Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#6321
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety canbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
z wrote:
> "David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote in message news:<lQuwb.8682$t01.1922@twister.socal.rr.com>...
> > The problem with wind is it can't generate enough energy to replace fossil
> > fuels, nevermind the birds. It can only supplement fossil fuels.
>
> But 'supplementing' means replacing fossil fuels; just not replacing
> 100% of fossil fuels. If we 'supplement' fossil fuels with wind power,
> hydropower, solar power, cogeneration, etc. wherever such technologies
> are appropriate, we will replace a large fraction of our fossil fuel
> use.
Wind power has a lot of promise as a practical clean source of energy. Unfortunately, in a place well suited to wind
power, the waters offshore near Cape Cod Massachusetts, the local limousine liberals (e.g. Ted Kennedy, Walter Cronkite,
John Kerry [some days, depending on audience] etc)., are fighting it tooth and nail, because some of the windmills might be
visible on the distant horizon from their McMansions-on-the-shore. They prefer their electricity to come from fossil fuels,
such as oil----as in the major oil spill in Buzzards Bay earlier this year. The doomed fuel oil barge was enroute to the
Cape's oil fired power plant before killing thousands of birds, closing the entire Bay area to shell fishing, and reeking
havoc on all wildlife and human activity on the Bay. The proposed wind turbines would provide 75% of the Cape & Islands
area power.
In California, the very environmentally conscious Sierra Club is opposing wind power, claiming that it puts some birds at
risk. No word on how many birds fossil fuel plants kill. Also no word on what kind of power the Sierra Club actually
favors building, because they have opposed everything. One would presume that their offices and members live in an
electricity free world and their monthly rag is printed on magic fabric, certainly not dead tree paper. They have truly
gone BANANAs -- Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anyone.
#6322
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety canbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
z wrote:
> "David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote in message news:<lQuwb.8682$t01.1922@twister.socal.rr.com>...
> > The problem with wind is it can't generate enough energy to replace fossil
> > fuels, nevermind the birds. It can only supplement fossil fuels.
>
> But 'supplementing' means replacing fossil fuels; just not replacing
> 100% of fossil fuels. If we 'supplement' fossil fuels with wind power,
> hydropower, solar power, cogeneration, etc. wherever such technologies
> are appropriate, we will replace a large fraction of our fossil fuel
> use.
Wind power has a lot of promise as a practical clean source of energy. Unfortunately, in a place well suited to wind
power, the waters offshore near Cape Cod Massachusetts, the local limousine liberals (e.g. Ted Kennedy, Walter Cronkite,
John Kerry [some days, depending on audience] etc)., are fighting it tooth and nail, because some of the windmills might be
visible on the distant horizon from their McMansions-on-the-shore. They prefer their electricity to come from fossil fuels,
such as oil----as in the major oil spill in Buzzards Bay earlier this year. The doomed fuel oil barge was enroute to the
Cape's oil fired power plant before killing thousands of birds, closing the entire Bay area to shell fishing, and reeking
havoc on all wildlife and human activity on the Bay. The proposed wind turbines would provide 75% of the Cape & Islands
area power.
In California, the very environmentally conscious Sierra Club is opposing wind power, claiming that it puts some birds at
risk. No word on how many birds fossil fuel plants kill. Also no word on what kind of power the Sierra Club actually
favors building, because they have opposed everything. One would presume that their offices and members live in an
electricity free world and their monthly rag is printed on magic fabric, certainly not dead tree paper. They have truly
gone BANANAs -- Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anyone.
#6323
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycanbemisinterpreted by SUV drivers)
"Daniel J. Stern" wrote:
>
> On Thu, 4 Dec 2003, Bill Putney wrote:
>
> > How about a man and his dog - why shouldn't they be allowed to get
> > married?
>
> Because the dog is not a human and cannot consent, for two very good
> reasons.
>
> DS
That sounds rather (to use your word) dogmatic (yes there's a pun there)
to exclude non-humans just because that's the traditional definition of
marriage. (sarcasm)
OK - to take this to a really ridiculous level, how about that
chimpanzee that was trained to communicate with humans - what if *she*
consented to marry a human?
Why do you get to re-define the traditional definition of "marriage",
yet you would deny the same right to those who think they should be able
to marry their (non-human) pet? You get to re-define it for your
imagined "rights", yet you don't allow the animal "lovers" the same
privilege.
Hmmm - reminds me of the Geico commercial in which the gecco is on the
picnic with the beautiful girl, and she's swinging him around in
romantic wistfulness with beautiful music in the background.
Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
#6324
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycanbemisinterpreted by SUV drivers)
"Daniel J. Stern" wrote:
>
> On Thu, 4 Dec 2003, Bill Putney wrote:
>
> > How about a man and his dog - why shouldn't they be allowed to get
> > married?
