, the UN destroyed weapons after the GW I.
> 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.
OK, you had your baby teeth. Prove you lost them, or we must assume you still
have them.
>Where are they? Well hidden, he had twelve years to do so,
Bush claimed there were an imminent threat to us. That means out, ready to
use, not hidden. Powell showed the UN pictures of where they allegedly were.
>they may be
>buired in the desert, he may have transfered them to another country, until
>they are found we won't know.
So they weren't ready to be used, an imminent threat to us?
>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.
>
Where are the WMD? Simple question, the thing we went to war over.
>
>>
>> >
>> >> 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.
>> >
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>
>
"The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
>
>"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.
Provide proof. remember, the UN destroyed weapons after the GW I.
> 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.
OK, you had your baby teeth. Prove you lost them, or we must assume you still
have them.
>Where are they? Well hidden, he had twelve years to do so,
Bush claimed there were an imminent threat to us. That means out, ready to
use, not hidden. Powell showed the UN pictures of where they allegedly were.
>they may be
>buired in the desert, he may have transfered them to another country, until
>they are found we won't know.
So they weren't ready to be used, an imminent threat to us?
>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.
>
Where are the WMD? Simple question, the thing we went to war over.
>
>>
>> >
>> >> 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.
>> >
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>
>
#2937
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <vq34d3l91vhid5@corp.supernews.com>,
"The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
>
>"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.
Provide proof. remember, the UN destroyed weapons after the GW I.
> 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.
OK, you had your baby teeth. Prove you lost them, or we must assume you still
have them.
>Where are they? Well hidden, he had twelve years to do so,
Bush claimed there were an imminent threat to us. That means out, ready to
use, not hidden. Powell showed the UN pictures of where they allegedly were.
>they may be
>buired in the desert, he may have transfered them to another country, until
>they are found we won't know.
So they weren't ready to be used, an imminent threat to us?
>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.
>
Where are the WMD? Simple question, the thing we went to war over.
>
>>
>> >
>> >> 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.
>> >
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>
>
"The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
>
>"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.
Provide proof. remember, the UN destroyed weapons after the GW I.
> 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.
OK, you had your baby teeth. Prove you lost them, or we must assume you still
have them.
>Where are they? Well hidden, he had twelve years to do so,
Bush claimed there were an imminent threat to us. That means out, ready to
use, not hidden. Powell showed the UN pictures of where they allegedly were.
>they may be
>buired in the desert, he may have transfered them to another country, until
>they are found we won't know.
So they weren't ready to be used, an imminent threat to us?
>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.
>
Where are the WMD? Simple question, the thing we went to war over.
>
>>
>> >
>> >> 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.
>> >
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>
>
#2938
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <vq34d3l91vhid5@corp.supernews.com>,
"The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
>
>"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.
Provide proof. remember, the UN destroyed weapons after the GW I.
> 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.
OK, you had your baby teeth. Prove you lost them, or we must assume you still
have them.
>Where are they? Well hidden, he had twelve years to do so,
Bush claimed there were an imminent threat to us. That means out, ready to
use, not hidden. Powell showed the UN pictures of where they allegedly were.
>they may be
>buired in the desert, he may have transfered them to another country, until
>they are found we won't know.
So they weren't ready to be used, an imminent threat to us?
>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.
>
Where are the WMD? Simple question, the thing we went to war over.
>
>>
>> >
>> >> 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.
>> >
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>
>
"The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
>
>"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.
Provide proof. remember, the UN destroyed weapons after the GW I.
> 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.
OK, you had your baby teeth. Prove you lost them, or we must assume you still
have them.
>Where are they? Well hidden, he had twelve years to do so,
Bush claimed there were an imminent threat to us. That means out, ready to
use, not hidden. Powell showed the UN pictures of where they allegedly were.
>they may be
>buired in the desert, he may have transfered them to another country, until
>they are found we won't know.
So they weren't ready to be used, an imminent threat to us?
>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.
>
Where are the WMD? Simple question, the thing we went to war over.
>
>>
>> >
>> >> 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.
