Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers

  • Thread starter Dianelos Georgoudis
  • Start date
This site contains affiliate links for which LandyZone may be compensated if you make a purchase.
In article <[email protected]>,
Bill Funk <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Wed, 22 Oct 03 10:51:14 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker)
>wrote:
>
>>In article <[email protected]>,
>> "Joe" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>"global warming is as established fact"
>>
>>Yes.
>>
>>>Fact? Every "fact" you post will be contradicted by an equally credible
>>>fact from the other (correct) side...
>>
>>No. Look at the scientific literature, look at IPCC, look at NASA, look at
>>NOAA, look at EPA, look at National Academy of Sciences.
>>
>>As I said, it's as settled as atoms, gravity, relativity, evolution, etc.
>
>Yes, but the *why* is pure conjecture.

No, the why is entirely settled.

>
>I suppose that you teach that when something happens, that has
>happened before, the latest instance must be for a different reason?
>Is that how you teach?
>
I teach facts and science, not right-wing political propaganda.
 
In article <[email protected]>,
"Joe" <[email protected] ([email protected])> wrote:
>"Where are the WMD? Facts, please"
>Ask Bill Clinton. He said they were there too.

In 2003?


> Or ask the UN who as a body
>said that he had them.

Based on US info that we now know was a bunch of lies.


>Or better yet, ask Saddam who ADMITTED to having
>them (OK, not a good source).

Again, not in 2003.


> The whole WMD "argument" is weak at best...
>He had them, you KNOW it. There is proof of it.

Then where are they?

>
>Read what Bill Clinton had to say about the matter during his reign of
>terror:
> Iraq repeatedly made false declarations about the weapons that it had left
>in its possession after the Gulf War. When UNSCOM would then uncover
>evidence that gave the lie to those declarations, Iraq would simply amend
>the reports. For example, Iraq revised its nuclear declarations four times
>within just 14 months, and it has submitted six different biological warfare
>declarations, each of which has been rejected by UNSCOM.
>
> In 1995 Hussein Kamal, Saddam's son-in-law and the chief organizer of
>Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program, defected to Jordan. He revealed
>that Iraq was continuing to conceal weapons and missiles and the capacity to
>build many more. Then and only then did Iraq admit to developing numbers of
>weapons in significant quantities--and weapons stocks. Previously it had
>vehemently denied the very thing it just simply admitted once Saddam's
>son-in-law defected to Jordan and told the truth.
>
> Now listen to this: What did it admit? It admitted, among other things, an
>offensive biological warfare capability, notably, 5,000 gallons of
>botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25
>biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs. And I might say
>UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq has actually greatly understated its
>production. . . .
>
> Next, throughout this entire process, Iraqi agents have undermined and
>undercut UNSCOM. They've harassed the inspectors, lied to them, disabled
>monitoring cameras, literally spirited evidence out of the back doors of
>suspect facilities as inspectors walked through the front door, and our
>people were there observing it and had the pictures to prove it. . . .
>
> Over the past few months, as [the weapons inspectors] have come closer and
>closer to rooting out Iraq's remaining nuclear capacity, Saddam has
>undertaken yet another gambit to thwart their ambitions by imposing
>debilitating conditions on the inspectors and declaring key sites which have
>still not been inspected off limits, including, I might add, one palace in
>Baghdad more than 2,600 acres large. . . .
>
> One of these presidential sites is about the size of Washington, D.C. . .
>..
>
> It is obvious that there is an attempt here, based on the whole history of
>this operation since 1991, to protect whatever remains of his capacity to
>produce weapons of mass destruction, the missiles to deliver them, and the
>feed stocks necessary to produce them. The UNSCOM inspectors believe that
>Iraq still has stockpiles of chemical and biological munitions, a small
>force of Scud-type missiles, and the capacity to restart quickly its
>production program and build many, many more weapons. . . .
>
> Now, let's imagine the future. What if he fails to comply and we fail to
>act, or we take some ambiguous third route, which gives him yet more
>opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction and
>continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore
>the solemn commitments that he made? Well, he will conclude that the
>international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can
>go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction.
>
> And some day, some way, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal. . . . In
>the next century, the community of nations may see more and more of the very
>kind of threat Iraq poses now--a rogue state with weapons of mass
>destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug
>traffickers, or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed.
>
> If we fail to respond today, Saddam, and all those who would follow in his
>footsteps, will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act
>with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations
>Security Council, and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction
>program.
>
>
>
So where are those huge quantities? Where is the uranium? Where are those
drones that could deliver it all here?

