Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#6651
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On 5 Dec 2003 09:59:45 -0800, gzuckier@yahoo.com (z) wrote:
>Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote in message news:<4tgpsv0qjj3fk9mq5t2goiuibmpnu8k64r@4ax.com>. ..
>> 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.
>
>Better now. Only doctors doing 'Partial Birth Abortions', whatever
>those may be, get fines, jail time & loss of license. Much better.
"whatever those may be..."?
You use it as an example, but don't know what it is?
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
>Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote in message news:<4tgpsv0qjj3fk9mq5t2goiuibmpnu8k64r@4ax.com>. ..
>> 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.
>
>Better now. Only doctors doing 'Partial Birth Abortions', whatever
>those may be, get fines, jail time & loss of license. Much better.
"whatever those may be..."?
You use it as an example, but don't know what it is?
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
#6652
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On 5 Dec 2003 09:59:45 -0800, gzuckier@yahoo.com (z) wrote:
>Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote in message news:<4tgpsv0qjj3fk9mq5t2goiuibmpnu8k64r@4ax.com>. ..
>> 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.
>
>Better now. Only doctors doing 'Partial Birth Abortions', whatever
>those may be, get fines, jail time & loss of license. Much better.
"whatever those may be..."?
You use it as an example, but don't know what it is?
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
>Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote in message news:<4tgpsv0qjj3fk9mq5t2goiuibmpnu8k64r@4ax.com>. ..
>> 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.
>
>Better now. Only doctors doing 'Partial Birth Abortions', whatever
>those may be, get fines, jail time & loss of license. Much better.
"whatever those may be..."?
You use it as an example, but don't know what it is?
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
#6653
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety canbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On Fri, 05 Dec 03 11:08:47 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:
>In article <3FCFF72A.4ECBA03E@greg.greg>, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
>>
>>
>>Bill Funk wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 03 Dec 03 10:46:25 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> >In article <rdqdncPcUbqAYlGiRTvUqQ@texas.net>, Steve <no@spam.thanks>
>wrote:
>>> >>Greg wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >>> Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>>"new source" creation, which was contrary to the actual written law.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>Wrong. They started treating major modifications as new sources, which
>was
>>> >>>>exactly what the law allowed (and required).
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> MAJOR modifications. Not minor improvements which would INCREASE
>>> >efficiency, such
>>> >>> as a new version of wear items such as turbine blades.
>>> >>>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>EXACTLY. Clinton policy = NO MODIFICATIONS!! Not even improvements to an
>>> >>old plant that would be better than doing nothing.
>>> >
>>> >Because the Clean Air Act only exempts _maintenance_ not _modifications_.
>>>
>>> I see.
>>> So making it BETTER brings on penalties, but keeping it dirty is OK?
>>> How is this supposed to clean up the air?
>>
>>The special llogic magic takes care of that. See cleaning the air obviously
>isn't
>>important to Lloyd, no matter how much he'll claim otherwise, because he
>favors
>>perverse inventives of treating parts replacments as "substrantial
>modifications"
>>Instead it's what he feels that manners--not the real world. .
>>
>No, of course, utility company profits are more important than children and
>grandparents dying of respiratory illness. Every good right-wing
>fundamentalist knows that.
Let's see you donate your salary to UNESCO, Lloyd.
Or don't you have the convictions that you seem to expect of others?
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
wrote:
>In article <3FCFF72A.4ECBA03E@greg.greg>, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
>>
>>
>>Bill Funk wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 03 Dec 03 10:46:25 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> >In article <rdqdncPcUbqAYlGiRTvUqQ@texas.net>, Steve <no@spam.thanks>
>wrote:
>>> >>Greg wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >>> Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>>"new source" creation, which was contrary to the actual written law.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>Wrong. They started treating major modifications as new sources, which
>was
>>> >>>>exactly what the law allowed (and required).
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> MAJOR modifications. Not minor improvements which would INCREASE
>>> >efficiency, such
>>> >>> as a new version of wear items such as turbine blades.
>>> >>>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>EXACTLY. Clinton policy = NO MODIFICATIONS!! Not even improvements to an
>>> >>old plant that would be better than doing nothing.
>>> >
>>> >Because the Clean Air Act only exempts _maintenance_ not _modifications_.
>>>
>>> I see.
>>> So making it BETTER brings on penalties, but keeping it dirty is OK?
>>> How is this supposed to clean up the air?
>>
>>The special llogic magic takes care of that. See cleaning the air obviously
>isn't
>>important to Lloyd, no matter how much he'll claim otherwise, because he
>favors
>>perverse inventives of treating parts replacments as "substrantial
>modifications"
>>Instead it's what he feels that manners--not the real world. .
>>
>No, of course, utility company profits are more important than children and
>grandparents dying of respiratory illness. Every good right-wing
>fundamentalist knows that.
Let's see you donate your salary to UNESCO, Lloyd.
Or don't you have the convictions that you seem to expect of others?
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
#6654
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety canbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On Fri, 05 Dec 03 11:08:47 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:
>In article <3FCFF72A.4ECBA03E@greg.greg>, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
>>
>>
>>Bill Funk wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 03 Dec 03 10:46:25 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> >In article <rdqdncPcUbqAYlGiRTvUqQ@texas.net>, Steve <no@spam.thanks>
>wrote:
>>> >>Greg wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >>> Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>>"new source" creation, which was contrary to the actual written law.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>Wrong. They started treating major modifications as new sources, which
>was
>>> >>>>exactly what the law allowed (and required).
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> MAJOR modifications. Not minor improvements which would INCREASE
>>> >efficiency, such
>>> >>> as a new version of wear items such as turbine blades.
>>> >>>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>EXACTLY. Clinton policy = NO MODIFICATIONS!! Not even improvements to an
>>> >>old plant that would be better than doing nothing.
>>> >
>>> >Because the Clean Air Act only exempts _maintenance_ not _modifications_.
>>>
>>> I see.
>>> So making it BETTER brings on penalties, but keeping it dirty is OK?
>>> How is this supposed to clean up the air?
>>
>>The special llogic magic takes care of that. See cleaning the air obviously
>isn't
>>important to Lloyd, no matter how much he'll claim otherwise, because he
>favors
>>perverse inventives of treating parts replacments as "substrantial
>modifications"
>>Instead it's what he feels that manners--not the real world. .
>>
>No, of course, utility company profits are more important than children and
>grandparents dying of respiratory illness. Every good right-wing
>fundamentalist knows that.
Let's see you donate your salary to UNESCO, Lloyd.
Or don't you have the convictions that you seem to expect of others?
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
wrote:
>In article <3FCFF72A.4ECBA03E@greg.greg>, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
>>
>>
>>Bill Funk wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 03 Dec 03 10:46:25 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> >In article <rdqdncPcUbqAYlGiRTvUqQ@texas.net>, Steve <no@spam.thanks>
>wrote:
>>> >>Greg wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >>> Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>>"new source" creation, which was contrary to the actual written law.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>Wrong. They started treating major modifications as new sources, which
>was
>>> >>>>exactly what the law allowed (and required).
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> MAJOR modifications. Not minor improvements which would INCREASE
>>> >efficiency, such
>>> >>> as a new version of wear items such as turbine blades.
>>> >>>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>EXACTLY. Clinton policy = NO MODIFICATIONS!! Not even improvements to an
>>> >>old plant that would be better than doing nothing.
>>> >
>>> >Because the Clean Air Act only exempts _maintenance_ not _modifications_.
>>>
>>> I see.
>>> So making it BETTER brings on penalties, but keeping it dirty is OK?
>>> How is this supposed to clean up the air?
>>
>>The special llogic magic takes care of that. See cleaning the air obviously
>isn't
>>important to Lloyd, no matter how much he'll claim otherwise, because he
>favors
>>perverse inventives of treating parts replacments as "substrantial
>modifications"
>>Instead it's what he feels that manners--not the real world. .
