Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#5321
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Brian Trosko <btrosko@panix.com> wrote in message news:<bqgd2f$7q9$1@reader2.panix.com>...
> In rec.autos.driving z <gzuckier@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > 2) Fermentation is, by definition, carried out without oxygen and
> > therefore produces no CO2.
>
> You are completely high. Ask any homebrewer.
OK, I forgot about yeast/alcohol. Not a big player in the intestinal
flora of the cow. God save us all from auto-inebriated bulls.
> In rec.autos.driving z <gzuckier@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > 2) Fermentation is, by definition, carried out without oxygen and
> > therefore produces no CO2.
>
> You are completely high. Ask any homebrewer.
OK, I forgot about yeast/alcohol. Not a big player in the intestinal
flora of the cow. God save us all from auto-inebriated bulls.
#5322
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Brian Trosko <btrosko@panix.com> wrote in message news:<bqgd2f$7q9$1@reader2.panix.com>...
> In rec.autos.driving z <gzuckier@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > 2) Fermentation is, by definition, carried out without oxygen and
> > therefore produces no CO2.
>
> You are completely high. Ask any homebrewer.
OK, I forgot about yeast/alcohol. Not a big player in the intestinal
flora of the cow. God save us all from auto-inebriated bulls.
> In rec.autos.driving z <gzuckier@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > 2) Fermentation is, by definition, carried out without oxygen and
> > therefore produces no CO2.
>
> You are completely high. Ask any homebrewer.
OK, I forgot about yeast/alcohol. Not a big player in the intestinal
flora of the cow. God save us all from auto-inebriated bulls.
#5323
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Brian Trosko <btrosko@panix.com> wrote in message news:<bqgd2f$7q9$1@reader2.panix.com>...
> In rec.autos.driving z <gzuckier@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > 2) Fermentation is, by definition, carried out without oxygen and
> > therefore produces no CO2.
>
> You are completely high. Ask any homebrewer.
OK, I forgot about yeast/alcohol. Not a big player in the intestinal
flora of the cow. God save us all from auto-inebriated bulls.
> In rec.autos.driving z <gzuckier@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > 2) Fermentation is, by definition, carried out without oxygen and
> > therefore produces no CO2.
>
> You are completely high. Ask any homebrewer.
OK, I forgot about yeast/alcohol. Not a big player in the intestinal
flora of the cow. God save us all from auto-inebriated bulls.
#5324
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:<3FCBD1DC.9A926AD7@kinez.net>...
> z wrote:
> >
> > "The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote in message news:<vsfatnq5409837@corp.supernews.com>...
> > > No, there would be more of it do to less stringent controls, only the
> > > location would be different. Hardly rocket science here.
> >
> > Well, if that's your worry, you can't rely on blocking Kyoto. Why
> > isn't there more of it now? There are currently less stringent
> > controls on emissions in the third world than the US. What's stopping
> > the average Chinese from consuming the same energy as the US? Why
> > don't they just drop over to the local Walmart and buy an air
> > conditioner on their Visa, and let it keep their big old house at 68
> > degrees all summer? Why aren't they driving big huge heavy truck-based
> > vehicles on their commutes to their jobs and to the supermarkets? Are
> > they just waiting for Kyoto, for some reason?
>
> Ummm - I think it's because their entire socio-economic-political system
> sucks. So we should be punished because we are blessed with a better
> system rather than one that forces a certain brand of equality on people
> so that everyone is pushed down to a desperate state of misery? Nah!
You are getting kind of circular here, or something:
Kyoto is bad because it will force jobs overseas.
No, jobs are going overseas already for myriad other reasons, and
constraints on CO2 production aren't going to be a significant factor
compared to them.
Well, that's because we are better and Kyoto will punish us/
> z wrote:
> >
> > "The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote in message news:<vsfatnq5409837@corp.supernews.com>...
> > > No, there would be more of it do to less stringent controls, only the
> > > location would be different. Hardly rocket science here.