Lies, all a pack of lies.
 
In article <[email protected]>,
"Joe" <[email protected] ([email protected])> wrote:
>Again, shouldn't be too hard to find "facts" to contradict the facts you
>have... No, I'm not going to do it because i know you've heard it all
>already...

You can't do it because there are none on your side. It's like someone
claiming there are facts supporting creationism.

>
>"Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> "Joe" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >"global warming is as established fact"
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>> >Fact? Every "fact" you post will be contradicted by an equally credible
>> >fact from the other (correct) side...
>>
>> No. Look at the scientific literature, look at IPCC, look at NASA, look
>at
>> NOAA, look at EPA, look at National Academy of Sciences.
>>
>> As I said, it's as settled as atoms, gravity, relativity, evolution, etc.
>>
>> >
>> >"Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> >news:[email protected]...
>> >> In article <[email protected]>,
>> >> Bill Funk <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> >On Tue, 21 Oct 03 10:41:33 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker)
>> >> >wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >>Your SUV uses more natural resources,
>> >> >
>> >> >Than what? Your MB?
>> >>
>> >> Than pretty much any CAR.
>> >>
>> >> >>increases our dependence on foreign oil,
>> >> >
>> >> >We don't depend on foreign oil; you should know that.
>> >>
>> >> Remember what happened the 2 times it was cut off?
>> >>
>> >> >We have made a choice, for economic reasons, to use oil that is
>> >> >cheaper to buy than using our own.
>> >>
>> >> And we couldn't replace it tomorrow, could we?
>> >>
>> >> >Our own oil isn't intrinsically cheaper, but getting iot out of the
>> >> >ground has been made much more expensive by government fiat.
>> >> >>forces us to spend more on defending those countries,
>> >> >
>> >> >Hardly; they can use their own oil profits to defend themselves.
>> >>
>> >> Why did we go to war in Gulf War I? Why do we maintain troops and
>ships
>> >in
>> >> the Persian Gulf?
>> >>
>> >> >Our problem with them is that they want to govern themselves, and make
>> >> >their own choices as to what friends they make. That we don't like
>> >> >their choices shouldn't be used as an excuse for military action.
>> >> >>forces us to risk lives defending those countries,
>> >> >
>> >> >Where?
>> >> >>hurts our balance of payments,
>> >> >
>> >> >Brought on by government regulations, which in turn are brought on by
>> >> >those who would rather see other countries use their oil rather than
>> >> >our own, claiming that "it's for our children."
>> >> >Tree huggers don't seem to have a problem with "raping" other
>> >> >countries if it means our children are safe.
>> >> >>and increases global warming.
>> >> >
>> >> >That's truly laughable.
>> >> >What did we do to bring the world out of the last big ice age? BBQ too
>> >> >many mammoths?
>> >> >Why do those who claim "global warming" is both unnatural and our
>> >> >fault completely ignore the past?
>> >>
>> >> I suggest you learn some science; global warming is as established fact
>as
>> >> evolution, relativity, quantum behavior, etc.
>> >>
>> >> >>It's laughable that people doing so much to hurt our country drive
>> >> >>around with American flags on their SUVs.
>> >> >
>> >> >It's also laughable that so many who don't seem to understand their
>> >> >own ideals, and the consequences of them, continue to cry that those
>> >> >who don't believe as they do are trying to hurt the USA.
>> >> >For you rinformation, SUVs are not the problem so many seem to think
>> >> >they are. I'll put the emissions from my SUV against your MB anytime.
>> >> >
>> >
>> >
>
>
 
In article <7OAlb.1739$HS4.3963@attbi_s01>,
[email protected] (Brent P) wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>, Bill Funk wrote:
>> On Tue, 21 Oct 03 16:44:28 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:
>
>>>>>Your SUV uses more natural resources,
>>>>Than what? Your MB?
>>>Than pretty much any CAR.
>> Nice backpeddle.
>
>Dr. Parker ignored my asking him about his MB, but from this response
>we can conclude that his fuel economy threshold is somewhere below that
>of his MB. Therefore any SUV that meets or exceeds the fuel economy
>of lloyd's MB should be acceptable, right lloyd?
>
>
Sure, I'll agree to that. Beat 20/26 and I'll agree your SUV isn't a
gas-guzzling, terrorist-supporting hog. (It still blocks other drivers' view
and tends to roll over, however...)
 
