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.
Large SUV's are great for bad drivers. It will lessen the likelihood of
being fatally injured WHEN you get in an accident.
Read this article
http://www.divisiontwo.com/articles/parttimemom1.htm
I used my '89 Horizon as an SUV. True story: I put 4 6x6 16' long timbers on
the roof racks. Weighed 500 pounds. Racks were rated for 100 pounds max.
Let's see you do that with your precious Hummer that you bought with the
inheritance money mommy and daddy left you with.

Real men don't drive SUV's.

"P e t e F a g e r l i n" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 17 Oct 2003 08:52:47 -0700, [email protected] (Dianelos
> Georgoudis) wrote:
>
> >If you care about your personal safety then, clearly, the best
> >strategy is not to use a SUV but to use a mid-size or large passenger
> >car.
>
> I care not only about my safety, but the safety of my family, so I
> bought a very safe SUV.
>
> Go figure.
>


 
In article <[email protected]>,
"Dave Milne" <jeep@_nospam_milne.info> wrote:
>Looks like Lloyd replied to every other post except this one. I guess that
>when he shouts "Learn some science", our educator didn't mean from himself.
>Interesting how he is vocal in criticizing other opinions as long as they
>don't come from other scientists, and equally has no intention in backing up
>what he believes himself.

Yes, I criticize dithering that doesn't come from science. Consider yourself
so criticized.

>
>Dave Milne, Scotland
>'99 TJ 4.0 Sahara
>
>"Dave Milne" <jeep@_nospam_milne.info> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>: Lloyd, what's your opinion on the sunspot theory ? This has been a long
>and
>: boring thread, but if you can give us an intelligent critique on it, I for
>: one would be genuinely interested.
>:
>: Dave Milne, Scotland
>: '99 TJ 4.0 Sahara
>:
>: "Matthew S. Whiting" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>: news:[email protected]...
>: : And now another theory as to possible causation for global warming:
>: :
>: : http://www.drudgereport.com/flash2.htm
>:
>:
>
>
 
In article <[email protected]>,
"Dori Schmetterling" <[email protected]> wrote:
>I suppose it depends on what you use as definition of the sun. Strictly,
>the verse implying the sun and the moon certainly comes after plants, but
>"light" in general came before that.

Did God have a big halogen lamp then?

>
>The rest of the sequence is not bad, though, is it?

Which one? The one where man comes first and then animals, or the one where
the animals are made first and then man last?

>
>Then there is the question of the definition of a "day".

If you don't take this part of the Bible literally, how can you demand people
take any part of it literally?

>
>Does Creationism require a belief in Joshua stopping the sun?

Taking the Bible literally does.

>
>
>If we had been there in a Sebring convertible with the roof off we could
>have seen for ourselves.
>
>
>As regards a flood, it is interesting that some sort of flood has been
>reported in a number of old, unrelated texts, IIRC.
>

World-wide, as the Bible says? where did the water drain off to?

>DAS
 
In article <[email protected]>,
"The Ancient One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> "Douglas A. Shrader" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> >"Ted Mittelstaedt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> >news:[email protected]...
>> >>
>> >> "Douglas A. Shrader" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> >> news:[email protected]...
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > WE know he had them, we don't know what he did with them. If you
>owned a
>> >> > house twelve years ago, and you could not provide evidence that you
>had
>> >> sold
>> >> > it, would it not be logical to assume you still owned it?
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Not if it was a mobile trailer house, WMD's are generally pretty
>mobile.
>> >
>> >Moving them does not change ownership, nor does it make them cease to
>exist.
>> >
>> >>
>> >> In any case who is "we". The CIA certainly wasn't claiming that Saddam
>> >had
>> >> WMD's
>> >
>> >In the case of Saddam his chemical and biological weapons are and have
>> >always been called WMD's, and yes the CIA knew he had them, he has used
>them
>> >at least 12 times.
>>
>> Did he have them in 2003? If so, where are they?
>
>You know Lloyd, if they made a list of the one hundred dumbest people on
>earth, you name would be in every spot.
>If I have something in 1990, and I don't get rid of it, then yes, I will
>still have it in 2003.

Provide proof. remember, the UN destroyed weapons after the GW I.


> Saddam had them, he never provided any evidence that
>he destroyed them, so yes, he still has them to this day until and unless
>proven, PROVEN, otherwise.

OK, you had your baby teeth. Prove you lost them, or we must assume you still
have them.

>Where are they? Well hidden, he had twelve years to do so,

Bush claimed there were an imminent threat to us. That means out, ready to
use, not hidden. Powell showed the UN pictures of where they allegedly were.