> >
> > Well, if that's your worry, you can't rely on blocking Kyoto. Why
> > isn't there more of it now? There are currently less stringent
> > controls on emissions in the third world than the US. What's stopping
> > the average Chinese from consuming the same energy as the US? Why
> > don't they just drop over to the local Walmart and buy an air
> > conditioner on their Visa, and let it keep their big old house at 68
> > degrees all summer? Why aren't they driving big huge heavy truck-based
> > vehicles on their commutes to their jobs and to the supermarkets? Are
> > they just waiting for Kyoto, for some reason?
>
> Ummm - I think it's because their entire socio-economic-political system
> sucks. So we should be punished because we are blessed with a better
> system rather than one that forces a certain brand of equality on people
> so that everyone is pushed down to a desperate state of misery? Nah!
You are getting kind of circular here, or something:
Kyoto is bad because it will force jobs overseas.
No, jobs are going overseas already for myriad other reasons, and
constraints on CO2 production aren't going to be a significant factor
compared to them.
Well, that's because we are better and Kyoto will punish us/
#5325
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:<3FCBD1DC.9A926AD7@kinez.net>...
> z wrote:
> >
> > "The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote in message news:<vsfatnq5409837@corp.supernews.com>...
> > > No, there would be more of it do to less stringent controls, only the
> > > location would be different. Hardly rocket science here.
> >
> > Well, if that's your worry, you can't rely on blocking Kyoto. Why
> > isn't there more of it now? There are currently less stringent
> > controls on emissions in the third world than the US. What's stopping
> > the average Chinese from consuming the same energy as the US? Why
> > don't they just drop over to the local Walmart and buy an air
> > conditioner on their Visa, and let it keep their big old house at 68
> > degrees all summer? Why aren't they driving big huge heavy truck-based
> > vehicles on their commutes to their jobs and to the supermarkets? Are
> > they just waiting for Kyoto, for some reason?
>
> Ummm - I think it's because their entire socio-economic-political system
> sucks. So we should be punished because we are blessed with a better
> system rather than one that forces a certain brand of equality on people
> so that everyone is pushed down to a desperate state of misery? Nah!
You are getting kind of circular here, or something:
Kyoto is bad because it will force jobs overseas.
No, jobs are going overseas already for myriad other reasons, and
constraints on CO2 production aren't going to be a significant factor
compared to them.
Well, that's because we are better and Kyoto will punish us/
> z wrote:
> >
> > "The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote in message news:<vsfatnq5409837@corp.supernews.com>...
> > > No, there would be more of it do to less stringent controls, only the
> > > location would be different. Hardly rocket science here.
> >
> > Well, if that's your worry, you can't rely on blocking Kyoto. Why
> > isn't there more of it now? There are currently less stringent
> > controls on emissions in the third world than the US. What's stopping
> > the average Chinese from consuming the same energy as the US? Why
> > don't they just drop over to the local Walmart and buy an air
> > conditioner on their Visa, and let it keep their big old house at 68
> > degrees all summer? Why aren't they driving big huge heavy truck-based
> > vehicles on their commutes to their jobs and to the supermarkets? Are
> > they just waiting for Kyoto, for some reason?
>
> Ummm - I think it's because their entire socio-economic-political system
> sucks. So we should be punished because we are blessed with a better
> system rather than one that forces a certain brand of equality on people
> so that everyone is pushed down to a desperate state of misery? Nah!
You are getting kind of circular here, or something:
Kyoto is bad because it will force jobs overseas.
No, jobs are going overseas already for myriad other reasons, and
constraints on CO2 production aren't going to be a significant factor
compared to them.
Well, that's because we are better and Kyoto will punish us/
#5326
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:<3FCBD1DC.9A926AD7@kinez.net>...
> z wrote:
> >
> > "The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote in message news:<vsfatnq5409837@corp.supernews.com>...
> > > No, there would be more of it do to less stringent controls, only the
> > > location would be different. Hardly rocket science here.