>>
>No, of course, utility company profits are more important than children and
>grandparents dying of respiratory illness. Every good right-wing
>fundamentalist knows that.
Let's see you donate your salary to UNESCO, Lloyd.
Or don't you have the convictions that you seem to expect of others?
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
#6655
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety canbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On Fri, 05 Dec 03 11:08:47 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:
>In article <3FCFF72A.4ECBA03E@greg.greg>, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
>>
>>
>>Bill Funk wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 03 Dec 03 10:46:25 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> >In article <rdqdncPcUbqAYlGiRTvUqQ@texas.net>, Steve <no@spam.thanks>
>wrote:
>>> >>Greg wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >>> Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>>"new source" creation, which was contrary to the actual written law.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>Wrong. They started treating major modifications as new sources, which
>was
>>> >>>>exactly what the law allowed (and required).
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> MAJOR modifications. Not minor improvements which would INCREASE
>>> >efficiency, such
>>> >>> as a new version of wear items such as turbine blades.
>>> >>>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>EXACTLY. Clinton policy = NO MODIFICATIONS!! Not even improvements to an
>>> >>old plant that would be better than doing nothing.
>>> >
>>> >Because the Clean Air Act only exempts _maintenance_ not _modifications_.
>>>
>>> I see.
>>> So making it BETTER brings on penalties, but keeping it dirty is OK?
>>> How is this supposed to clean up the air?
>>
>>The special llogic magic takes care of that. See cleaning the air obviously
>isn't
>>important to Lloyd, no matter how much he'll claim otherwise, because he
>favors
>>perverse inventives of treating parts replacments as "substrantial
>modifications"
>>Instead it's what he feels that manners--not the real world. .
>>
>No, of course, utility company profits are more important than children and
>grandparents dying of respiratory illness. Every good right-wing
>fundamentalist knows that.
Let's see you donate your salary to UNESCO, Lloyd.
Or don't you have the convictions that you seem to expect of others?
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
wrote:
>In article <3FCFF72A.4ECBA03E@greg.greg>, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
>>
>>
>>Bill Funk wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 03 Dec 03 10:46:25 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> >In article <rdqdncPcUbqAYlGiRTvUqQ@texas.net>, Steve <no@spam.thanks>
>wrote:
>>> >>Greg wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >>> Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>>"new source" creation, which was contrary to the actual written law.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>Wrong. They started treating major modifications as new sources, which
>was
>>> >>>>exactly what the law allowed (and required).
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> MAJOR modifications. Not minor improvements which would INCREASE
>>> >efficiency, such
>>> >>> as a new version of wear items such as turbine blades.
>>> >>>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>EXACTLY. Clinton policy = NO MODIFICATIONS!! Not even improvements to an
>>> >>old plant that would be better than doing nothing.
>>> >
>>> >Because the Clean Air Act only exempts _maintenance_ not _modifications_.
>>>
>>> I see.
>>> So making it BETTER brings on penalties, but keeping it dirty is OK?
>>> How is this supposed to clean up the air?
>>
>>The special llogic magic takes care of that. See cleaning the air obviously
>isn't
>>important to Lloyd, no matter how much he'll claim otherwise, because he
>favors
>>perverse inventives of treating parts replacments as "substrantial
>modifications"
>>Instead it's what he feels that manners--not the real world. .
>>
>No, of course, utility company profits are more important than children and
>grandparents dying of respiratory illness. Every good right-wing
>fundamentalist knows that.
Let's see you donate your salary to UNESCO, Lloyd.
Or don't you have the convictions that you seem to expect of others?
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
#6656
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On Fri, 05 Dec 03 10:55:20 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:
>In article <qdkvsv4eltr4o1s3qi10i11cs5gbkp925r@4ax.com>,
> Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>>On Thu, 04 Dec 03 10:19:03 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>But there are no tax benefits to "civil unions", no inheritance benefits, no
>>>insurance benefits, etc.
>>
>>You've never heard of common law marriage?
>>
>Most states don't recognize that anymore.
Alabama
Colorado
District of Columbia
Georgia (if created before 1/1/97)
Idaho (if created before 1/1/96)
Iowa
Kansas
Montana
New Hampshire (for inheritance purposes only)
Ohio (if created before 10/10/91)
Oklahoma
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
Texas
Utah
So doesn't this contradict "But there are no tax benefits to "civil
unions", no inheritance benefits, no insurance benefits, etc."?
Why, yes, it does.
If you want to say something, Lloyd, try to make it a little more
right. You will have a much easier time, and it will be much harder to
prove you wrong.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
wrote:
>In article <qdkvsv4eltr4o1s3qi10i11cs5gbkp925r@4ax.com>,
> Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>>On Thu, 04 Dec 03 10:19:03 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>But there are no tax benefits to "civil unions", no inheritance benefits, no
>>>insurance benefits, etc.
>>
>>You've never heard of common law marriage?
>>
>Most states don't recognize that anymore.
Alabama
Colorado
District of Columbia
Georgia (if created before 1/1/97)
Idaho (if created before 1/1/96)
Iowa
Kansas
Montana
New Hampshire (for inheritance purposes only)
Ohio (if created before 10/10/91)
Oklahoma
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
Texas
Utah
So doesn't this contradict "But there are no tax benefits to "civil
unions", no inheritance benefits, no insurance benefits, etc."?
Why, yes, it does.
If you want to say something, Lloyd, try to make it a little more
right. You will have a much easier time, and it will be much harder to
prove you wrong.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
#6657
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On Fri, 05 Dec 03 10:55:20 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:
>In article <qdkvsv4eltr4o1s3qi10i11cs5gbkp925r@4ax.com>,
> Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>>On Thu, 04 Dec 03 10:19:03 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>But there are no tax benefits to "civil unions", no inheritance benefits, no
>>>insurance benefits, etc.
>>
>>You've never heard of common law marriage?
>>
>Most states don't recognize that anymore.
Alabama
Colorado
District of Columbia
Georgia (if created before 1/1/97)
Idaho (if created before 1/1/96)
Iowa
Kansas
Montana
New Hampshire (for inheritance purposes only)
Ohio (if created before 10/10/91)
Oklahoma
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
Texas
Utah
So doesn't this contradict "But there are no tax benefits to "civil
unions", no inheritance benefits, no insurance benefits, etc."?
Why, yes, it does.
If you want to say something, Lloyd, try to make it a little more
right. You will have a much easier time, and it will be much harder to
prove you wrong.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
wrote:
>In article <qdkvsv4eltr4o1s3qi10i11cs5gbkp925r@4ax.com>,
> Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>>On Thu, 04 Dec 03 10:19:03 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>But there are no tax benefits to "civil unions", no inheritance benefits, no
>>>insurance benefits, etc.
>>
>>You've never heard of common law marriage?
>>
>Most states don't recognize that anymore.
Alabama
Colorado
District of Columbia
Georgia (if created before 1/1/97)
Idaho (if created before 1/1/96)
Iowa
Kansas
Montana
New Hampshire (for inheritance purposes only)
Ohio (if created before 10/10/91)
Oklahoma
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
Texas
Utah
So doesn't this contradict "But there are no tax benefits to "civil
unions", no inheritance benefits, no insurance benefits, etc."?
Why, yes, it does.
If you want to say something, Lloyd, try to make it a little more
right. You will have a much easier time, and it will be much harder to
prove you wrong.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
#6658
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On Fri, 05 Dec 03 10:55:20 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:
>In article <qdkvsv4eltr4o1s3qi10i11cs5gbkp925r@4ax.com>,
> Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>>On Thu, 04 Dec 03 10:19:03 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>But there are no tax benefits to "civil unions", no inheritance benefits, no
>>>insurance benefits, etc.