>
> Because the dog is not a human and cannot consent, for two very good
> reasons.
>
> DS
That sounds rather (to use your word) dogmatic (yes there's a pun there)
to exclude non-humans just because that's the traditional definition of
marriage. (sarcasm)
OK - to take this to a really ridiculous level, how about that
chimpanzee that was trained to communicate with humans - what if *she*
consented to marry a human?
Why do you get to re-define the traditional definition of "marriage",
yet you would deny the same right to those who think they should be able
to marry their (non-human) pet? You get to re-define it for your
imagined "rights", yet you don't allow the animal "lovers" the same
privilege.
Hmmm - reminds me of the Geico commercial in which the gecco is on the
picnic with the beautiful girl, and she's swinging him around in
romantic wistfulness with beautiful music in the background.
Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
#6325
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycanbemisinterpreted by SUV drivers)
"Daniel J. Stern" wrote:
>
> On Thu, 4 Dec 2003, Bill Putney wrote:
>
> > How about a man and his dog - why shouldn't they be allowed to get
> > married?
>
> Because the dog is not a human and cannot consent, for two very good
> reasons.
>
> DS
That sounds rather (to use your word) dogmatic (yes there's a pun there)
to exclude non-humans just because that's the traditional definition of
marriage. (sarcasm)
OK - to take this to a really ridiculous level, how about that
chimpanzee that was trained to communicate with humans - what if *she*
consented to marry a human?
Why do you get to re-define the traditional definition of "marriage",
yet you would deny the same right to those who think they should be able
to marry their (non-human) pet? You get to re-define it for your
imagined "rights", yet you don't allow the animal "lovers" the same
privilege.
Hmmm - reminds me of the Geico commercial in which the gecco is on the
picnic with the beautiful girl, and she's swinging him around in
romantic wistfulness with beautiful music in the background.
Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
#6326
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycanbemisinterpreted by SUV drivers)
"Daniel J. Stern" wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Dec 2003, Bill Putney wrote:
>
> > How about a man and his dog - why shouldn't they be allowed to get
> > married?
>
> Because the dog is not a human and cannot consent, for two very good
> reasons.
Ah, so the ability to consent is the limiting factor. I ask again, why
not allow three people to consent? Why not allow cousins or siblings to
marry so they can get the "legal benefits" of marriage?
> On Thu, 4 Dec 2003, Bill Putney wrote:
>
> > How about a man and his dog - why shouldn't they be allowed to get
> > married?
>
> Because the dog is not a human and cannot consent, for two very good
> reasons.
Ah, so the ability to consent is the limiting factor. I ask again, why
not allow three people to consent? Why not allow cousins or siblings to
marry so they can get the "legal benefits" of marriage?
#6327
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycanbemisinterpreted by SUV drivers)
"Daniel J. Stern" wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Dec 2003, Bill Putney wrote:
>
> > How about a man and his dog - why shouldn't they be allowed to get
> > married?
>
> Because the dog is not a human and cannot consent, for two very good
> reasons.
Ah, so the ability to consent is the limiting factor. I ask again, why
not allow three people to consent? Why not allow cousins or siblings to
marry so they can get the "legal benefits" of marriage?
> On Thu, 4 Dec 2003, Bill Putney wrote:
>
> > How about a man and his dog - why shouldn't they be allowed to get
> > married?
>
> Because the dog is not a human and cannot consent, for two very good
> reasons.
Ah, so the ability to consent is the limiting factor. I ask again, why
not allow three people to consent? Why not allow cousins or siblings to
marry so they can get the "legal benefits" of marriage?
#6328
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycanbemisinterpreted by SUV drivers)
"Daniel J. Stern" wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Dec 2003, Bill Putney wrote:
>
> > How about a man and his dog - why shouldn't they be allowed to get
> > married?
>
> Because the dog is not a human and cannot consent, for two very good
> reasons.
Ah, so the ability to consent is the limiting factor. I ask again, why
not allow three people to consent? Why not allow cousins or siblings to
marry so they can get the "legal benefits" of marriage?
> On Thu, 4 Dec 2003, Bill Putney wrote:
>
> > How about a man and his dog - why shouldn't they be allowed to get
> > married?
>
> Because the dog is not a human and cannot consent, for two very good
> reasons.
Ah, so the ability to consent is the limiting factor. I ask again, why
not allow three people to consent? Why not allow cousins or siblings to
marry so they can get the "legal benefits" of marriage?
#6329
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycanbemisinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Another comparison of homosexuals to animal-----ers by the self-proclaimed
non-homophobe.
Surprise, surprise.
DS
On Thu, 4 Dec 2003, Bill Putney wrote:
>
>
> "Daniel J. Stern" wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 4 Dec 2003, Bill Putney wrote:
> >
> > > How about a man and his dog - why shouldn't they be allowed to get
> > > married?
