Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#3801
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"
#3802
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"
#3803
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety canbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Lloyd Parker wrote:
> Yeah, too bad we've got science on our side and you've got ignorance on yours.
Who is "we"? The liberal establishment?
Has "science" ever been wrong before? I seem to recall from a history of science
course that there were respected scientist in the 19th century who were predicting
that the Earth would run out of oxygen within a 100 years. Malthus claimed we run
out of food over a 100 years ago. Respected scientist believed disease was caused
by bad air. Scientist have in the past believed that the universe was filled with
a ether which connected everything together. I am sure you know of many cases
where the collective wisdom of the scientist of the ay proved to be wrong.
Ed
#3804
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety canbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Lloyd Parker wrote:
> Yeah, too bad we've got science on our side and you've got ignorance on yours.
Who is "we"? The liberal establishment?
Has "science" ever been wrong before? I seem to recall from a history of science
course that there were respected scientist in the 19th century who were predicting
that the Earth would run out of oxygen within a 100 years. Malthus claimed we run
out of food over a 100 years ago. Respected scientist believed disease was caused
by bad air. Scientist have in the past believed that the universe was filled with
a ether which connected everything together. I am sure you know of many cases
where the collective wisdom of the scientist of the ay proved to be wrong.
Ed
#3805
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety canbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Lloyd Parker wrote:
> Yeah, too bad we've got science on our side and you've got ignorance on yours.
Who is "we"? The liberal establishment?
Has "science" ever been wrong before? I seem to recall from a history of science
course that there were respected scientist in the 19th century who were predicting
that the Earth would run out of oxygen within a 100 years. Malthus claimed we run
out of food over a 100 years ago. Respected scientist believed disease was caused
by bad air. Scientist have in the past believed that the universe was filled with
a ether which connected everything together. I am sure you know of many cases
where the collective wisdom of the scientist of the ay proved to be wrong.
Ed
#3806
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 06 Nov 03 13:56:41 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
>>In article <rtriqvkhms3sfdqhscdi2qnno4u28o5iud@4ax.com>, Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>>>Explain how increased taxes improve the economy.
>>>
>>Explain how Clinton's tax on the wealthy hurt the economy.
>
>It's fairly obvious that, since increased taxes hurt an economy,
>Clinton's tax increase hurt the economy.
You are basing your conclusion on an unproven premise. It was "fairly
obvious" that the earth was flat as well. That didn't make it true...
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
>On Thu, 06 Nov 03 13:56:41 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
>>In article <rtriqvkhms3sfdqhscdi2qnno4u28o5iud@4ax.com>, Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>>>Explain how increased taxes improve the economy.
>>>
>>Explain how Clinton's tax on the wealthy hurt the economy.
>
>It's fairly obvious that, since increased taxes hurt an economy,
>Clinton's tax increase hurt the economy.
You are basing your conclusion on an unproven premise. It was "fairly
obvious" that the earth was flat as well. That didn't make it true...
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
#3807
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 06 Nov 03 13:56:41 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
>>In article <rtriqvkhms3sfdqhscdi2qnno4u28o5iud@4ax.com>, Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>>>Explain how increased taxes improve the economy.
>>>
>>Explain how Clinton's tax on the wealthy hurt the economy.
>
>It's fairly obvious that, since increased taxes hurt an economy,
>Clinton's tax increase hurt the economy.
You are basing your conclusion on an unproven premise. It was "fairly
obvious" that the earth was flat as well. That didn't make it true...
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
>On Thu, 06 Nov 03 13:56:41 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
>>In article <rtriqvkhms3sfdqhscdi2qnno4u28o5iud@4ax.com>, Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>>>Explain how increased taxes improve the economy.
>>>
>>Explain how Clinton's tax on the wealthy hurt the economy.
>
>It's fairly obvious that, since increased taxes hurt an economy,
>Clinton's tax increase hurt the economy.
You are basing your conclusion on an unproven premise. It was "fairly
obvious" that the earth was flat as well. That didn't make it true...
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
#3808
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 06 Nov 03 13:56:41 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
>>In article <rtriqvkhms3sfdqhscdi2qnno4u28o5iud@4ax.com>, Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>>>Explain how increased taxes improve the economy.
>>>
>>Explain how Clinton's tax on the wealthy hurt the economy.
>
>It's fairly obvious that, since increased taxes hurt an economy,
>Clinton's tax increase hurt the economy.
You are basing your conclusion on an unproven premise. It was "fairly
obvious" that the earth was flat as well. That didn't make it true...
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
>On Thu, 06 Nov 03 13:56:41 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
>>In article <rtriqvkhms3sfdqhscdi2qnno4u28o5iud@4ax.com>, Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>>>Explain how increased taxes improve the economy.
>>>
>>Explain how Clinton's tax on the wealthy hurt the economy.
>
>It's fairly obvious that, since increased taxes hurt an economy,
>Clinton's tax increase hurt the economy.
You are basing your conclusion on an unproven premise. It was "fairly
obvious" that the earth was flat as well. That didn't make it true...
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
#3809
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>First of all, it wasn't just on the wealthy. Second, money taken out of the
>private sector will equal a certain number of lost jobs regardless of where
>the money comes from (rich or poor).
If you take $1,000,000,000 out of the private sector and move it to the
public sector and create exactly the same number of jobs at exactly the
same pay as lost in the private sector, how does that affect the economy?
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
>First of all, it wasn't just on the wealthy. Second, money taken out of the
>private sector will equal a certain number of lost jobs regardless of where
>the money comes from (rich or poor).
If you take $1,000,000,000 out of the private sector and move it to the
public sector and create exactly the same number of jobs at exactly the
same pay as lost in the private sector, how does that affect the economy?
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
#3810
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>First of all, it wasn't just on the wealthy. Second, money taken out of the
>private sector will equal a certain number of lost jobs regardless of where
>the money comes from (rich or poor).
If you take $1,000,000,000 out of the private sector and move it to the
public sector and create exactly the same number of jobs at exactly the
same pay as lost in the private sector, how does that affect the economy?
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
>First of all, it wasn't just on the wealthy. Second, money taken out of the
>private sector will equal a certain number of lost jobs regardless of where
>the money comes from (rich or poor).
If you take $1,000,000,000 out of the private sector and move it to the
public sector and create exactly the same number of jobs at exactly the
same pay as lost in the private sector, how does that affect the economy?
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"