>they may be
>buired in the desert, he may have transfered them to another country, until
>they are found we won't know.

So they weren't ready to be used, an imminent threat to us?


>The fact that they are unaccounted for makes
>it imperative that we keep looking until we do know where they are, or if he
>in fact did destroy them, and simply hid that fact in an attempt to bluff
>us, which is what Hans Blix is suggesting. A suggestion, I might add, he
>would not have made if he and the inspectors knew they had been destroyed,
>which is what you claimed, thus proving you once again a lying asshole. You
>really should be taking classes instead of teaching them, you have so much
>to learn.
>

Where are the WMD? Simple question, the thing we went to war over.

>
>>
>> >
>> >> and why did the Bush administraton blow a deep-CIA agent's cover in
>> >revenge?
>> >
>> >Speculation
>> >
>> >> And
>> >> why haven't they come up with the name of the person in the Bush
>> >> administration who
>> >> released the name?
>> >
>> >You just claimed Bush was responsible, now you admit the identity is
>> >unknown. I leave speculation to others, the truth will be known
>eventually.
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Your wasting your time attempting to use WMD's as a justification for
>> >going
>> >> to war
>> >> in Iraq. Nukes might have been there 10 years ago, or partial nukes,
>but
>> >> it's preposterous
>> >> to suggest they were there before the war.
>> >
>> >No one, including Bush, has ever claimed Sadam has or ever had Nukes. The
>> >claim was that Saddam was trying to aquire them.
>>
>> Which turned out to be a lie.
>
>Not at all. The claim he tried to aquire weapons grade Uranium from Nigeria
>turned out to be a lie, but that does not equate to Saddam seeking to aquire
>Nukes being a lie, that remains to be seen.
>
>>
>> >
>> >The case is a bit stronger for
>> >> bio agents,
>> >> but still inconclusive.
>> >
>> >How so, when he has used them several times already?
>>
>> Where are they?
>
>Ther ones he used? Ask the hundreds of thousands of people he killed with
>them. The fact you are questioning this at all proves you a heartless
>bastard who would murder your own family if you thought it would benifit
>you. Your support of a Dictator who murdered for sport is sickening.
>
>>
>> >What further proof could you possibly require that Saddam has them than
>the
>> >fact he has used them repeatedly, both against his own people and Iran?
>>
>> "Has" is present tense. Where are they?
>
>You know where they are you lying bastard. Pull your liberal head out of
>Gores ass and think for yourself, you sound like a parrot.
>
>>
>> >
>> > It is clearly obvious to anyone with any education
>> >> that basing the
>> >> Iraq invasion on WMD was a lie.
>> >
>> >Your opinion.
>> >
>> >>
>> >> However what is not clear to most people, even now it seems, is that
>WMD's
>> >> are not
>> >> the only justification for a unilateral invasion of another country.
>> >
>> >I know of no one who thought it was. WMD were only one of the reasons.
>>
>> The one given to us by Bush.
>
>And Clinton, and Clintons staff.
>
>>
>> >
>> > Lloyd
>> >> may be able to
>> >> make a coherent argument that Bush was lying when Bush used WMD's as
>> >pretext
>> >> for
>> >> going to war in Iraq.
>> >
>> >Lloyd is incapable of coherant thought, much less arqument.
>> >
>> > But there is absolutely no logical, reasonable, or
>> >> moral argument
>> >> Lloyd can make for allowing a dictator to remain in power who for fun
>> >would
>> >> cut the eyes
>> >> and tongues of people out of their heads, who killed his own brother in
>> >> broad daylight
>> >> and who committed numerous other atrocities. It was a terrible
>terrible
>> >> thing for the
>> >> nations of the world to stand idly by and allow this to continue year
>> >after
>> >> year, and they
>> >> damn well know it, they know it even now because they all want to
>pretend
>> >> that Iraq
>> >> doesen't exist right now. The invasion of Iraq was justified on moral
>and
>> >> human rights
>> >> grounds, and does not need further justification. Iraqi's today,
>despite
>> >> the mess in the
>> >> country, are better off now than they were under Saddam.
>> >
>> >I fully agree with you here.
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >> It is a shame that the President has not made this clear. But I can
>tell
>> >> you why he has not,
>> >> because if he did, then he would have to hold his own administration up
>to
>> >> the same moral
>> >> standards. This is why people in the Bush administration have no
>problem
>> >> with basically
>> >> committing treason by revealing the name of one of our better CIA
>agents,
>> >> thank God she
>> >> was in the country when they did it. In short, the Bush administration
>is
>> >> totally morally
>> >> bankrupt. They do not believe that the invasion of Iraq was justified
>on
>> >> moral grounds
>> >> simply because they themselves give absolutely no credit to morality.
>All
>> >> they care about
>> >> is personal power and greed.
>> >>
>> >> Ted
>> >
>> >Your opinion. But if Bush is as bad as you think, how much worse was
>> >Clinton? In my opinion Clinton was by far the worse President this
>country
>> >has ever had, bar none. That is my opinion.
>>
>> Yes, thank goodness our long national nightmare of peace and prosperity
>under
>> Clinton is over.
>
>
>Which Clinton had nothing to do with. The economy was improving when Clinton
>took over. The current recession, however, began thanks to Clinton. The more
>you post, the more people see your ignorance for themselves. Keep it up.
>
>>
>> >My opinion of Lloyd is simple, he is a lying hypocrit.
>> >Why do I say this? If Al Gore had won the election, and had then proceded
>to
>> >deal with Iraq exactly the way Bush has done, Lloyd would be singing his
>> >praises. To Lloyd, as a Liberal he must publicly support any decision
>made
>> >by a Liberal, and he must oppose any decision made by a Conservative.
>Bush
>> >is wrong simply because he is a Repulican instead of a Democrat. I would
>> >support the President in Iraq regardless, not because I wanted this war,
>I
>> >didn't, but because I do feel it had to be done, and better now than
>latter.
>> > You are an intelligent person Ted, I respect your opinion on this, even
>the
>> >parts I disagree with you on.
>> >Lloyd believes himself superior to anyone who isn't a Liberal or a
>> >scientist, so I can't help but take him down a few pegs. Beyond that I
>> >really have no interest in discussing Iraq or politics in general, and I
>> >vote for as many Democrats come election time as I do Republicans,
>depends
>> >on who I think is better qualified.
>> >
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>
>
 