>>
>>You've never heard of common law marriage?
>>
>Most states don't recognize that anymore.
Alabama
Colorado
District of Columbia
Georgia (if created before 1/1/97)
Idaho (if created before 1/1/96)
Iowa
Kansas
Montana
New Hampshire (for inheritance purposes only)
Ohio (if created before 10/10/91)
Oklahoma
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
Texas
Utah
So doesn't this contradict "But there are no tax benefits to "civil
unions", no inheritance benefits, no insurance benefits, etc."?
Why, yes, it does.
If you want to say something, Lloyd, try to make it a little more
right. You will have a much easier time, and it will be much harder to
prove you wrong.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
wrote:
>In article <qdkvsv4eltr4o1s3qi10i11cs5gbkp925r@4ax.com>,
> Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>>On Thu, 04 Dec 03 10:19:03 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>But there are no tax benefits to "civil unions", no inheritance benefits, no
>>>insurance benefits, etc.
>>
>>You've never heard of common law marriage?
>>
>Most states don't recognize that anymore.
Alabama
Colorado
District of Columbia
Georgia (if created before 1/1/97)
Idaho (if created before 1/1/96)
Iowa
Kansas
Montana
New Hampshire (for inheritance purposes only)
Ohio (if created before 10/10/91)
Oklahoma
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
Texas
Utah
So doesn't this contradict "But there are no tax benefits to "civil
unions", no inheritance benefits, no insurance benefits, etc."?
Why, yes, it does.
If you want to say something, Lloyd, try to make it a little more
right. You will have a much easier time, and it will be much harder to
prove you wrong.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
#6659
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycanbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 20:27:57 -0500, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>> In article <3FCCF1D1.ACBB3171@greg.greg>, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
>> >Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> >
>> >> In article <3FCCD887.D942F3A9@greg.greg>, John S <john_s@no.spam> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >z wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote in message
>> >> news:<O0Lyb.274685$ao4.944751@attbi_s51>...
>> >> >> > In article <b5b4685f.0312010918.6e702dc5@posting.google.com >, z wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > > They are going to move production of CO2 to China? All those
>> >> >> > > inefficient old coal-fired power plants are going to China?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > What is better? An old inefficient regulated to be as clean as
>> feasiable
>> >> >> > coal power plant in the USA feeding a factory with electricity or a
>> >> >> > quick-and-dirty-old-tech-soviet-style coal plant in china feeding a
>> >> >> > factory? Which is better for the environment?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > And why do we have old coal plants in the USA? Because any new plants
>> >> >> > are opposed on environmental grounds. And new and better means of
>> >> >> > generation are opposed on environmental grounds. So what we get
>> >> >> > is the status quo. The status quo remains because change is not
>> >> >> > possible.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Yeah, the old rightwing fantasy factory rides again. Do you recall the
>> >> >> Clean Air Act? Do you recall that the power companies piteously pled
>> >> >> for and were granted an exemption for their old coal and oil fuelled
>> >> >> plants, since the power companies promised that they were going to be
>> >> >> all mothballed soon anyway and it would be purely wasteful to upgrade
>> >> >> them for the short time they will be in operation? Well, it's thirty
>> >> >> years later now, and here in CT, half the electricity is still being
>> >> >> produced by those old 'soon to be mothballed' plants, known locally as
>> >> >> the Filthy Five. This is not because the utility companies are just
>> >> >> dying to build some expensive clean new plants and the
>> >> >> environmentalists just won't let them. It's purely because it's much
>> >> >> cheaper to run these monstrosities unmodified than it is to build new
>> >> >> plants, despite the environmentalists screaming to trade them for
>> >> >> clean new plants or else update them. The Reagan and Bush I
>> >> >> administrations refused to enforce the part of the Clean Air Act that
>> >> >> requires the companies to install upgraded pollution controls if they
>> >> >> were doing significant expansions to the plants, in contrast to
>> >> >> routine maintenance, allowing the Filthy Five to actually expand their
>> >> >> filthy emissions. The Clinton administration finally starts to enforce
>> >> >> this provision, and what happens? The Bush junta reverses the
>> >> >> enforcement decision. And in response to this boondoggle, the
>> >> >> utilities raise their rates 10%.
>> >> >
>> >> >That's not true at all. First of all, the Bush I administration SIGNED
>> the
>> >> Clean Air Act
>> >> >amendments in 1990 into law, which strenghthened, not weakened the Clean
>> Air
>> >> Act. Secondly, the
>> >> >act was and is being enforced. The act was designed to require NEW PLANTS
>> >> (new sources) to have
>> >> >much more stringent controls with updated technology. Older plants would
>> be
>> >> initially exempted
>> >> >because of common sense economics. However pollution from these older
>> palnts
>> >> would then be capped
>> >> >and traded, so plants pay for their negative externalities (pollution) and
>> >> production is shifted to
>> >> >the most efficient (by this I mean less polluting) plants because they are
>> >> cheaper to operate due
>> >> >to the cost of pollution credits. In this way all plants use the most
>> >> advanced pollution controls
>> >> >available to them. Eventually the older plants are shut down or upgraded
>> >> (when they WOULD be
>> >> >subject to New Source controls) because they are too expensive to operate
>> or
>> >> they get too old to
>> >> >operate anyway.
>> >> >
>> >> >The problem is that the Clinton administration started treating routine
>> >> maintenance on plants as
>> >> >"new source" creation, which was contrary to the actual written law.
>> >>
>> >> Wrong. They started treating major modifications as new sources, which was
>> >> exactly what the law allowed (and required).
>> >
>> >MAJOR modifications. Not minor improvements which would INCREASE efficiency,
>> such
>> >as a new version of wear items such as turbine blades.
>> >
>> >> If during 10 years of routine
>> >> maintenance you replace each part, you've got a new source, yet under your
>> and
>> >> Bush's plan, it'd never trigger the latest pollution controls because you
>> >> replaced it one piece at a time, as part of each year's maintenance.
>> >
>> >No. The law clearly states that merely replacing parts is NOT new source.
>> Try
>> >becoming familiar with what you talk about.
>> >
>>
>> Replacing may not be, but changing one part for a DIFFERENT one is, and should
>> be. Otherwise, you'd have the scenario I mentioned.
>
>In your alternate reality, not in the actual US statue. Routine maintenance and
>part upgrades are specifically permitted under the new source review. This was
>done for good reason, otherwise it would be bad policy that creates perverse
>incentives to remain most polluting status quo.
>
>>
>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Treating it this way
>> >> >subjected the plants specifically exempted from the statue to the
>> >> requirements of new plants.
>> >>
>> >> But if the plants get modified instead of just "serviced and cleaned",
>> that's
>> >> precisely what the law intended. That's why the EPA sued a number of
>> utility
>> >> companies, why a number of them settled, and why the suits continued until
>> >> Bush decided to "reinterpet" the law just this year.;
>> >
>> >Actually all Bush did was interpret the law exactly as it was WRITTEN in the
>> >statue, and had been enforced pre Browner and friends.
>>
>> Not true. I refer you to the suits the EPA filed.
>
>You mean the Clinton EPA filed, the same EPA file that destroyed its records in
>its last day, despite specific US District Court orders not to. Yep, the Clinton
>EPA was sure proud of its record.
>
>>
>>
>> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> ?This
>> >> >had the perverse incentive of indicating to plant owners that routine
>> >> maintenance is a BAD IDEA to
>> >> >do, because the Government will come after you for doing it. Better to
>> defer
>> >> maintenance and not
>> >> >keep plants in the most effiicent manner they can be reasonably operated
>> in.
