Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#4351
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net> wrote in message news:<3FB0C2D6.55E0E1C4@kinez.net>...
> st3ph3nm wrote:
<snip>
> > If you want to maintain your strong economy, it makes sense, too.
> > There is a strong correlation between fresh water supplies and
> > strength of the economy, worldwide.
>
> This could be a chicken-egg thing too. If the country (its government
> and its people) are in survival model (or is totally corrupt - the two
> often go hand in hand), then chances are high that it's going have a bad
> economy as well as not properly take care of its water system (due to
> priorities being elsewhere) - one may have nothing to do with the other
> (economy and clean water) in such a country (either due to the
> priorities being different - only so much money to go around - or the
> gov't plain not watching out for the peoples' interests).
>
> One must be careful in assigning cause and effect. You might find that
> contries that have healthy economies and clean water have a much higher
> percentage of blue cars, whereas poor countries with crappy water have
> cars that are more earth tones. It would be a mistake to conclude that
> having blue cars makes for clean water or a good economy (but could in
> some way be a result).
I wasn't assigning cause and effect. Obviously, a healthy economic
system is more likely to be allocating resources to good water
supplies. Having said that, blue cars don't give you the ability to
grow lots of food. The number of blue cars in your country doesn't
affect the health of your population. The number of blue cars doesn't
have a bearing on how many people can live in a given area. Factorys
don't rely on blue cars (very much) as a major input to most
industrial processes. It's not surprising that there's a correlation.
Clean water is a valuable (though often undervalued) ingredient to a
healthy economy.
Cheers,
Steve
> st3ph3nm wrote:
<snip>
> > If you want to maintain your strong economy, it makes sense, too.
> > There is a strong correlation between fresh water supplies and
> > strength of the economy, worldwide.
>
> This could be a chicken-egg thing too. If the country (its government
> and its people) are in survival model (or is totally corrupt - the two
> often go hand in hand), then chances are high that it's going have a bad
> economy as well as not properly take care of its water system (due to
> priorities being elsewhere) - one may have nothing to do with the other
> (economy and clean water) in such a country (either due to the
> priorities being different - only so much money to go around - or the
> gov't plain not watching out for the peoples' interests).
>
> One must be careful in assigning cause and effect. You might find that
> contries that have healthy economies and clean water have a much higher
> percentage of blue cars, whereas poor countries with crappy water have
> cars that are more earth tones. It would be a mistake to conclude that
> having blue cars makes for clean water or a good economy (but could in
> some way be a result).
I wasn't assigning cause and effect. Obviously, a healthy economic
system is more likely to be allocating resources to good water
supplies. Having said that, blue cars don't give you the ability to
grow lots of food. The number of blue cars in your country doesn't
affect the health of your population. The number of blue cars doesn't
have a bearing on how many people can live in a given area. Factorys
don't rely on blue cars (very much) as a major input to most
industrial processes. It's not surprising that there's a correlation.
Clean water is a valuable (though often undervalued) ingredient to a
healthy economy.
Cheers,
Steve
#4352
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
"st3ph3nm" <sgam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:221fa157.0311111745.5a4b6046@posting.google.c om...
> "David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote in message
news:<Wo8sb.38843$Ll5.18243@twister.socal.rr.com>. ..
> >
> > Say what you want about US foreign policy against Communism or
supporting
> > Israel or whatever, the Islamic extremists only have power to threaten
us
> > because of oil
>
> Obviously. If it weren't for the oil, the US wouldn't have cared much
> *who* was in power in most of the Middle East, and so we'd now have
> healthy democracies, good education and strong economies right
> throughout the Middle East. Instead, the US has either helped to
> create a situation where the extremists have taken power, or (in the
> case of Saudi Arabia) directly supported the extremists to take power.
> Back then, as long as they weren't left leaning, that was all that
> mattered. Too short sighted, unfortunately.
>
Here we go again, blame the US. It's easy to lean back and criticize the
US, which has been the one country that's provided the leadership and has
paid the high price to make the world a safe place for democratic societies
against despotism.
We all know that democratic government that recognizes the inalienable
rights of individuals and derives it's power from the consent of the
governed just "happens". Perhaps the US should have been a "good sport" and
left Europe after WWII. The Soviets would have done a fine job I'm sure.
Oh and by the way, oil fuels the WORLD economy... not just the US. Global
demand for oil is what drives middle east politics, not any US desire to
rule over others.
> > and proliferation of WMD.
>
> Where?
>
Now there's a famous last word.
> > If the world didn't need middle
> > east oil or if terrorists only had car bombs, there wouldn't be this war
on
> > terror.
>
> They haven't used WMD to any great effect. The war on terror's
> biggest hit on the US was done with knives.
I'm not sure there's a thing I can say to save you from that kind of logic.
I'll try.
1. I wasn't aware they had used WMD to any affect. But even so, the whole
point is not to wait around until they do.
2. The War on Terror is being waged BY the US not against the US.
3. Assuming you mean the 9/11 terror attacks...... Uh, yeah... the knives
weren't the problem.
>
> Cheers,
> Steve
Up yours.
#4353
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
"st3ph3nm" <sgam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:221fa157.0311111745.5a4b6046@posting.google.c om...
> "David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote in message
news:<Wo8sb.38843$Ll5.18243@twister.socal.rr.com>. ..