In article <[email protected]>,
"The Ancient One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Gerald G. McGeorge" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> Great reply, Brent. Ask Ted Kennedy & his Hyannisport chums why they're
>> blocking off shore wind turbines. Just another bunch of Liberal NIMBY
>> hypocrites.
>
>The same Ted Kennedy who murded that girl at Chappaquidik and used his name
>to get off.
>

You forgot to claim Clinton murdered Vince Foster.

>
>>
>> > I want a clean world where the environment is protected and not
>destroyed.
>> > This is why I try to buy products made in nations with at least a decent
>> > level of regulation to achieve that goal. However the environmental
>> > movement doesn't stand for that. They stand for some political and
>social
>> > agenda where the USA is considered evil and the standard of living must
>> > be knocked down several pegs. The environment is being used for an
>> > excuse and it sickens me.
>> >
>> > And then guess what happens when someone decides to build a wind farm
>> > near the homes of some rich liberals? They throw a hissy fit.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>
 
In article <[email protected]>,
"Gerald G. McGeorge" <[email protected]> wrote:
>This is the worst crop of candidates the Democrats have yet to put forward.
>Worse, their attacks on the President and national policy coming at a time
>of war,

Which lies got us into.


>articulated for personal partisan gain, are reprehensible and a
>disgrace to the name of their political party.

Like Bush.


>Never in history have we seen
>a major political party so devoid of vision and so obstructionist in its
>actions.

You're an idiot.

>
>None of them has even a remote chance of beating Bush in '04, but in the
>process of all this they give true aid & comfort to the most despicable of
>enemies. (As a former liberal Democrat and McGovern campaign worker, I
>remind people I know losers when I see 'em.) Clark is nothing but a
>chameleon, running as a Democrat because he can't run as a Republican.
>
>The sad part is these assholes have nothing to put forward, except "tax the
>rich" (which really means tax anyone making enough to afford a roof over
>their heads) and "cut & run", proving they're nothing but cowards at heart.
>Imagine the total chaos in the middle east if we were to knee-jerk and pull
>out our troops at this time. But, if they gained power in the process, what
>would these selfish idiots care? Every Democrat since FDR has left a major
>world crisis for his successor to clean up.
>
>The Democrats have not articulated a inspirational, constructive vision
>since Kennedy & Johnson. Indeed, they have not implemented anything truly
>effective (other than confiscating income) since the New Deal. Sad, but
>unavoidable conclusion: they're so bound up in their special interest
>obligations they can't step forward with anything coherent or relevant to
>lead their country. As for Bush, Americans know a real leader when they see
>one. He may have his flaws, but after 9/11 he passed the test with flying
>colors.
>
>
By lying? By running and hiding, like he did when he was in the NG?
 