>> >> But the effect of
>> >> >this is that when routine maintenance and minor upgrades become to
>> expensive
>> >> because of overzealous
>> >> >regulation, the effect is that nothing is done and instead the most
>> polluting
>> >> plants are left in
>> >> >operation as is, with no improvements all. The WSJ has reported
>> extensively
>> >> on this, and
>> >>
>> >> The WSJ never met an environmental reg it liked, because it never met a
>> >> corporate profit it didn't want increased.
>> >
>> >What on earth are you babbling about? You can't make your argument with
>> actual
>> >facts, so you attack/smear the messenger.
>>
>> I suggest you cite some source other than one rabidly pro-business to have any
>> credibility.
>
>The only sources that appears to have credibility with you is the Sierra Club and
>Consumer Reports. Furthermore your slam against WSJ is false and you cannot
>substantiate it.
>
>>
>>
>> > Try actually reading the WSJ for once
>> >in your life and you would know that you are wrong as when you said that
>> Daimler
>> >Chrysler was the only foreign company listed on the New York Stock Exchange,
>> as if
>> >Sony of Japan (NYSE:SNE) or Deutsch Bank AG (NYSE: DB) and others didn't
>> even
>> >exist!
>> >
>>
>> You're confusing ADRs with actual shares of stock.
>
>Many non companies (inclding American Depostitary Receipt) are LISTED on the New
>York Stock Exchange and trade like any other stock, contrary to your phony claim
>that only DCX is listed on NYSE. Global Shares are no less listed on the NYSE
>than ADPs.
>
>>
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >specifically about how the Clinton EPA chief was upset that plants were
>> TOO
>> >> CLEAN because they
>> >> >needed something to rail against to publicity. This was all recorded in
>> >> memos.
>> >>
>> >> It was not.
>> >
>> > Wrong, the Wall Street Journal printed some of these memos not too long
>> ago. And
>> >those were the ones that did not get quietly destroyed by Browner on the last
>> full
>> >day of the Clinton adminstration. ABC News reported on April 30 2001 that
>> Clinton
>> >EPA Administrator Browner had ordered her records and hard drives destroyed,
>> >against US District Court Judge Royce Lamberth's order. I guess the
>> Clinton
>> >Administration is good in your eyes for Enron style shredding. The
>> philosophy of
>> >the Clinton EPA was to do grandstanding rulemaking, without required
>> legislation
>> >or even sound policies. Let me guess, now you're going to start saying how
>> ABC
>> >News is really just a shill. too. Ha!
>> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >The Bush plan restores the EPA's mandated New Source Review. But it's
>> easier
>> >> for people to make
>> >> >silly attacks on Bush, because they cannot comprehend the actual laws, the
>> >> reason why they were
>> >> >written, the actual effects that they have, the effect of enforcing
>> non-laws,
>> >> or what is going on
>> >> >in general.
>> >>
>> >> Next you'll be telling us how good Bush is for the environment! LOL!
>> >
>> >A lot better than his predecessor, who created perverse incentives for plants
>> NOT
>> >to get cleaner, and HALTED dead brush cleanup in forests so that they could
>> become
>> >tinderboxes for massive fires. Bush is giving us low sulfur diesel fuel,
>> the low
>> >arsenic water standard which Clinton denied drinkers in 1996, and Bush's EPA
>> is
>> >forcing General Electric to clean up PCBs for the entire Hudson River.
>> Thanks for
>> >all those fires, Mr. Clinton. Thanks for conveniently destroying the
>> government
>> >records on the way out too. Glad you were so proud of your record that you
>> needed
>> >to erase it.
>> >
>> >I'll repost that story that was posted before, because you conveniently
>> forgot to
>> >comment on it!
>> >
>> > "In one famous case, DTE Energy Corp., parent of Detroit Edison Co., tried
>> to
>> >replace older, less efficient propeller blades in several steam turbines at
>> its
>> >biggest coal-fired plant. The new blades were 15% more efficient than the
>> old,
>> >meaning they could generate 15% more power using the same amount of
>> energy--more
>> >power, less pollution. But the Clinton EPA threatened to invoke New Source
>> Review
>> >anyway, so the plan was scrapped.
>> >
>> > Not that Detroit Edison and others are avoiding heavy pollution-fighting
>> >expenses. At the very same plant, Detroit Edison is spending $650 million to
>> meet
>> >new nitrogen oxide standards--an expense that won't generate a single new
>> kilowatt
>> >of electricity.
>> >
>> > Bureaucrats, of course, interpret such a rational response to perverse rules
>> as a
>> >sign of corporate greed. So when the Clinton administration found that at
>> least
>> >80% of the nation's utilities were violating its New Source Review
>> guidelines, it
>> >didn't bother to ask whether something might be wrong with its policies. It
>> simply
>> >filed an avalanche of lawsuits demanding huge fines.
>> >
>> >Yet EPA data clearly show that emissions of nitrogen oxide and sulfur
>> dioxide, the
>> >two main industrial pollutants, have declined substantially despite a
>> tripling of
>> >coal usage. Future Clean Air targets will reduce emissions a further 50%."
>> -WSJ
>> >11/26/02
>
>I notice that you have nothing to say to that. By the way, your computer's clock
>is wrong too.
I am not sure who wrote this but whoever did does not know ---- about
steam turbines or power plants! Yes I do. Been there done it!!
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>> In article <3FCCF1D1.ACBB3171@greg.greg>, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
>> >Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> >
>> >> In article <3FCCD887.D942F3A9@greg.greg>, John S <john_s@no.spam> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >z wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote in message
>> >> news:<O0Lyb.274685$ao4.944751@attbi_s51>...
>> >> >> > In article <b5b4685f.0312010918.6e702dc5@posting.google.com >, z wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > > They are going to move production of CO2 to China? All those
>> >> >> > > inefficient old coal-fired power plants are going to China?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > What is better? An old inefficient regulated to be as clean as
>> feasiable
>> >> >> > coal power plant in the USA feeding a factory with electricity or a
>> >> >> > quick-and-dirty-old-tech-soviet-style coal plant in china feeding a
>> >> >> > factory? Which is better for the environment?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > And why do we have old coal plants in the USA? Because any new plants
>> >> >> > are opposed on environmental grounds. And new and better means of
>> >> >> > generation are opposed on environmental grounds. So what we get
>> >> >> > is the status quo. The status quo remains because change is not
>> >> >> > possible.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Yeah, the old rightwing fantasy factory rides again. Do you recall the
>> >> >> Clean Air Act? Do you recall that the power companies piteously pled
>> >> >> for and were granted an exemption for their old coal and oil fuelled
>> >> >> plants, since the power companies promised that they were going to be
>> >> >> all mothballed soon anyway and it would be purely wasteful to upgrade
>> >> >> them for the short time they will be in operation? Well, it's thirty
>> >> >> years later now, and here in CT, half the electricity is still being
>> >> >> produced by those old 'soon to be mothballed' plants, known locally as
>> >> >> the Filthy Five. This is not because the utility companies are just
>> >> >> dying to build some expensive clean new plants and the
>> >> >> environmentalists just won't let them. It's purely because it's much
>> >> >> cheaper to run these monstrosities unmodified than it is to build new
>> >> >> plants, despite the environmentalists screaming to trade them for
>> >> >> clean new plants or else update them. The Reagan and Bush I
>> >> >> administrations refused to enforce the part of the Clean Air Act that
>> >> >> requires the companies to install upgraded pollution controls if they
>> >> >> were doing significant expansions to the plants, in contrast to
>> >> >> routine maintenance, allowing the Filthy Five to actually expand their
>> >> >> filthy emissions. The Clinton administration finally starts to enforce
>> >> >> this provision, and what happens? The Bush junta reverses the
>> >> >> enforcement decision. And in response to this boondoggle, the
>> >> >> utilities raise their rates 10%.
