Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#3791
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On Fri, 07 Nov 03 09:26:47 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:
>Yeah, too bad we've got science on our side and you've got ignorance on yours.
But the point is you don't. But either you know that and don't care
because it doesn't suit your agenda, or you just believe everything
you see in the mainstream press. (With an .edu e-mail, I'm guessing
it is the first.....) Personally, your opinion matters not to me.
Have a great day!
Matt
99 V-10 Super Duty, Super Cab 4x4
wrote:
>Yeah, too bad we've got science on our side and you've got ignorance on yours.
But the point is you don't. But either you know that and don't care
because it doesn't suit your agenda, or you just believe everything
you see in the mainstream press. (With an .edu e-mail, I'm guessing
it is the first.....) Personally, your opinion matters not to me.
Have a great day!
Matt
99 V-10 Super Duty, Super Cab 4x4
#3792
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On Fri, 07 Nov 03 09:26:47 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:
>Yeah, too bad we've got science on our side and you've got ignorance on yours.
But the point is you don't. But either you know that and don't care
because it doesn't suit your agenda, or you just believe everything
you see in the mainstream press. (With an .edu e-mail, I'm guessing
it is the first.....) Personally, your opinion matters not to me.
Have a great day!
Matt
99 V-10 Super Duty, Super Cab 4x4
wrote:
>Yeah, too bad we've got science on our side and you've got ignorance on yours.
But the point is you don't. But either you know that and don't care
because it doesn't suit your agenda, or you just believe everything
you see in the mainstream press. (With an .edu e-mail, I'm guessing
it is the first.....) Personally, your opinion matters not to me.
Have a great day!
Matt
99 V-10 Super Duty, Super Cab 4x4
#3793
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On Fri, 07 Nov 03 09:26:47 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:
>Yeah, too bad we've got science on our side and you've got ignorance on yours.
But the point is you don't. But either you know that and don't care
because it doesn't suit your agenda, or you just believe everything
you see in the mainstream press. (With an .edu e-mail, I'm guessing
it is the first.....) Personally, your opinion matters not to me.
Have a great day!
Matt
99 V-10 Super Duty, Super Cab 4x4
wrote:
>Yeah, too bad we've got science on our side and you've got ignorance on yours.
But the point is you don't. But either you know that and don't care
because it doesn't suit your agenda, or you just believe everything
you see in the mainstream press. (With an .edu e-mail, I'm guessing
it is the first.....) Personally, your opinion matters not to me.
Have a great day!
Matt
99 V-10 Super Duty, Super Cab 4x4
#3794
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Lloyd Parker wrote:
> Yeah, it performed so much better after W's tax cut than after Clinton's tax
> increase, right?
http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/newsrel/gdpnewsrelease.htm
http://money.cnn.com/2003/11/03/comm...obbs/index.htm
http://money.cnn.com/2003/11/07/news...jobs/index.htm
http://money.cnn.com/2003/11/06/news...less/index.htm
http://money.cnn.com/2003/11/07/mark...onds/index.htm
http://www.business2.com/articles/mag/0,,51816,00.html
#3795
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Lloyd Parker wrote:
> Yeah, it performed so much better after W's tax cut than after Clinton's tax
> increase, right?
http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/newsrel/gdpnewsrelease.htm
http://money.cnn.com/2003/11/03/comm...obbs/index.htm
http://money.cnn.com/2003/11/07/news...jobs/index.htm
http://money.cnn.com/2003/11/06/news...less/index.htm
http://money.cnn.com/2003/11/07/mark...onds/index.htm
http://www.business2.com/articles/mag/0,,51816,00.html
#3796
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Lloyd Parker wrote:
> Yeah, it performed so much better after W's tax cut than after Clinton's tax
> increase, right?
http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/newsrel/gdpnewsrelease.htm
http://money.cnn.com/2003/11/03/comm...obbs/index.htm
http://money.cnn.com/2003/11/07/news...jobs/index.htm
http://money.cnn.com/2003/11/06/news...less/index.htm
http://money.cnn.com/2003/11/07/mark...onds/index.htm
http://www.business2.com/articles/mag/0,,51816,00.html
#3797
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety canbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >It's stupid to say that CO2 that we are putting out is the cause of
> >global; warming, then push something like Kyoto, which merely shifts
> >the location of the CO2 production. Yet, that's what the tree-huggers
> >want.
>
> Shifts location? Huh? It would require cuts.
It requires significant cuts in the US, but not in the third world which is where
a lot of the CO2 producing activities will shift. So while the few American that
can still afford them will be driving around in Chinese built hybrid vehicles, the
Chinese will ramp up their economy and dump more CO2 into the atmosphere. The net
effect will be a wrecked US economy and global warming.
Ed
#3798
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety canbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >It's stupid to say that CO2 that we are putting out is the cause of
> >global; warming, then push something like Kyoto, which merely shifts
> >the location of the CO2 production. Yet, that's what the tree-huggers
> >want.
>
> Shifts location? Huh? It would require cuts.