> >
> > Well, if that's your worry, you can't rely on blocking Kyoto. Why
> > isn't there more of it now? There are currently less stringent
> > controls on emissions in the third world than the US. What's stopping
> > the average Chinese from consuming the same energy as the US? Why
> > don't they just drop over to the local Walmart and buy an air
> > conditioner on their Visa, and let it keep their big old house at 68
> > degrees all summer? Why aren't they driving big huge heavy truck-based
> > vehicles on their commutes to their jobs and to the supermarkets? Are
> > they just waiting for Kyoto, for some reason?
>
> Ummm - I think it's because their entire socio-economic-political system
> sucks. So we should be punished because we are blessed with a better
> system rather than one that forces a certain brand of equality on people
> so that everyone is pushed down to a desperate state of misery? Nah!
You are getting kind of circular here, or something:
Kyoto is bad because it will force jobs overseas.
No, jobs are going overseas already for myriad other reasons, and
constraints on CO2 production aren't going to be a significant factor
compared to them.
Well, that's because we are better and Kyoto will punish us/
> z wrote:
> >
> > "The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote in message news:<vsfatnq5409837@corp.supernews.com>...
> > > No, there would be more of it do to less stringent controls, only the
> > > location would be different. Hardly rocket science here.
> >
> > Well, if that's your worry, you can't rely on blocking Kyoto. Why
> > isn't there more of it now? There are currently less stringent
> > controls on emissions in the third world than the US. What's stopping
> > the average Chinese from consuming the same energy as the US? Why
> > don't they just drop over to the local Walmart and buy an air
> > conditioner on their Visa, and let it keep their big old house at 68
> > degrees all summer? Why aren't they driving big huge heavy truck-based
> > vehicles on their commutes to their jobs and to the supermarkets? Are
> > they just waiting for Kyoto, for some reason?
>
> Ummm - I think it's because their entire socio-economic-political system
> sucks. So we should be punished because we are blessed with a better
> system rather than one that forces a certain brand of equality on people
> so that everyone is pushed down to a desperate state of misery? Nah!
You are getting kind of circular here, or something:
Kyoto is bad because it will force jobs overseas.
No, jobs are going overseas already for myriad other reasons, and
constraints on CO2 production aren't going to be a significant factor
compared to them.
Well, that's because we are better and Kyoto will punish us/
#5327
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <b5b4685f.0312020836.9ddf25b@posting.google.com> , z wrote:
> Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net> wrote in message news:<3FCBD1DC.9A926AD7@kinez.net>...
>> z wrote:
>> >
>> > "The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote in message news:<vsfatnq5409837@corp.supernews.com>...
>> > > No, there would be more of it do to less stringent controls, only the
>> > > location would be different. Hardly rocket science here.
>> >
>> > Well, if that's your worry, you can't rely on blocking Kyoto. Why
>> > isn't there more of it now? There are currently less stringent
>> > controls on emissions in the third world than the US. What's stopping
>> > the average Chinese from consuming the same energy as the US? Why
>> > don't they just drop over to the local Walmart and buy an air
>> > conditioner on their Visa, and let it keep their big old house at 68
>> > degrees all summer? Why aren't they driving big huge heavy truck-based
>> > vehicles on their commutes to their jobs and to the supermarkets? Are
>> > they just waiting for Kyoto, for some reason?
>>
>> Ummm - I think it's because their entire socio-economic-political system
>> sucks. So we should be punished because we are blessed with a better
>> system rather than one that forces a certain brand of equality on people
>> so that everyone is pushed down to a desperate state of misery? Nah!
>
> You are getting kind of circular here, or something:
> Kyoto is bad because it will force jobs overseas.
> No, jobs are going overseas already for myriad other reasons, and
> constraints on CO2 production aren't going to be a significant factor
> compared to them.
> Well, that's because we are better and Kyoto will punish us/
Adding to the imbalance will not help matters. Moving production to
china and other nations lacking in environmental protection for
*ANY REASON* does not help the environment.