>> >
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>
>
#2939
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <vq34l1oaakjo6b@corp.supernews.com>,
"The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
>
>"Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorge@frontier.net> wrote in message
>news:bnq73506s9@enews1.newsguy.com...
>> Great reply, Brent. Ask Ted Kennedy & his Hyannisport chums why they're
>> blocking off shore wind turbines. Just another bunch of Liberal NIMBY
>> hypocrites.
>
>The same Ted Kennedy who murded that girl at Chappaquidik and used his name
>to get off.
>
You forgot to claim Clinton murdered Vince Foster.
>
>>
>> > I want a clean world where the environment is protected and not
>destroyed.
>> > This is why I try to buy products made in nations with at least a decent
>> > level of regulation to achieve that goal. However the environmental
>> > movement doesn't stand for that. They stand for some political and
>social
>> > agenda where the USA is considered evil and the standard of living must
>> > be knocked down several pegs. The environment is being used for an
>> > excuse and it sickens me.
>> >
>> > And then guess what happens when someone decides to build a wind farm
>> > near the homes of some rich liberals? They throw a hissy fit.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>
"The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
>
>"Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorge@frontier.net> wrote in message
>news:bnq73506s9@enews1.newsguy.com...
>> Great reply, Brent. Ask Ted Kennedy & his Hyannisport chums why they're
>> blocking off shore wind turbines. Just another bunch of Liberal NIMBY
>> hypocrites.
>
>The same Ted Kennedy who murded that girl at Chappaquidik and used his name
>to get off.
>
You forgot to claim Clinton murdered Vince Foster.
>
>>
>> > I want a clean world where the environment is protected and not
>destroyed.
>> > This is why I try to buy products made in nations with at least a decent
>> > level of regulation to achieve that goal. However the environmental
>> > movement doesn't stand for that. They stand for some political and
>social
>> > agenda where the USA is considered evil and the standard of living must
>> > be knocked down several pegs. The environment is being used for an
>> > excuse and it sickens me.
>> >
>> > And then guess what happens when someone decides to build a wind farm
>> > near the homes of some rich liberals? They throw a hissy fit.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>
#2940
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <vq34l1oaakjo6b@corp.supernews.com>,
"The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
>
>"Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorge@frontier.net> wrote in message
>news:bnq73506s9@enews1.newsguy.com...
>> Great reply, Brent. Ask Ted Kennedy & his Hyannisport chums why they're
>> blocking off shore wind turbines. Just another bunch of Liberal NIMBY
>> hypocrites.
>
>The same Ted Kennedy who murded that girl at Chappaquidik and used his name
>to get off.
>
You forgot to claim Clinton murdered Vince Foster.
>
>>
>> > I want a clean world where the environment is protected and not
>destroyed.
>> > This is why I try to buy products made in nations with at least a decent
>> > level of regulation to achieve that goal. However the environmental
>> > movement doesn't stand for that. They stand for some political and
>social
>> > agenda where the USA is considered evil and the standard of living must
>> > be knocked down several pegs. The environment is being used for an
>> > excuse and it sickens me.
>> >
>> > And then guess what happens when someone decides to build a wind farm
>> > near the homes of some rich liberals? They throw a hissy fit.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>
"The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
>
>"Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorge@frontier.net> wrote in message
>news:bnq73506s9@enews1.newsguy.com...
>> Great reply, Brent. Ask Ted Kennedy & his Hyannisport chums why they're
>> blocking off shore wind turbines. Just another bunch of Liberal NIMBY
>> hypocrites.
>
>The same Ted Kennedy who murded that girl at Chappaquidik and used his name
>to get off.
>
You forgot to claim Clinton murdered Vince Foster.
>
>>
>> > I want a clean world where the environment is protected and not
>destroyed.
>> > This is why I try to buy products made in nations with at least a decent
>> > level of regulation to achieve that goal. However the environmental
>> > movement doesn't stand for that. They stand for some political and
>social
>> > agenda where the USA is considered evil and the standard of living must
>> > be knocked down several pegs. The environment is being used for an
>> > excuse and it sickens me.
>> >
>> > And then guess what happens when someone decides to build a wind farm
>> > near the homes of some rich liberals? They throw a hissy fit.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>