> >
> > Say what you want about US foreign policy against Communism or
supporting
> > Israel or whatever, the Islamic extremists only have power to threaten
us
> > because of oil
>
> Obviously. If it weren't for the oil, the US wouldn't have cared much
> *who* was in power in most of the Middle East, and so we'd now have
> healthy democracies, good education and strong economies right
> throughout the Middle East. Instead, the US has either helped to
> create a situation where the extremists have taken power, or (in the
> case of Saudi Arabia) directly supported the extremists to take power.
> Back then, as long as they weren't left leaning, that was all that
> mattered. Too short sighted, unfortunately.
>
Here we go again, blame the US. It's easy to lean back and criticize the
US, which has been the one country that's provided the leadership and has
paid the high price to make the world a safe place for democratic societies
against despotism.
We all know that democratic government that recognizes the inalienable
rights of individuals and derives it's power from the consent of the
governed just "happens". Perhaps the US should have been a "good sport" and
left Europe after WWII. The Soviets would have done a fine job I'm sure.
Oh and by the way, oil fuels the WORLD economy... not just the US. Global
demand for oil is what drives middle east politics, not any US desire to
rule over others.
> > and proliferation of WMD.
>
> Where?
>
Now there's a famous last word.
> > If the world didn't need middle
> > east oil or if terrorists only had car bombs, there wouldn't be this war
on
> > terror.
>
> They haven't used WMD to any great effect. The war on terror's
> biggest hit on the US was done with knives.
I'm not sure there's a thing I can say to save you from that kind of logic.
I'll try.
1. I wasn't aware they had used WMD to any affect. But even so, the whole
point is not to wait around until they do.
2. The War on Terror is being waged BY the US not against the US.
3. Assuming you mean the 9/11 terror attacks...... Uh, yeah... the knives
weren't the problem.
>
> Cheers,
> Steve
Up yours.
#4354
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
"st3ph3nm" <sgam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:221fa157.0311111745.5a4b6046@posting.google.c om...
> "David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote in message
news:<Wo8sb.38843$Ll5.18243@twister.socal.rr.com>. ..
> >
> > Say what you want about US foreign policy against Communism or
supporting
> > Israel or whatever, the Islamic extremists only have power to threaten
us
> > because of oil
>
> Obviously. If it weren't for the oil, the US wouldn't have cared much
> *who* was in power in most of the Middle East, and so we'd now have
> healthy democracies, good education and strong economies right
> throughout the Middle East. Instead, the US has either helped to
> create a situation where the extremists have taken power, or (in the
> case of Saudi Arabia) directly supported the extremists to take power.
> Back then, as long as they weren't left leaning, that was all that
> mattered. Too short sighted, unfortunately.
>
Here we go again, blame the US. It's easy to lean back and criticize the
US, which has been the one country that's provided the leadership and has
paid the high price to make the world a safe place for democratic societies
against despotism.
We all know that democratic government that recognizes the inalienable
rights of individuals and derives it's power from the consent of the
governed just "happens". Perhaps the US should have been a "good sport" and
left Europe after WWII. The Soviets would have done a fine job I'm sure.
Oh and by the way, oil fuels the WORLD economy... not just the US. Global
demand for oil is what drives middle east politics, not any US desire to
rule over others.
> > and proliferation of WMD.
>
> Where?
>
Now there's a famous last word.
> > If the world didn't need middle
> > east oil or if terrorists only had car bombs, there wouldn't be this war
on
> > terror.
>
> They haven't used WMD to any great effect. The war on terror's
> biggest hit on the US was done with knives.
I'm not sure there's a thing I can say to save you from that kind of logic.
I'll try.
1. I wasn't aware they had used WMD to any affect. But even so, the whole
point is not to wait around until they do.
2. The War on Terror is being waged BY the US not against the US.
3. Assuming you mean the 9/11 terror attacks...... Uh, yeah... the knives
weren't the problem.
>
> Cheers,
> Steve
Up yours.
#4355
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety canbemisinterpreted by SUV drivers)
The Ancient One wrote:
> The least populous state is Wyoming, which I thought had no income tax but
> did have a sales tax. If you live there though I will accept your word on
> it./
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004986.html
#4356
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety canbemisinterpreted by SUV drivers)
The Ancient One wrote:
> The least populous state is Wyoming, which I thought had no income tax but
> did have a sales tax. If you live there though I will accept your word on
> it./
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004986.html
#4357
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety canbemisinterpreted by SUV drivers)
The Ancient One wrote:
> The least populous state is Wyoming, which I thought had no income tax but
> did have a sales tax. If you live there though I will accept your word on
> it./
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004986.html
#4358
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycan bemisinterpreted by SUV drivers)
> "Steve Stone" <spfleck@zzcitlinkzz.net> wrote:
>
>>What is a liberal these daze ?
>>
>
People who think liberal application of government bureaucracy and
suppression of individual decision-making is the cure to everything.
#4359
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycan bemisinterpreted by SUV drivers)
> "Steve Stone" <spfleck@zzcitlinkzz.net> wrote:
>
>>What is a liberal these daze ?
>>
>
People who think liberal application of government bureaucracy and
suppression of individual decision-making is the cure to everything.
#4360
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycan bemisinterpreted by SUV drivers)
> "Steve Stone" <spfleck@zzcitlinkzz.net> wrote:
>
>>What is a liberal these daze ?
>>
>
People who think liberal application of government bureaucracy and
suppression of individual decision-making is the cure to everything.