Environmentalists should be the ones *AGAINST* factories being closed
in developed countries and built in third world countries. They should
know that the environment is better off if production stays in the US,
Japan, Germany, etc where the environment is protected due to results
of their efforts. Instead, they favor policies that only further
encourage companies to side step environmental protections by going
to developing nations. This makes no sense when only the environment
is considered. It does make sense when politics are first and the
environment is second.
> Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net> wrote in message news:<3FCBD1DC.9A926AD7@kinez.net>...
>> z wrote:
>> >
>> > "The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote in message news:<vsfatnq5409837@corp.supernews.com>...
>> > > No, there would be more of it do to less stringent controls, only the
>> > > location would be different. Hardly rocket science here.
>> >
>> > Well, if that's your worry, you can't rely on blocking Kyoto. Why
>> > isn't there more of it now? There are currently less stringent
>> > controls on emissions in the third world than the US. What's stopping
>> > the average Chinese from consuming the same energy as the US? Why
>> > don't they just drop over to the local Walmart and buy an air
>> > conditioner on their Visa, and let it keep their big old house at 68
>> > degrees all summer? Why aren't they driving big huge heavy truck-based
>> > vehicles on their commutes to their jobs and to the supermarkets? Are
>> > they just waiting for Kyoto, for some reason?
>>
>> Ummm - I think it's because their entire socio-economic-political system
>> sucks. So we should be punished because we are blessed with a better
>> system rather than one that forces a certain brand of equality on people
>> so that everyone is pushed down to a desperate state of misery? Nah!
>
> You are getting kind of circular here, or something:
> Kyoto is bad because it will force jobs overseas.
> No, jobs are going overseas already for myriad other reasons, and
> constraints on CO2 production aren't going to be a significant factor
> compared to them.
> Well, that's because we are better and Kyoto will punish us/
Adding to the imbalance will not help matters. Moving production to
china and other nations lacking in environmental protection for
*ANY REASON* does not help the environment.
Environmentalists should be the ones *AGAINST* factories being closed
in developed countries and built in third world countries. They should
know that the environment is better off if production stays in the US,
Japan, Germany, etc where the environment is protected due to results
of their efforts. Instead, they favor policies that only further
encourage companies to side step environmental protections by going
to developing nations. This makes no sense when only the environment
is considered. It does make sense when politics are first and the
environment is second.
#5328
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <b5b4685f.0312020836.9ddf25b@posting.google.com> , z wrote:
> Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net> wrote in message news:<3FCBD1DC.9A926AD7@kinez.net>...
>> z wrote:
>> >
>> > "The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote in message news:<vsfatnq5409837@corp.supernews.com>...
>> > > No, there would be more of it do to less stringent controls, only the
>> > > location would be different. Hardly rocket science here.
>> >
>> > Well, if that's your worry, you can't rely on blocking Kyoto. Why
>> > isn't there more of it now? There are currently less stringent
>> > controls on emissions in the third world than the US. What's stopping
>> > the average Chinese from consuming the same energy as the US? Why
>> > don't they just drop over to the local Walmart and buy an air
>> > conditioner on their Visa, and let it keep their big old house at 68
>> > degrees all summer? Why aren't they driving big huge heavy truck-based
>> > vehicles on their commutes to their jobs and to the supermarkets? Are
>> > they just waiting for Kyoto, for some reason?
>>
>> Ummm - I think it's because their entire socio-economic-political system
>> sucks. So we should be punished because we are blessed with a better
>> system rather than one that forces a certain brand of equality on people
>> so that everyone is pushed down to a desperate state of misery? Nah!
>
> You are getting kind of circular here, or something:
> Kyoto is bad because it will force jobs overseas.
> No, jobs are going overseas already for myriad other reasons, and
> constraints on CO2 production aren't going to be a significant factor
> compared to them.
> Well, that's because we are better and Kyoto will punish us/
Adding to the imbalance will not help matters. Moving production to
china and other nations lacking in environmental protection for
*ANY REASON* does not help the environment.