In article <[email protected]>,
"Matthew S. Whiting" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> "Joe" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>"global warming is as established fact"
>>
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>>
>>>Fact? Every "fact" you post will be contradicted by an equally credible
>>>fact from the other (correct) side...
>>
>>
>> No. Look at the scientific literature, look at IPCC, look at NASA, look at
>> NOAA, look at EPA, look at National Academy of Sciences.
>>
>> As I said, it's as settled as atoms, gravity, relativity, evolution, etc.
>
>Only one of those is even close to "settled" ... and even gravity hasn't
>been explained, only accepted.
>
>
>Matt
>
Gravity is an established fact. Relativity is an established fact. Atoms are
established fact. Evolution is an established fact. Global warming from (at
least the largest source) human activities is an established fact.

Tell me, do YOU keep up with the scientific literature?
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Bill Putney <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>Joe wrote:
>>
>> "Where are the WMD? Facts, please"
>> Ask Bill Clinton. He said they were there too. Or ask the UN who as a
body
>> said that he had them. Or better yet, ask Saddam who ADMITTED to having
>> them (OK, not a good source). The whole WMD "argument" is weak at best...
>> He had them, you KNOW it. There is proof of it.
>>
>> Read what Bill Clinton had to say about the matter during his reign of
>> terror:...
>
>And of course Lloyd will find some way not to accept that information as
>facts (proving what you said in your preceding post).
>
>You'd think that Lloyd, being some kind of teacher of science, would
>understand the law of the conservation of mass. It essentially says that
>in a closed system, the amount (mass) of matter stays constant. If you
>consider the earth a closed system (we can assume that SH didn't rocket
>them off into space), then if SH had them a few years ago, then they
>still exist (that is, if you subtract out the ones that were used on his
>own people) - somewhere on earth. They must either still be in Iraq
>(either above or below ground), or in some other country(ies). If they
>were destroyed (i.e., converted to a harmless form), then that should be
>documentable or provable in some physical way. Conservation of mass.
>
>Summary: In order not to violate the law of the conservation of mass, if
>they existed they would have to have been:
>(1) Dissipated (by use)
>(2) Moved and found (so far no)
>(3) Moved and not found found (i.e., well hidden - buried, built into
>structures - concrete maybe, or moved to another country)
>(4) Shot into space

(5) Destroyed by the UN inspectors between 1991-2003, as was their job.

>
>All that the world demanded was that he show them or account for their
>destruction, and he in effect refused. Then the rest of the world
>decided that they really didn't mean it.

And now the world demands Bush prove they exist, since he claimed they did.

>
>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! =-----
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Marc <[email protected]> wrote:
>[email protected] (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
>>In article <[email protected]>,
>> "Dave C." <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> No, because the makers had to make smaller, lighter, yet still
>>>> high-performance vehicles. Without CAFE, we'd still be driving what we
>>>were
>>>> in the early 70s. 5000-lb lumbering land yachts.
>>>
>>>And I really miss those 5000-lb lumbering land yachts. Lots of other
people
>>>do, too.
>>
>>Yeah, the same ones who miss carburetors, manual chokes, drum brakes. The
>>ones who think NASCAR is high-tech.
>
>So wanting room makes you a Luddite? You really only appear stupider every
>time I read one of your posts.
>
>Marc
>For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
No, thinking you need 2 and a half tons to get room does.
 
In article <[email protected]>,
"C. E. White" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>> Yeah, we got Pintos, Vegas, and Gremlins.
>
>I can't speak to Vegas and Gremlins, but I did own a shiny new 1972 Pinto.
The
>only import car in the same price range that was better in my opinion was the
>Datsun 510 (and it was more expensive). The low cost Toyotas available in the
>Eastern US in 1972 were low grade junk and too small inside besides.