> >
> > Because the dog is not a human and cannot consent, for two very good
> > reasons.
> >
> > DS
>
> That sounds rather (to use your word) dogmatic (yes there's a pun there)
> to exclude non-humans just because that's the traditional definition of
> marriage. (sarcasm)
>
> OK - to take this to a really ridiculous level, how about that
> chimpanzee that was trained to communicate with humans - what if *she*
> consented to marry a human?
>
> Why do you get to re-define the traditional definition of "marriage",
> yet you would deny the same right to those who think they should be able
> to marry their (non-human) pet? You get to re-define it for your
> imagined "rights", yet you don't allow the animal "lovers" the same
> privilege.
>
> Hmmm - reminds me of the Geico commercial in which the gecco is on the
> picnic with the beautiful girl, and she's swinging him around in
> romantic wistfulness with beautiful music in the background.
>
> Bill Putney
> (to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
> address with "x")
>
>
> -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
> http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
> -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
>
non-homophobe.
Surprise, surprise.
DS
On Thu, 4 Dec 2003, Bill Putney wrote:
>
>
> "Daniel J. Stern" wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 4 Dec 2003, Bill Putney wrote:
> >
> > > How about a man and his dog - why shouldn't they be allowed to get
> > > married?
> >
> > Because the dog is not a human and cannot consent, for two very good
> > reasons.
> >
> > DS
>
> That sounds rather (to use your word) dogmatic (yes there's a pun there)
> to exclude non-humans just because that's the traditional definition of
> marriage. (sarcasm)
>
> OK - to take this to a really ridiculous level, how about that
> chimpanzee that was trained to communicate with humans - what if *she*
> consented to marry a human?
>
> Why do you get to re-define the traditional definition of "marriage",
> yet you would deny the same right to those who think they should be able
> to marry their (non-human) pet? You get to re-define it for your
> imagined "rights", yet you don't allow the animal "lovers" the same
> privilege.
>
> Hmmm - reminds me of the Geico commercial in which the gecco is on the
> picnic with the beautiful girl, and she's swinging him around in
> romantic wistfulness with beautiful music in the background.
>
> Bill Putney
> (to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
> address with "x")
>
>
> -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
> http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
> -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
>
#6330
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycanbemisinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Another comparison of homosexuals to animal-----ers by the self-proclaimed
non-homophobe.
Surprise, surprise.
DS
On Thu, 4 Dec 2003, Bill Putney wrote:
>
>
> "Daniel J. Stern" wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 4 Dec 2003, Bill Putney wrote:
> >
> > > How about a man and his dog - why shouldn't they be allowed to get
> > > married?
> >
> > Because the dog is not a human and cannot consent, for two very good
> > reasons.
> >
> > DS
>
> That sounds rather (to use your word) dogmatic (yes there's a pun there)
> to exclude non-humans just because that's the traditional definition of
> marriage. (sarcasm)
>
> OK - to take this to a really ridiculous level, how about that
> chimpanzee that was trained to communicate with humans - what if *she*
> consented to marry a human?
>
> Why do you get to re-define the traditional definition of "marriage",
> yet you would deny the same right to those who think they should be able
> to marry their (non-human) pet? You get to re-define it for your
> imagined "rights", yet you don't allow the animal "lovers" the same
> privilege.
>
> Hmmm - reminds me of the Geico commercial in which the gecco is on the
> picnic with the beautiful girl, and she's swinging him around in
> romantic wistfulness with beautiful music in the background.
>
> Bill Putney
> (to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
> address with "x")
>
>
> -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
> http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
> -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
>
non-homophobe.
Surprise, surprise.
DS
On Thu, 4 Dec 2003, Bill Putney wrote:
>
>
> "Daniel J. Stern" wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 4 Dec 2003, Bill Putney wrote:
> >
> > > How about a man and his dog - why shouldn't they be allowed to get
> > > married?
> >
> > Because the dog is not a human and cannot consent, for two very good
> > reasons.
> >
> > DS
>
> That sounds rather (to use your word) dogmatic (yes there's a pun there)
> to exclude non-humans just because that's the traditional definition of
> marriage. (sarcasm)
>
> OK - to take this to a really ridiculous level, how about that
> chimpanzee that was trained to communicate with humans - what if *she*
> consented to marry a human?
>
> Why do you get to re-define the traditional definition of "marriage",
> yet you would deny the same right to those who think they should be able
> to marry their (non-human) pet? You get to re-define it for your
> imagined "rights", yet you don't allow the animal "lovers" the same
> privilege.
>
> Hmmm - reminds me of the Geico commercial in which the gecco is on the
> picnic with the beautiful girl, and she's swinging him around in
> romantic wistfulness with beautiful music in the background.
>
> Bill Putney
> (to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
> address with "x")
>
>
> -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
> http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
> -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
>