Environmentalists should be the ones *AGAINST* factories being closed
in developed countries and built in third world countries. They should
know that the environment is better off if production stays in the US,
Japan, Germany, etc where the environment is protected due to results
of their efforts. Instead, they favor policies that only further
encourage companies to side step environmental protections by going
to developing nations. This makes no sense when only the environment
is considered. It does make sense when politics are first and the
environment is second.
> Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net> wrote in message news:<3FCBD1DC.9A926AD7@kinez.net>...
>> z wrote:
>> >
>> > "The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote in message news:<vsfatnq5409837@corp.supernews.com>...
>> > > No, there would be more of it do to less stringent controls, only the
>> > > location would be different. Hardly rocket science here.
>> >
>> > Well, if that's your worry, you can't rely on blocking Kyoto. Why
>> > isn't there more of it now? There are currently less stringent
>> > controls on emissions in the third world than the US. What's stopping
>> > the average Chinese from consuming the same energy as the US? Why
>> > don't they just drop over to the local Walmart and buy an air
>> > conditioner on their Visa, and let it keep their big old house at 68
>> > degrees all summer? Why aren't they driving big huge heavy truck-based
>> > vehicles on their commutes to their jobs and to the supermarkets? Are
>> > they just waiting for Kyoto, for some reason?
>>
>> Ummm - I think it's because their entire socio-economic-political system
>> sucks. So we should be punished because we are blessed with a better
>> system rather than one that forces a certain brand of equality on people
>> so that everyone is pushed down to a desperate state of misery? Nah!
>
> You are getting kind of circular here, or something:
> Kyoto is bad because it will force jobs overseas.
> No, jobs are going overseas already for myriad other reasons, and
> constraints on CO2 production aren't going to be a significant factor
> compared to them.
> Well, that's because we are better and Kyoto will punish us/
Adding to the imbalance will not help matters. Moving production to
china and other nations lacking in environmental protection for
*ANY REASON* does not help the environment.
Environmentalists should be the ones *AGAINST* factories being closed
in developed countries and built in third world countries. They should
know that the environment is better off if production stays in the US,
Japan, Germany, etc where the environment is protected due to results
of their efforts. Instead, they favor policies that only further
encourage companies to side step environmental protections by going
to developing nations. This makes no sense when only the environment
is considered. It does make sense when politics are first and the
environment is second.
#5329
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <b5b4685f.0312020836.9ddf25b@posting.google.com> , z wrote:
> Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net> wrote in message news:<3FCBD1DC.9A926AD7@kinez.net>...
>> z wrote:
>> >
>> > "The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote in message news:<vsfatnq5409837@corp.supernews.com>...
>> > > No, there would be more of it do to less stringent controls, only the
>> > > location would be different. Hardly rocket science here.
>> >
>> > Well, if that's your worry, you can't rely on blocking Kyoto. Why
>> > isn't there more of it now? There are currently less stringent
>> > controls on emissions in the third world than the US. What's stopping
>> > the average Chinese from consuming the same energy as the US? Why
>> > don't they just drop over to the local Walmart and buy an air
>> > conditioner on their Visa, and let it keep their big old house at 68
>> > degrees all summer? Why aren't they driving big huge heavy truck-based
>> > vehicles on their commutes to their jobs and to the supermarkets? Are
>> > they just waiting for Kyoto, for some reason?
>>
>> Ummm - I think it's because their entire socio-economic-political system
>> sucks. So we should be punished because we are blessed with a better
>> system rather than one that forces a certain brand of equality on people
>> so that everyone is pushed down to a desperate state of misery? Nah!
>
> You are getting kind of circular here, or something:
> Kyoto is bad because it will force jobs overseas.
> No, jobs are going overseas already for myriad other reasons, and
> constraints on CO2 production aren't going to be a significant factor
> compared to them.
> Well, that's because we are better and Kyoto will punish us/
Adding to the imbalance will not help matters. Moving production to
china and other nations lacking in environmental protection for
*ANY REASON* does not help the environment.