I had a 1972 Corolla that was an excellent entry-level car. Opel was also
selling Kadetts and 1900s that were good cars.


>The VWs
>sold at that time were laugable. The 510 was a great little car. I probably
>would have bought one if there had been a dealer in my home town. The biggest
>problem the US companies had was their desire to not build low price cars
that
>would take sales away from their other models.
>
>Ed
>
 
In article <joPlb.7776$Tr4.26144@attbi_s03>, Kevin <[email protected]> wrote:
>RJ wrote:
>> Nate Nagel <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>RJ wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Nate Nagel <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Remember the days when you could buy a wagon and expect to haul plywood
>>>>>and tow a trailer with it?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>1. No 4x4 (a factor wherever it snows)
>>>>2. Those old beasts delivered around 12 mpg.
>>>>
>>>>If you claim that point 2 is negated by modern technology, everything
>>>>I've seen with seriously higher gas mileage is front wheel drive and is
>>>>therefore worthless as a towing vehicle.
>>>
>>>That's not the fault of "passenger cars" per se, it's the fault of CAFE
>>>which has killed the full sized car as we once knew it.
>>
>>
>> The only true full size car left is the Crown Vic. Still rear wheel
> dirve with steel frame. Big fan, and heavy enough to keep you alive.
>
Then why do many smaller cars -- Volvos, Mercedes, etc. -- have better safety
records and better safety reputations?

And ask the hundreds of police officers killed by their CVs exploding and
burning them to death about the car keeping you alive. No, wait, you can't,
they're DEAD!
 
In article <[email protected]>, Lloyd Parker wrote:

>>> The only true full size car left is the Crown Vic. Still rear wheel
>> dirve with steel frame. Big fan, and heavy enough to keep you alive.
>>
> Then why do many smaller cars -- Volvos, Mercedes, etc. -- have better safety
> records and better safety reputations?

The Crown Vic is extremely safe for the money. If cars that cost
signficantly more and we are talking probably *THREE* times as much
with the MB, it better have superior performance.

Over the years, every time it was tested, the crown vic well exceeded
crash standards. I'd rather be in a crown vic than many of these SUVs
that's for sure.

> And ask the hundreds of police officers killed by their CVs exploding and
> burning them to death about the car keeping you alive. No, wait, you can't,
> they're DEAD!

Hundreds? Hardly lloyd. But that sort of BS is typical of you. You've
picked up alot of bad habbits from the sci.environment liberals.

The number of *incidents* doesn't even crack 30. The number of *deaths*
even lower. Then, keep in mind these cars were smacked at speeds in the
neighborhood of 70 *seventy* miles per hour.

So Parker, find a police vehicle with a significantly *BETTER* record
with regards to incident rate than the crown vic. 29 incidents in over
20 years and probably untold millions of miles is *NOTHING* statistically
speaking.

If you want to pay taxes to put all cops in MBs to give them a slight
edge with regards to this low rate event, you can pay it. I have no
desire to.

 

"Bill Funk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 09:28:42 -0400, "rickety"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Kevin wrote:
> >> RJ wrote:
> >>> Nate Nagel <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> RJ wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> Nate Nagel <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Remember the days when you could buy a wagon and expect to haul
> >>>>>> plywood and tow a trailer with it?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 1. No 4x4 (a factor wherever it snows)
> >>>>> 2. Those old beasts delivered around 12 mpg.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> If you claim that point 2 is negated by modern technology,
> >>>>> everything I've seen with seriously higher gas mileage is front
> >>>>> wheel drive and is therefore worthless as a towing vehicle.
> >>>>
> >>>> That's not the fault of "passenger cars" per se, it's the fault of
> >>>> CAFE which has killed the full sized car as we once knew it.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> The only true full size car left is the Crown Vic. Still rear wheel
> >> dirve with steel frame. Big fan, and heavy enough to keep you alive.
> >
> >istr that the story is when they are hit from the rear the fuel tank is
> >prone to rupture and ignite the spillage. Kind of like a big Pinto.
>
> They need to be hit pretty hard.
> Like at a closing speed of more that 40 mph, IIRC.
>

More like 50-70. The ones thar have exploded have been hit at very high
speeds. Also when you hit cars that tend to have ammunition in the trunk you
might just get a fire.