>> >> >
>> >> >That's not true at all. First of all, the Bush I administration SIGNED
>> the
>> >> Clean Air Act
>> >> >amendments in 1990 into law, which strenghthened, not weakened the Clean
>> Air
>> >> Act. Secondly, the
>> >> >act was and is being enforced. The act was designed to require NEW PLANTS
>> >> (new sources) to have
>> >> >much more stringent controls with updated technology. Older plants would
>> be
>> >> initially exempted
>> >> >because of common sense economics. However pollution from these older
>> palnts
>> >> would then be capped
>> >> >and traded, so plants pay for their negative externalities (pollution) and
>> >> production is shifted to
>> >> >the most efficient (by this I mean less polluting) plants because they are
>> >> cheaper to operate due
>> >> >to the cost of pollution credits. In this way all plants use the most
>> >> advanced pollution controls
>> >> >available to them. Eventually the older plants are shut down or upgraded
>> >> (when they WOULD be
>> >> >subject to New Source controls) because they are too expensive to operate
>> or
>> >> they get too old to
>> >> >operate anyway.
>> >> >
>> >> >The problem is that the Clinton administration started treating routine
>> >> maintenance on plants as
>> >> >"new source" creation, which was contrary to the actual written law.
>> >>
>> >> Wrong. They started treating major modifications as new sources, which was
>> >> exactly what the law allowed (and required).
>> >
>> >MAJOR modifications. Not minor improvements which would INCREASE efficiency,
>> such
>> >as a new version of wear items such as turbine blades.
>> >
>> >> If during 10 years of routine
>> >> maintenance you replace each part, you've got a new source, yet under your
>> and
>> >> Bush's plan, it'd never trigger the latest pollution controls because you
>> >> replaced it one piece at a time, as part of each year's maintenance.
>> >
>> >No. The law clearly states that merely replacing parts is NOT new source.
>> Try
>> >becoming familiar with what you talk about.
>> >
>>
>> Replacing may not be, but changing one part for a DIFFERENT one is, and should
>> be. Otherwise, you'd have the scenario I mentioned.
>
>In your alternate reality, not in the actual US statue. Routine maintenance and
>part upgrades are specifically permitted under the new source review. This was
>done for good reason, otherwise it would be bad policy that creates perverse
>incentives to remain most polluting status quo.
>
>>
>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Treating it this way
>> >> >subjected the plants specifically exempted from the statue to the
>> >> requirements of new plants.
>> >>
>> >> But if the plants get modified instead of just "serviced and cleaned",
>> that's
>> >> precisely what the law intended. That's why the EPA sued a number of
>> utility
>> >> companies, why a number of them settled, and why the suits continued until
>> >> Bush decided to "reinterpet" the law just this year.;
>> >
>> >Actually all Bush did was interpret the law exactly as it was WRITTEN in the
>> >statue, and had been enforced pre Browner and friends.
>>
>> Not true. I refer you to the suits the EPA filed.
>
>You mean the Clinton EPA filed, the same EPA file that destroyed its records in
>its last day, despite specific US District Court orders not to. Yep, the Clinton
>EPA was sure proud of its record.
>
>>
>>
>> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> ?This
>> >> >had the perverse incentive of indicating to plant owners that routine
>> >> maintenance is a BAD IDEA to
>> >> >do, because the Government will come after you for doing it. Better to
>> defer
>> >> maintenance and not
>> >> >keep plants in the most effiicent manner they can be reasonably operated
>> in.
>> >> But the effect of
>> >> >this is that when routine maintenance and minor upgrades become to
>> expensive
>> >> because of overzealous
>> >> >regulation, the effect is that nothing is done and instead the most
>> polluting
>> >> plants are left in
>> >> >operation as is, with no improvements all. The WSJ has reported
>> extensively
>> >> on this, and
>> >>
>> >> The WSJ never met an environmental reg it liked, because it never met a
>> >> corporate profit it didn't want increased.
>> >
>> >What on earth are you babbling about? You can't make your argument with
>> actual
>> >facts, so you attack/smear the messenger.
>>
>> I suggest you cite some source other than one rabidly pro-business to have any
>> credibility.
>
>The only sources that appears to have credibility with you is the Sierra Club and
>Consumer Reports. Furthermore your slam against WSJ is false and you cannot
>substantiate it.
>
>>
>>
>> > Try actually reading the WSJ for once
>> >in your life and you would know that you are wrong as when you said that
>> Daimler
>> >Chrysler was the only foreign company listed on the New York Stock Exchange,
>> as if
>> >Sony of Japan (NYSE:SNE) or Deutsch Bank AG (NYSE: DB) and others didn't
>> even
>> >exist!
>> >
>>
>> You're confusing ADRs with actual shares of stock.
>
>Many non companies (inclding American Depostitary Receipt) are LISTED on the New
>York Stock Exchange and trade like any other stock, contrary to your phony claim
>that only DCX is listed on NYSE. Global Shares are no less listed on the NYSE
>than ADPs.
>
>>
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >specifically about how the Clinton EPA chief was upset that plants were
>> TOO
>> >> CLEAN because they
>> >> >needed something to rail against to publicity. This was all recorded in
>> >> memos.
>> >>
>> >> It was not.
>> >
>> > Wrong, the Wall Street Journal printed some of these memos not too long
>> ago. And
>> >those were the ones that did not get quietly destroyed by Browner on the last
>> full
>> >day of the Clinton adminstration. ABC News reported on April 30 2001 that
>> Clinton
>> >EPA Administrator Browner had ordered her records and hard drives destroyed,
>> >against US District Court Judge Royce Lamberth's order. I guess the
>> Clinton
>> >Administration is good in your eyes for Enron style shredding. The
>> philosophy of
>> >the Clinton EPA was to do grandstanding rulemaking, without required
>> legislation
>> >or even sound policies. Let me guess, now you're going to start saying how
>> ABC
>> >News is really just a shill. too. Ha!
>> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >The Bush plan restores the EPA's mandated New Source Review. But it's
>> easier
>> >> for people to make
>> >> >silly attacks on Bush, because they cannot comprehend the actual laws, the
>> >> reason why they were
>> >> >written, the actual effects that they have, the effect of enforcing
>> non-laws,
>> >> or what is going on
>> >> >in general.
>> >>
>> >> Next you'll be telling us how good Bush is for the environment! LOL!
>> >
>> >A lot better than his predecessor, who created perverse incentives for plants
>> NOT
>> >to get cleaner, and HALTED dead brush cleanup in forests so that they could
>> become
>> >tinderboxes for massive fires. Bush is giving us low sulfur diesel fuel,
>> the low
>> >arsenic water standard which Clinton denied drinkers in 1996, and Bush's EPA
>> is
>> >forcing General Electric to clean up PCBs for the entire Hudson River.
>> Thanks for
>> >all those fires, Mr. Clinton. Thanks for conveniently destroying the
>> government
>> >records on the way out too. Glad you were so proud of your record that you
>> needed
>> >to erase it.
>> >
>> >I'll repost that story that was posted before, because you conveniently
>> forgot to
>> >comment on it!
>> >
>> > "In one famous case, DTE Energy Corp., parent of Detroit Edison Co., tried
>> to
>> >replace older, less efficient propeller blades in several steam turbines at
>> its
>> >biggest coal-fired plant. The new blades were 15% more efficient than the
>> old,
>> >meaning they could generate 15% more power using the same amount of
>> energy--more
>> >power, less pollution. But the Clinton EPA threatened to invoke New Source
>> Review
>> >anyway, so the plan was scrapped.
>> >
>> > Not that Detroit Edison and others are avoiding heavy pollution-fighting
>> >expenses. At the very same plant, Detroit Edison is spending $650 million to
>> meet
>> >new nitrogen oxide standards--an expense that won't generate a single new
>> kilowatt
>> >of electricity.