It requires significant cuts in the US, but not in the third world which is where
a lot of the CO2 producing activities will shift. So while the few American that
can still afford them will be driving around in Chinese built hybrid vehicles, the
Chinese will ramp up their economy and dump more CO2 into the atmosphere. The net
effect will be a wrecked US economy and global warming.
Ed
#3799
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety canbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >It's stupid to say that CO2 that we are putting out is the cause of
> >global; warming, then push something like Kyoto, which merely shifts
> >the location of the CO2 production. Yet, that's what the tree-huggers
> >want.
>
> Shifts location? Huh? It would require cuts.
It requires significant cuts in the US, but not in the third world which is where
a lot of the CO2 producing activities will shift. So while the few American that
can still afford them will be driving around in Chinese built hybrid vehicles, the
Chinese will ramp up their economy and dump more CO2 into the atmosphere. The net
effect will be a wrecked US economy and global warming.
Ed
#3800
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
>
>"Marc" <whineryy@yifan.net> wrote in message
>news:vie6qv4cjpqta97uahfeu8asaq72dh3u9p@4ax.com.. .
>> "The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>> >news:bnm54u$nk9$13@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> >> In article <vprkhgchpgi642@corp.supernews.com>,
>> >> "Douglas A. Shrader" <dshrader@nospam.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>> >> >news:bnjeoi$b81$1@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> >> >> In article <vpof02qkahoq17@corp.supernews.com>,
>> >> >> "The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >> >> Sure, got to make sure. But the UN couldn't find them, and
>150,000
>> >US
>> >> >> >troops
>> >> >> >> haven't found them.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Bingo, The UN couldn't find them, although it is well documented
>that
>> >> >they
>> >> >> >existed.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Not in 2003.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >That is why they were still looking, that is why we are still
>> >> >> >looking. We haven't found Saddam yet either, but we know he exists
>as
>> >> >well.
>> >> >> >Or do you think that is also a lie?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Is he as big as the WMD?
>> >> >
>> >> >You do realize Saddam had twelve years in which to hide them. Where is
>> >Jimmy
>> >> >Hoffa?
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> We claimed direct evidence and knowledge that WMD were there in 2003.
>> >
>> >No, we asked for proof of where they were and if they had been destroyed,
>as
>> >per the UN Mandate. Saddam refused to provide said proof. You really are
>> >dumb aren't you.
>>
>> And we asserted that the only reason he wouldn't prove they didn't exist
>> was because he still had them. We were wrong.
>>
>
>Were we? Just because we have not yet found them does not mean he does not
>have them.
>
And if we tear apart the country and never find them, even after
exhaustively searching all possible locations, it is still possible that he
had them. It is impossible to prove that he did not have them. All we
have to go on is the certainty of our guesses. The same people that
indicated they were there also indicated locations. There was no evidence
at those locations that there are WMDs, nor indication that there were some
within the previous year that were moved to another site. The intelligence
that indicated that there were WMDs was flat out wrong on every verifiable
fact pertaining to WMDs, so why would we assume that they got one of the
unverifiable facts right?
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
>
>"Marc" <whineryy@yifan.net> wrote in message
>news:vie6qv4cjpqta97uahfeu8asaq72dh3u9p@4ax.com.. .
>> "The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>> >news:bnm54u$nk9$13@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> >> In article <vprkhgchpgi642@corp.supernews.com>,
>> >> "Douglas A. Shrader" <dshrader@nospam.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>> >> >news:bnjeoi$b81$1@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> >> >> In article <vpof02qkahoq17@corp.supernews.com>,
>> >> >> "The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >> >> Sure, got to make sure. But the UN couldn't find them, and
>150,000
>> >US
>> >> >> >troops
>> >> >> >> haven't found them.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Bingo, The UN couldn't find them, although it is well documented
>that
>> >> >they
>> >> >> >existed.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Not in 2003.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >That is why they were still looking, that is why we are still
>> >> >> >looking. We haven't found Saddam yet either, but we know he exists
>as
>> >> >well.
>> >> >> >Or do you think that is also a lie?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Is he as big as the WMD?
>> >> >
>> >> >You do realize Saddam had twelve years in which to hide them. Where is
>> >Jimmy
>> >> >Hoffa?
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> We claimed direct evidence and knowledge that WMD were there in 2003.
>> >
>> >No, we asked for proof of where they were and if they had been destroyed,
>as
>> >per the UN Mandate. Saddam refused to provide said proof. You really are
>> >dumb aren't you.
>>
>> And we asserted that the only reason he wouldn't prove they didn't exist
>> was because he still had them. We were wrong.
>>
>
>Were we? Just because we have not yet found them does not mean he does not
>have them.
>
And if we tear apart the country and never find them, even after
exhaustively searching all possible locations, it is still possible that he
had them. It is impossible to prove that he did not have them. All we
have to go on is the certainty of our guesses. The same people that
indicated they were there also indicated locations. There was no evidence
at those locations that there are WMDs, nor indication that there were some
within the previous year that were moved to another site. The intelligence
that indicated that there were WMDs was flat out wrong on every verifiable
fact pertaining to WMDs, so why would we assume that they got one of the
unverifiable facts right?
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"