 
In article <[email protected]>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
> In article <uwxlb.846895$Ho3.255387@sccrnsc03>,
> [email protected] (Brent P) wrote:
>>In article <[email protected]>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>> In article <Utjlb.606952$cF.273281@rwcrnsc53>,
>>> [email protected] (Brent P) wrote:
>>>>In article <[email protected]>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>>>> In article <[email protected]>,
>>>>> "Joe" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>Lloyd,
>>>>>>Are you a Lliberal?
>>>>>
>>>>> Yep, like Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and all the other founding
>>> fathers.
>>>>
>>>>I don't think so. You'd call pratically everything on this page
>>>>"right-wing-something-or-the-other" I am sure:
>>>>
>>>>http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/quotes/wisdom.html
>>>>I think the first one speaks against a great number of things from the
>>>>democrat party in the last oh 70 years:
>>>>
>>>>"When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will
>>>>herald the end of the republic." -- Benjamin Franklin
>>>>
>>>>And if not that, I am sure these founding father quotes would really
>>>>get your panties in a bunch:
>>>>
>>>>http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/quotes/arms.html
>>>>
>>>>Having read your writings over the years, as well as learned a fair
>>>>amount about the "founding fathers" I see no agreement.
>>>>
>>>>Oh, and as far as JFK is concerned, funny how if you listen to JFK's
>>>>speeches (recorded) keeping current views in mind, his talking about using
>>>>tax cuts to stimulate the economy, etc etc you'd think he was a
>>>>republican.....
>>>
>>> Suyre, because tax rates were something like 90% at the upper end. Now
> that
>>> they're 37%, you're going to lose revenue by cutting them, as Bush has
> done.
>>
>>Can't address more than one thing per post now?
>>Anyway, the only reason the government needs such massive amounts of
>>revenue is because peoplee have voted themselves money from the treasury.
>>
>>
> Ain't democracy wonderful!

Maybe to people like you who want the government controlling their lives
or see themselves as the ones making the decisions for others.

 
In article <[email protected]>, Lloyd Parker wrote:

> Gravity is an established fact.

Only that it exists. There are alot of questions about gravity that
remain unanswered. The fundamental one is why is it so much weaker
than other basic forces.

> Relativity is an established fact.

No it isn't, it's just the best we have at the momement to describe
behaviors.

> Atoms are established fact.

Yet new shocking details of smaller and smaller particles are discovered
rutinely that cause other ideas to re-evaluated. What exactly do you
think they do with those accelerators if the facts are established?

> Evolution is an established fact.

It is not a "fact". It's the best explaination we have at the moment.

> Global warming from (at
> least the largest source) human activities is an established fact.

Gobal warming is nebulus term that is used to describe everything that
occurs with climate. Thusly it can't be wrong. One part of the world is
getting warmer? It's global warming. Another part of the world is getting
colder? It's global warming. One critter flurishes, it's global warming.
another critter is dying off, it's global warming. so on and so on. No
matter what happens, it supports "global warming".

"Global warming" isn't even well defined with regards to what it is and
what it entails, let alone being an established fact. Of course it's hard
to disprove something that isn't fixed in definition.

> Tell me, do YOU keep up with the scientific literature?

I can tell you don't, even on a cursory level.

Dr. Parker, you are the kind of "scienist" that stifles thought, new
ideas, new ways of looking at things, and advancement. You are rigid
in your thinking and believe if it wasn't what the establishment tought
you it cannot be correct. 4 centuries ago you would have been one of
those who went after galieo and others. Your idea of science is whatever
is politically acceptable.


 
In article <[email protected]>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
> In article <7OAlb.1739$HS4.3963@attbi_s01>,
> [email protected] (Brent P) wrote:
>>In article <[email protected]>, Bill Funk wrote:
>>> On Tue, 21 Oct 03 16:44:28 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker)
> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>Your SUV uses more natural resources,
>>>>>Than what? Your MB?
>>>>Than pretty much any CAR.
>>> Nice backpeddle.
>>
>>Dr. Parker ignored my asking him about his MB, but from this response
>>we can conclude that his fuel economy threshold is somewhere below that
>>of his MB. Therefore any SUV that meets or exceeds the fuel economy
>>of lloyd's MB should be acceptable, right lloyd?
>>
>>
> Sure, I'll agree to that. Beat 20/26 and I'll agree your SUV isn't a
> gas-guzzling, terrorist-supporting hog. (It still blocks other drivers' view
> and tends to roll over, however...)