>> >
>> > Bureaucrats, of course, interpret such a rational response to perverse rules
>> as a
>> >sign of corporate greed. So when the Clinton administration found that at
>> least
>> >80% of the nation's utilities were violating its New Source Review
>> guidelines, it
>> >didn't bother to ask whether something might be wrong with its policies. It
>> simply
>> >filed an avalanche of lawsuits demanding huge fines.
>> >
>> >Yet EPA data clearly show that emissions of nitrogen oxide and sulfur
>> dioxide, the
>> >two main industrial pollutants, have declined substantially despite a
>> tripling of
>> >coal usage. Future Clean Air targets will reduce emissions a further 50%."
>> -WSJ
>> >11/26/02
>
>I notice that you have nothing to say to that. By the way, your computer's clock
>is wrong too.
I am not sure who wrote this but whoever did does not know ---- about
steam turbines or power plants! Yes I do. Been there done it!!
#6660
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycanbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 20:27:57 -0500, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>> In article <3FCCF1D1.ACBB3171@greg.greg>, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
>> >Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> >
>> >> In article <3FCCD887.D942F3A9@greg.greg>, John S <john_s@no.spam> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >z wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote in message
>> >> news:<O0Lyb.274685$ao4.944751@attbi_s51>...
>> >> >> > In article <b5b4685f.0312010918.6e702dc5@posting.google.com >, z wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > > They are going to move production of CO2 to China? All those
>> >> >> > > inefficient old coal-fired power plants are going to China?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > What is better? An old inefficient regulated to be as clean as
>> feasiable
>> >> >> > coal power plant in the USA feeding a factory with electricity or a
>> >> >> > quick-and-dirty-old-tech-soviet-style coal plant in china feeding a
>> >> >> > factory? Which is better for the environment?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > And why do we have old coal plants in the USA? Because any new plants
>> >> >> > are opposed on environmental grounds. And new and better means of
>> >> >> > generation are opposed on environmental grounds. So what we get
>> >> >> > is the status quo. The status quo remains because change is not
>> >> >> > possible.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Yeah, the old rightwing fantasy factory rides again. Do you recall the
>> >> >> Clean Air Act? Do you recall that the power companies piteously pled
>> >> >> for and were granted an exemption for their old coal and oil fuelled
>> >> >> plants, since the power companies promised that they were going to be
>> >> >> all mothballed soon anyway and it would be purely wasteful to upgrade
>> >> >> them for the short time they will be in operation? Well, it's thirty
>> >> >> years later now, and here in CT, half the electricity is still being
>> >> >> produced by those old 'soon to be mothballed' plants, known locally as
>> >> >> the Filthy Five. This is not because the utility companies are just
>> >> >> dying to build some expensive clean new plants and the
>> >> >> environmentalists just won't let them. It's purely because it's much
>> >> >> cheaper to run these monstrosities unmodified than it is to build new
>> >> >> plants, despite the environmentalists screaming to trade them for
>> >> >> clean new plants or else update them. The Reagan and Bush I
>> >> >> administrations refused to enforce the part of the Clean Air Act that
>> >> >> requires the companies to install upgraded pollution controls if they
>> >> >> were doing significant expansions to the plants, in contrast to
>> >> >> routine maintenance, allowing the Filthy Five to actually expand their
>> >> >> filthy emissions. The Clinton administration finally starts to enforce
>> >> >> this provision, and what happens? The Bush junta reverses the
>> >> >> enforcement decision. And in response to this boondoggle, the
>> >> >> utilities raise their rates 10%.
>> >> >
>> >> >That's not true at all. First of all, the Bush I administration SIGNED
>> the
>> >> Clean Air Act
>> >> >amendments in 1990 into law, which strenghthened, not weakened the Clean
>> Air
>> >> Act. Secondly, the
>> >> >act was and is being enforced. The act was designed to require NEW PLANTS
>> >> (new sources) to have
>> >> >much more stringent controls with updated technology. Older plants would
>> be
>> >> initially exempted
>> >> >because of common sense economics. However pollution from these older
>> palnts
>> >> would then be capped
>> >> >and traded, so plants pay for their negative externalities (pollution) and
>> >> production is shifted to
>> >> >the most efficient (by this I mean less polluting) plants because they are
>> >> cheaper to operate due
>> >> >to the cost of pollution credits. In this way all plants use the most
>> >> advanced pollution controls
>> >> >available to them. Eventually the older plants are shut down or upgraded
>> >> (when they WOULD be
>> >> >subject to New Source controls) because they are too expensive to operate
>> or
>> >> they get too old to
>> >> >operate anyway.
>> >> >
>> >> >The problem is that the Clinton administration started treating routine
>> >> maintenance on plants as
>> >> >"new source" creation, which was contrary to the actual written law.
>> >>
>> >> Wrong. They started treating major modifications as new sources, which was
>> >> exactly what the law allowed (and required).
>> >
>> >MAJOR modifications. Not minor improvements which would INCREASE efficiency,
>> such
>> >as a new version of wear items such as turbine blades.
>> >
>> >> If during 10 years of routine
>> >> maintenance you replace each part, you've got a new source, yet under your
>> and
>> >> Bush's plan, it'd never trigger the latest pollution controls because you
>> >> replaced it one piece at a time, as part of each year's maintenance.
>> >
>> >No. The law clearly states that merely replacing parts is NOT new source.
>> Try
>> >becoming familiar with what you talk about.
>> >
>>
>> Replacing may not be, but changing one part for a DIFFERENT one is, and should
>> be. Otherwise, you'd have the scenario I mentioned.
>
>In your alternate reality, not in the actual US statue. Routine maintenance and
>part upgrades are specifically permitted under the new source review. This was
>done for good reason, otherwise it would be bad policy that creates perverse
>incentives to remain most polluting status quo.
>
>>
>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Treating it this way
>> >> >subjected the plants specifically exempted from the statue to the
>> >> requirements of new plants.
>> >>
>> >> But if the plants get modified instead of just "serviced and cleaned",
>> that's
>> >> precisely what the law intended. That's why the EPA sued a number of
>> utility
>> >> companies, why a number of them settled, and why the suits continued until
>> >> Bush decided to "reinterpet" the law just this year.;
>> >
>> >Actually all Bush did was interpret the law exactly as it was WRITTEN in the
>> >statue, and had been enforced pre Browner and friends.
>>
>> Not true. I refer you to the suits the EPA filed.
>
>You mean the Clinton EPA filed, the same EPA file that destroyed its records in
>its last day, despite specific US District Court orders not to. Yep, the Clinton
>EPA was sure proud of its record.
>
>>
>>
>> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> ?This
>> >> >had the perverse incentive of indicating to plant owners that routine
>> >> maintenance is a BAD IDEA to
>> >> >do, because the Government will come after you for doing it. Better to
>> defer
>> >> maintenance and not
>> >> >keep plants in the most effiicent manner they can be reasonably operated
>> in.
>> >> But the effect of
>> >> >this is that when routine maintenance and minor upgrades become to
>> expensive
>> >> because of overzealous
>> >> >regulation, the effect is that nothing is done and instead the most
>> polluting
>> >> plants are left in
>> >> >operation as is, with no improvements all. The WSJ has reported
>> extensively
>> >> on this, and
>> >>
>> >> The WSJ never met an environmental reg it liked, because it never met a
>> >> corporate profit it didn't want increased.
>> >
>> >What on earth are you babbling about? You can't make your argument with
>> actual
>> >facts, so you attack/smear the messenger.
>>
>> I suggest you cite some source other than one rabidly pro-business to have any
>> credibility.
>
>The only sources that appears to have credibility with you is the Sierra Club and
>Consumer Reports. Furthermore your slam against WSJ is false and you cannot
>substantiate it.