Environmentalists should be the ones *AGAINST* factories being closed
in developed countries and built in third world countries. They should
know that the environment is better off if production stays in the US,
Japan, Germany, etc where the environment is protected due to results
of their efforts. Instead, they favor policies that only further
encourage companies to side step environmental protections by going
to developing nations. This makes no sense when only the environment
is considered. It does make sense when politics are first and the
environment is second.
> Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net> wrote in message news:<3FCBD1DC.9A926AD7@kinez.net>...
>> z wrote:
>> >
>> > "The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote in message news:<vsfatnq5409837@corp.supernews.com>...
>> > > No, there would be more of it do to less stringent controls, only the
>> > > location would be different. Hardly rocket science here.
>> >
>> > Well, if that's your worry, you can't rely on blocking Kyoto. Why
>> > isn't there more of it now? There are currently less stringent
>> > controls on emissions in the third world than the US. What's stopping
>> > the average Chinese from consuming the same energy as the US? Why
>> > don't they just drop over to the local Walmart and buy an air
>> > conditioner on their Visa, and let it keep their big old house at 68
>> > degrees all summer? Why aren't they driving big huge heavy truck-based
>> > vehicles on their commutes to their jobs and to the supermarkets? Are
>> > they just waiting for Kyoto, for some reason?
>>
>> Ummm - I think it's because their entire socio-economic-political system
>> sucks. So we should be punished because we are blessed with a better
>> system rather than one that forces a certain brand of equality on people
>> so that everyone is pushed down to a desperate state of misery? Nah!
>
> You are getting kind of circular here, or something:
> Kyoto is bad because it will force jobs overseas.
> No, jobs are going overseas already for myriad other reasons, and
> constraints on CO2 production aren't going to be a significant factor
> compared to them.
> Well, that's because we are better and Kyoto will punish us/
Adding to the imbalance will not help matters. Moving production to
china and other nations lacking in environmental protection for
*ANY REASON* does not help the environment.
Environmentalists should be the ones *AGAINST* factories being closed
in developed countries and built in third world countries. They should
know that the environment is better off if production stays in the US,
Japan, Germany, etc where the environment is protected due to results
of their efforts. Instead, they favor policies that only further
encourage companies to side step environmental protections by going
to developing nations. This makes no sense when only the environment
is considered. It does make sense when politics are first and the
environment is second.
#5330
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 05:17:32 GMT, "David J. Allen"
<dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>Reminds me of my experience in a country a few years ago that had "free"
>(i.e., rationed) medical care for all. The demand for care outstripped the
>supply and the only people who got decent medical care were the people with
>money, who could pay for a private doctor. Everyone else had to go wait in
>line at the clinic and hope for decent care.
Well, Hillary's solution would have fixed that; any doctor caught
giving care outside the approved system would be liable to legal
prosecution, with penalties including fines, jail time & loss of
license.
A true utopia.
>
>This is the template one could overlay anything. Energy, Healthcare, Food,
>etc., etc. Those who support Kyoto are lefties and the farther left you go,
>the more strident the support for Kyoto. The "rich" are the ones one need
>to be reigned in so the "poor" will have a chance.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
<dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>Reminds me of my experience in a country a few years ago that had "free"
>(i.e., rationed) medical care for all. The demand for care outstripped the
>supply and the only people who got decent medical care were the people with
>money, who could pay for a private doctor. Everyone else had to go wait in
>line at the clinic and hope for decent care.
Well, Hillary's solution would have fixed that; any doctor caught
giving care outside the approved system would be liable to legal
prosecution, with penalties including fines, jail time & loss of
license.
A true utopia.
>
>This is the template one could overlay anything. Energy, Healthcare, Food,
>etc., etc. Those who support Kyoto are lefties and the farther left you go,
>the more strident the support for Kyoto. The "rich" are the ones one need
>to be reigned in so the "poor" will have a chance.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"