I don't have an SUV parker. In fact I dislike SUVs. I'm just not a
hypocrite like you yapping about how CAFE is good and driving a vehicle
that doesn't cut it from a manufacturer that just passes the cost of the
'tax' on to the buyers.

What it comes down to parker is that you get to drive what you want, but
the unwashed masses should drive what you say they should.


 
> >
> >Maybe because 'being safe' includes 4x4 capability for bad weather.
> >
> Which lots of cars and minivans offer.

Name one that is a good value for the money. (I don't really expect a reply
here) -Dave


 
Why the reputations are better is likely due to advertising strategy,
but the facts tell a different story. Comparing actual death rates per
million registered vehicle years shows the following data (IIHS.ORG):

Mercedes C class = 52
Volvo 850 - 39
Ford Expedition 4WD = 39

=Vic=
Bear Gap, PA

Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
> In article <joPlb.7776$Tr4.26144@attbi_s03>, Kevin <[email protected]> wrote:
> >RJ wrote:
> >> Nate Nagel <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>RJ wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Nate Nagel <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>Remember the days when you could buy a wagon and expect to haul plywood
> >>>>>and tow a trailer with it?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>1. No 4x4 (a factor wherever it snows)
> >>>>2. Those old beasts delivered around 12 mpg.
> >>>>
> >>>>If you claim that point 2 is negated by modern technology, everything
> >>>>I've seen with seriously higher gas mileage is front wheel drive and is
> >>>>therefore worthless as a towing vehicle.
> >>>
> >>>That's not the fault of "passenger cars" per se, it's the fault of CAFE
> >>>which has killed the full sized car as we once knew it.
> >>
> >>
> >> The only true full size car left is the Crown Vic. Still rear wheel
> > dirve with steel frame. Big fan, and heavy enough to keep you alive.
> >
> Then why do many smaller cars -- Volvos, Mercedes, etc. -- have better safety
> records and better safety reputations?
>
> And ask the hundreds of police officers killed by their CVs exploding and
> burning them to death about the car keeping you alive. No, wait, you can't,
> they're DEAD!
 
Subaru (any model).

"Dave C." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> > >
> > >Maybe because 'being safe' includes 4x4 capability for bad weather.
> > >
> > Which lots of cars and minivans offer.
>
> Name one that is a good value for the money. (I don't really expect a
reply
> here) -Dave
>
>


 
"Lies, all a pack of lies."
Lloyd, these are all BILL CLINTON statements... Are you saying that BILL
CLINTON lied? I guess it depends on your definition of LIE...


"Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Joe" <[email protected] ([email protected])> wrote:
> >"Where are the WMD? Facts, please"
> >Ask Bill Clinton. He said they were there too.
<snip>
> > If we fail to respond today, Saddam, and all those who would follow in
his
> >footsteps, will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act
> >with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United
Nations
> >Security Council, and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction
> >program.
> >
> >
> >
> So where are those huge quantities? Where is the uranium? Where are
those
> drones that could deliver it all here?
>
> Lies, all a pack of lies.


 
I'd say "all" liberals are guilty of treason...

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=treason

"Violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign, especially the
betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by consciously and
purposely acting to aid its enemies. "

Here's treason defined in Teddy Kennedy's (you know, the murdering liberal
from MA) state:
http://www.state.ma.us/legis/laws/mgl/264-1.htm
"Treason against the commonwealth shall consist only in levying war against
it, or in adhering to the enemies thereof, giving them aid and comfort; it
shall not be bailable."
Note the giving the enemy aid part...
Punishable by LIFE in prison:
http://www.state.ma.us/legis/laws/mgl/264-2.htm





"Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Joe" <[email protected] ([email protected])> wrote:
> >"You can join Ann Coulter and advocate killing them, I guess"
> >Well, treason is punishable by death (I think)...
>
> I suggest you read the constitution for is "treason" is.
>



 
No, I WON'T do it because it's a rat hole... you beleive what you want.