>
>>
>>
>> > Try actually reading the WSJ for once
>> >in your life and you would know that you are wrong as when you said that
>> Daimler
>> >Chrysler was the only foreign company listed on the New York Stock Exchange,
>> as if
>> >Sony of Japan (NYSE:SNE) or Deutsch Bank AG (NYSE: DB) and others didn't
>> even
>> >exist!
>> >
>>
>> You're confusing ADRs with actual shares of stock.
>
>Many non companies (inclding American Depostitary Receipt) are LISTED on the New
>York Stock Exchange and trade like any other stock, contrary to your phony claim
>that only DCX is listed on NYSE. Global Shares are no less listed on the NYSE
>than ADPs.
>
>>
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >specifically about how the Clinton EPA chief was upset that plants were
>> TOO
>> >> CLEAN because they
>> >> >needed something to rail against to publicity. This was all recorded in
>> >> memos.
>> >>
>> >> It was not.
>> >
>> > Wrong, the Wall Street Journal printed some of these memos not too long
>> ago. And
>> >those were the ones that did not get quietly destroyed by Browner on the last
>> full
>> >day of the Clinton adminstration. ABC News reported on April 30 2001 that
>> Clinton
>> >EPA Administrator Browner had ordered her records and hard drives destroyed,
>> >against US District Court Judge Royce Lamberth's order. I guess the
>> Clinton
>> >Administration is good in your eyes for Enron style shredding. The
>> philosophy of
>> >the Clinton EPA was to do grandstanding rulemaking, without required
>> legislation
>> >or even sound policies. Let me guess, now you're going to start saying how
>> ABC
>> >News is really just a shill. too. Ha!
>> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >The Bush plan restores the EPA's mandated New Source Review. But it's
>> easier
>> >> for people to make
>> >> >silly attacks on Bush, because they cannot comprehend the actual laws, the
>> >> reason why they were
>> >> >written, the actual effects that they have, the effect of enforcing
>> non-laws,
>> >> or what is going on
>> >> >in general.
>> >>
>> >> Next you'll be telling us how good Bush is for the environment! LOL!
>> >
>> >A lot better than his predecessor, who created perverse incentives for plants
>> NOT
>> >to get cleaner, and HALTED dead brush cleanup in forests so that they could
>> become
>> >tinderboxes for massive fires. Bush is giving us low sulfur diesel fuel,
>> the low
>> >arsenic water standard which Clinton denied drinkers in 1996, and Bush's EPA
>> is
>> >forcing General Electric to clean up PCBs for the entire Hudson River.
>> Thanks for
>> >all those fires, Mr. Clinton. Thanks for conveniently destroying the
>> government
>> >records on the way out too. Glad you were so proud of your record that you
>> needed
>> >to erase it.
>> >
>> >I'll repost that story that was posted before, because you conveniently
>> forgot to
>> >comment on it!
>> >
>> > "In one famous case, DTE Energy Corp., parent of Detroit Edison Co., tried
>> to
>> >replace older, less efficient propeller blades in several steam turbines at
>> its
>> >biggest coal-fired plant. The new blades were 15% more efficient than the
>> old,
>> >meaning they could generate 15% more power using the same amount of
>> energy--more
>> >power, less pollution. But the Clinton EPA threatened to invoke New Source
>> Review
>> >anyway, so the plan was scrapped.
>> >
>> > Not that Detroit Edison and others are avoiding heavy pollution-fighting
>> >expenses. At the very same plant, Detroit Edison is spending $650 million to
>> meet
>> >new nitrogen oxide standards--an expense that won't generate a single new
>> kilowatt
>> >of electricity.
>> >
>> > Bureaucrats, of course, interpret such a rational response to perverse rules
>> as a
>> >sign of corporate greed. So when the Clinton administration found that at
>> least
>> >80% of the nation's utilities were violating its New Source Review
>> guidelines, it
>> >didn't bother to ask whether something might be wrong with its policies. It
>> simply
>> >filed an avalanche of lawsuits demanding huge fines.
>> >
>> >Yet EPA data clearly show that emissions of nitrogen oxide and sulfur
>> dioxide, the
>> >two main industrial pollutants, have declined substantially despite a
>> tripling of
>> >coal usage. Future Clean Air targets will reduce emissions a further 50%."
>> -WSJ
>> >11/26/02
>
>I notice that you have nothing to say to that. By the way, your computer's clock
>is wrong too.
I am not sure who wrote this but whoever did does not know ---- about
steam turbines or power plants! Yes I do. Been there done it!!
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>> In article <3FCCF1D1.ACBB3171@greg.greg>, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
>> >Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> >
>> >> In article <3FCCD887.D942F3A9@greg.greg>, John S <john_s@no.spam> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >z wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote in message
>> >> news:<O0Lyb.274685$ao4.944751@attbi_s51>...
>> >> >> > In article <b5b4685f.0312010918.6e702dc5@posting.google.com >, z wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > > They are going to move production of CO2 to China? All those
>> >> >> > > inefficient old coal-fired power plants are going to China?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > What is better? An old inefficient regulated to be as clean as
>> feasiable
>> >> >> > coal power plant in the USA feeding a factory with electricity or a
>> >> >> > quick-and-dirty-old-tech-soviet-style coal plant in china feeding a
>> >> >> > factory? Which is better for the environment?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > And why do we have old coal plants in the USA? Because any new plants
>> >> >> > are opposed on environmental grounds. And new and better means of
>> >> >> > generation are opposed on environmental grounds. So what we get
>> >> >> > is the status quo. The status quo remains because change is not
>> >> >> > possible.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Yeah, the old rightwing fantasy factory rides again. Do you recall the
>> >> >> Clean Air Act? Do you recall that the power companies piteously pled
>> >> >> for and were granted an exemption for their old coal and oil fuelled
>> >> >> plants, since the power companies promised that they were going to be
>> >> >> all mothballed soon anyway and it would be purely wasteful to upgrade
>> >> >> them for the short time they will be in operation? Well, it's thirty
>> >> >> years later now, and here in CT, half the electricity is still being
>> >> >> produced by those old 'soon to be mothballed' plants, known locally as
>> >> >> the Filthy Five. This is not because the utility companies are just
>> >> >> dying to build some expensive clean new plants and the
>> >> >> environmentalists just won't let them. It's purely because it's much
>> >> >> cheaper to run these monstrosities unmodified than it is to build new
>> >> >> plants, despite the environmentalists screaming to trade them for
>> >> >> clean new plants or else update them. The Reagan and Bush I
>> >> >> administrations refused to enforce the part of the Clean Air Act that
>> >> >> requires the companies to install upgraded pollution controls if they
>> >> >> were doing significant expansions to the plants, in contrast to
>> >> >> routine maintenance, allowing the Filthy Five to actually expand their
>> >> >> filthy emissions. The Clinton administration finally starts to enforce
>> >> >> this provision, and what happens? The Bush junta reverses the
>> >> >> enforcement decision. And in response to this boondoggle, the
>> >> >> utilities raise their rates 10%.
>> >> >
>> >> >That's not true at all. First of all, the Bush I administration SIGNED
>> the
>> >> Clean Air Act
>> >> >amendments in 1990 into law, which strenghthened, not weakened the Clean
>> Air
>> >> Act. Secondly, the
>> >> >act was and is being enforced. The act was designed to require NEW PLANTS
>> >> (new sources) to have
>> >> >much more stringent controls with updated technology. Older plants would
>> be
>> >> initially exempted
>> >> >because of common sense economics. However pollution from these older
>> palnts
>> >> would then be capped
>> >> >and traded, so plants pay for their negative externalities (pollution) and
>> >> production is shifted to
>> >> >the most efficient (by this I mean less polluting) plants because they are
>> >> cheaper to operate due
>> >> >to the cost of pollution credits. In this way all plants use the most
>> >> advanced pollution controls
>> >> >available to them. Eventually the older plants are shut down or upgraded
>> >> (when they WOULD be
>> >> >subject to New Source controls) because they are too expensive to operate
>> or
>> >> they get too old to
>> >> >operate anyway.