"there are facts supporting creationism."
No to use the friends argument here but the greatest minds in the world all
thought that the world was flat.

"Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Joe" <[email protected] ([email protected])> wrote:
> >Again, shouldn't be too hard to find "facts" to contradict the facts you
> >have... No, I'm not going to do it because i know you've heard it all
> >already...
>
> You can't do it because there are none on your side. It's like someone
> claiming there are facts supporting creationism.
>
> >
> >"Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >> In article <[email protected]>,
> >> "Joe" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >"global warming is as established fact"
> >>
> >> Yes.
> >>
> >> >Fact? Every "fact" you post will be contradicted by an equally
credible
> >> >fact from the other (correct) side...
> >>
> >> No. Look at the scientific literature, look at IPCC, look at NASA,
look
> >at
> >> NOAA, look at EPA, look at National Academy of Sciences.
> >>
> >> As I said, it's as settled as atoms, gravity, relativity, evolution,
etc.
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> >news:[email protected]...
> >> >> In article <[email protected]>,
> >> >> Bill Funk <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >> >On Tue, 21 Oct 03 10:41:33 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd
Parker)
> >> >> >wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >>Your SUV uses more natural resources,
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Than what? Your MB?
> >> >>
> >> >> Than pretty much any CAR.
> >> >>
> >> >> >>increases our dependence on foreign oil,
> >> >> >
> >> >> >We don't depend on foreign oil; you should know that.
> >> >>
> >> >> Remember what happened the 2 times it was cut off?
> >> >>
> >> >> >We have made a choice, for economic reasons, to use oil that is
> >> >> >cheaper to buy than using our own.
> >> >>
> >> >> And we couldn't replace it tomorrow, could we?
> >> >>
> >> >> >Our own oil isn't intrinsically cheaper, but getting iot out of the
> >> >> >ground has been made much more expensive by government fiat.
> >> >> >>forces us to spend more on defending those countries,
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Hardly; they can use their own oil profits to defend themselves.
> >> >>
> >> >> Why did we go to war in Gulf War I? Why do we maintain troops and
> >ships
> >> >in
> >> >> the Persian Gulf?
> >> >>
> >> >> >Our problem with them is that they want to govern themselves, and
make
> >> >> >their own choices as to what friends they make. That we don't like
> >> >> >their choices shouldn't be used as an excuse for military action.
> >> >> >>forces us to risk lives defending those countries,
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Where?
> >> >> >>hurts our balance of payments,
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Brought on by government regulations, which in turn are brought on
by
> >> >> >those who would rather see other countries use their oil rather
than
> >> >> >our own, claiming that "it's for our children."
> >> >> >Tree huggers don't seem to have a problem with "raping" other
> >> >> >countries if it means our children are safe.
> >> >> >>and increases global warming.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >That's truly laughable.
> >> >> >What did we do to bring the world out of the last big ice age? BBQ
too
> >> >> >many mammoths?
> >> >> >Why do those who claim "global warming" is both unnatural and our
> >> >> >fault completely ignore the past?
> >> >>
> >> >> I suggest you learn some science; global warming is as established
fact
> >as
> >> >> evolution, relativity, quantum behavior, etc.
> >> >>
> >> >> >>It's laughable that people doing so much to hurt our country drive
> >> >> >>around with American flags on their SUVs.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >It's also laughable that so many who don't seem to understand their
> >> >> >own ideals, and the consequences of them, continue to cry that
those
> >> >> >who don't believe as they do are trying to hurt the USA.
> >> >> >For you rinformation, SUVs are not the problem so many seem to
think
> >> >> >they are. I'll put the emissions from my SUV against your MB
anytime.
> >> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >
> >


 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

S
Defenders Vs Insurers tomfoolery
Replies
1
Views
4K
lightning
lightning
300bhp/ton
Driven: New Defender - On & Off Road. Is it a Pretender?
2
Replies
30
Views
6K
lightning
lightning
P
Range Rover P38 EKA and BeCM Lockout
Replies
6
Views
5K
Doolinjames
D
natas
Hurricane Dorian survivor.
Replies
8
Views
2K
ProjectX
ProjectX
Alibro
How to recondition a VCU yourself.
15 16 17
Replies
325
Views
47K
Alibro
Alibro
Back
Top