>> >> >
>> >> >The problem is that the Clinton administration started treating routine
>> >> maintenance on plants as
>> >> >"new source" creation, which was contrary to the actual written law.
>> >>
>> >> Wrong. They started treating major modifications as new sources, which was
>> >> exactly what the law allowed (and required).
>> >
>> >MAJOR modifications. Not minor improvements which would INCREASE efficiency,
>> such
>> >as a new version of wear items such as turbine blades.
>> >
>> >> If during 10 years of routine
>> >> maintenance you replace each part, you've got a new source, yet under your
>> and
>> >> Bush's plan, it'd never trigger the latest pollution controls because you
>> >> replaced it one piece at a time, as part of each year's maintenance.
>> >
>> >No. The law clearly states that merely replacing parts is NOT new source.
>> Try
>> >becoming familiar with what you talk about.
>> >
>>
>> Replacing may not be, but changing one part for a DIFFERENT one is, and should
>> be. Otherwise, you'd have the scenario I mentioned.
>
>In your alternate reality, not in the actual US statue. Routine maintenance and
>part upgrades are specifically permitted under the new source review. This was
>done for good reason, otherwise it would be bad policy that creates perverse
>incentives to remain most polluting status quo.
>
>>
>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Treating it this way
>> >> >subjected the plants specifically exempted from the statue to the
>> >> requirements of new plants.
>> >>
>> >> But if the plants get modified instead of just "serviced and cleaned",
>> that's
>> >> precisely what the law intended. That's why the EPA sued a number of
>> utility
>> >> companies, why a number of them settled, and why the suits continued until
>> >> Bush decided to "reinterpet" the law just this year.;
>> >
>> >Actually all Bush did was interpret the law exactly as it was WRITTEN in the
>> >statue, and had been enforced pre Browner and friends.
>>
>> Not true. I refer you to the suits the EPA filed.
>
>You mean the Clinton EPA filed, the same EPA file that destroyed its records in
>its last day, despite specific US District Court orders not to. Yep, the Clinton
>EPA was sure proud of its record.
>
>>
>>
>> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> ?This
>> >> >had the perverse incentive of indicating to plant owners that routine
>> >> maintenance is a BAD IDEA to
>> >> >do, because the Government will come after you for doing it. Better to
>> defer
>> >> maintenance and not
>> >> >keep plants in the most effiicent manner they can be reasonably operated
>> in.
>> >> But the effect of
>> >> >this is that when routine maintenance and minor upgrades become to
>> expensive
>> >> because of overzealous
>> >> >regulation, the effect is that nothing is done and instead the most
>> polluting
>> >> plants are left in
>> >> >operation as is, with no improvements all. The WSJ has reported
>> extensively
>> >> on this, and
>> >>
>> >> The WSJ never met an environmental reg it liked, because it never met a
>> >> corporate profit it didn't want increased.
>> >
>> >What on earth are you babbling about? You can't make your argument with
>> actual
>> >facts, so you attack/smear the messenger.
>>
>> I suggest you cite some source other than one rabidly pro-business to have any
>> credibility.
>
>The only sources that appears to have credibility with you is the Sierra Club and
>Consumer Reports. Furthermore your slam against WSJ is false and you cannot
>substantiate it.
>
>>
>>
>> > Try actually reading the WSJ for once
>> >in your life and you would know that you are wrong as when you said that
>> Daimler
>> >Chrysler was the only foreign company listed on the New York Stock Exchange,
>> as if
>> >Sony of Japan (NYSE:SNE) or Deutsch Bank AG (NYSE: DB) and others didn't
>> even
>> >exist!
>> >
>>
>> You're confusing ADRs with actual shares of stock.
>
>Many non companies (inclding American Depostitary Receipt) are LISTED on the New
>York Stock Exchange and trade like any other stock, contrary to your phony claim
>that only DCX is listed on NYSE. Global Shares are no less listed on the NYSE
>than ADPs.
>
>>
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >specifically about how the Clinton EPA chief was upset that plants were
>> TOO
>> >> CLEAN because they
>> >> >needed something to rail against to publicity. This was all recorded in
>> >> memos.
>> >>
>> >> It was not.
>> >
>> > Wrong, the Wall Street Journal printed some of these memos not too long
>> ago. And
>> >those were the ones that did not get quietly destroyed by Browner on the last
>> full
>> >day of the Clinton adminstration. ABC News reported on April 30 2001 that
>> Clinton
>> >EPA Administrator Browner had ordered her records and hard drives destroyed,
>> >against US District Court Judge Royce Lamberth's order. I guess the
>> Clinton
>> >Administration is good in your eyes for Enron style shredding. The
>> philosophy of
>> >the Clinton EPA was to do grandstanding rulemaking, without required
>> legislation
>> >or even sound policies. Let me guess, now you're going to start saying how
>> ABC
>> >News is really just a shill. too. Ha!
>> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >The Bush plan restores the EPA's mandated New Source Review. But it's
>> easier
>> >> for people to make
>> >> >silly attacks on Bush, because they cannot comprehend the actual laws, the
>> >> reason why they were
>> >> >written, the actual effects that they have, the effect of enforcing
>> non-laws,
>> >> or what is going on
>> >> >in general.
>> >>
>> >> Next you'll be telling us how good Bush is for the environment! LOL!
>> >
>> >A lot better than his predecessor, who created perverse incentives for plants
>> NOT
>> >to get cleaner, and HALTED dead brush cleanup in forests so that they could
>> become
>> >tinderboxes for massive fires. Bush is giving us low sulfur diesel fuel,
>> the low
>> >arsenic water standard which Clinton denied drinkers in 1996, and Bush's EPA
>> is
>> >forcing General Electric to clean up PCBs for the entire Hudson River.
>> Thanks for
>> >all those fires, Mr. Clinton. Thanks for conveniently destroying the
>> government
>> >records on the way out too. Glad you were so proud of your record that you
>> needed
>> >to erase it.
>> >
>> >I'll repost that story that was posted before, because you conveniently
>> forgot to
>> >comment on it!
>> >
>> > "In one famous case, DTE Energy Corp., parent of Detroit Edison Co., tried
>> to
>> >replace older, less efficient propeller blades in several steam turbines at
>> its
>> >biggest coal-fired plant. The new blades were 15% more efficient than the
>> old,
>> >meaning they could generate 15% more power using the same amount of
>> energy--more
>> >power, less pollution. But the Clinton EPA threatened to invoke New Source
>> Review
>> >anyway, so the plan was scrapped.
>> >
>> > Not that Detroit Edison and others are avoiding heavy pollution-fighting
>> >expenses. At the very same plant, Detroit Edison is spending $650 million to
>> meet
>> >new nitrogen oxide standards--an expense that won't generate a single new
>> kilowatt
>> >of electricity.
>> >
>> > Bureaucrats, of course, interpret such a rational response to perverse rules
>> as a
>> >sign of corporate greed. So when the Clinton administration found that at
>> least
>> >80% of the nation's utilities were violating its New Source Review
>> guidelines, it
>> >didn't bother to ask whether something might be wrong with its policies. It
>> simply
>> >filed an avalanche of lawsuits demanding huge fines.
>> >
>> >Yet EPA data clearly show that emissions of nitrogen oxide and sulfur
>> dioxide, the
>> >two main industrial pollutants, have declined substantially despite a
>> tripling of
>> >coal usage. Future Clean Air targets will reduce emissions a further 50%."
>> -WSJ
>> >11/26/02
>
>I notice that you have nothing to say to that. By the way, your computer's clock
>is wrong too.
I am not sure who wrote this but whoever did does not know ---- about
steam turbines or power plants! Yes I do. Been there done it!!