In article <[email protected]>,
"The Ancient One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Dave Milne" <jeep@_nospam_milne.info> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> Looks like Lloyd replied to every other post except this one. I guess that
>> when he shouts "Learn some science", our educator didn't mean from
>himself.
>> Interesting how he is vocal in criticizing other opinions as long as they
>> don't come from other scientists, and equally has no intention in backing
>up
>> what he believes himself.
>
>Lloyd tries hard to never post facts, because then it is harder for him to
>lie his way out of it. Of course when confronted with facts he can't lie his
>way around he simply doesn't respond.
>

The facts are in the IPCC report, the National Academy of Sciences report.
But you'd have to read to read them, not just cut and paste from your usual
right-wing web sites.

>>
>> Dave Milne, Scotland
>> '99 TJ 4.0 Sahara
>>
>> "Dave Milne" <jeep@_nospam_milne.info> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>> : Lloyd, what's your opinion on the sunspot theory ? This has been a long
>> and
>> : boring thread, but if you can give us an intelligent critique on it, I
>for
>> : one would be genuinely interested.
>> :
>> : Dave Milne, Scotland
>> : '99 TJ 4.0 Sahara
>> :
>> : "Matthew S. Whiting" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> : news:[email protected]...
>> : : And now another theory as to possible causation for global warming:
>> : :
>> : : http://www.drudgereport.com/flash2.htm
>> :
>> :
>>
>>
>
>
 
In article <[email protected]>,
"Douglas A. Shrader" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Did he have them in 2003? If so, where are they?
>>
>>
>
>Yes. Read every post I've made LP, I've answered this a dozen times.

No, you've said they MAY be hidden, they MIGHT have been transferred, PERHAPS
they're buried. If he had them, an imminent threat, ready to use, where are
they?


> You're
>the scientist, you tell me. If an item is created, and is not destroyed in
>anyway, does it still exist?

You're assuming he didn't destroy them. Prove it.

>Your like the little kid who keeps saying "why" everytime it gets an answer,
>no matter how thorough the answer is, until the parent finally has enough
>and states BECAUSE I SAID SO!.
>LP, BECAUSE I SAID SO!!. Now shut up and go to bed, you wish to act like a
>child I'll treat you like one.
>
>
 
Like this?
http://www.visi.com/~timf/Stupid.jpg

--
Jim

"Phil Breau" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Large SUV's are great for bad drivers. It will lessen the likelihood of
> being fatally injured WHEN you get in an accident.
> Read this article
> http://www.divisiontwo.com/articles/parttimemom1.htm
> I used my '89 Horizon as an SUV. True story: I put 4 6x6 16' long timbers
on
> the roof racks. Weighed 500 pounds. Racks were rated for 100 pounds max.
> Let's see you do that with your precious Hummer that you bought with the
> inheritance money mommy and daddy left you with.
>
> Real men don't drive SUV's.
>
> "P e t e F a g e r l i n" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > On 17 Oct 2003 08:52:47 -0700, [email protected] (Dianelos
> > Georgoudis) wrote:
> >
> > >If you care about your personal safety then, clearly, the best
> > >strategy is not to use a SUV but to use a mid-size or large passenger
> > >car.
> >
> > I care not only about my safety, but the safety of my family, so I
> > bought a very safe SUV.
> >
> > Go figure.
> >
>
>


 
Priceless! Notice not only that the death-trap driving idiot overloaded the
feeble suspension on the tin can Jetta, but he appears to have tried to
restrain the load with twine! At least when the idiot's entire load gets
dumped on the highway, those in suvs who hit it will have a chance to
survive. Frankly, it's morons like this who vote for Democrats and believe
in greenhouse gasses!

"TJim" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Like this?
> http://www.visi.com/~timf/Stupid.jpg
>
> --
> Jim
>
> "Phil Breau" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Large SUV's are great for bad drivers. It will lessen the likelihood of
> > being fatally injured WHEN you get in an accident.
> > Read this article
> > http://www.divisiontwo.com/articles/parttimemom1.htm
> > I used my '89 Horizon as an SUV. True story: I put 4 6x6 16' long
timbers
> on
> > the roof racks. Weighed 500 pounds. Racks were rated for 100 pounds max.
> > Let's see you do that with your precious Hummer that you bought with the
> > inheritance money mommy and daddy left you with.
> >
> > Real men don't drive SUV's.
> >
> > "P e t e F a g e r l i n" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > > On 17 Oct 2003 08:52:47 -0700, [email protected] (Dianelos
> > > Georgoudis) wrote:
> > >
> > > >If you care about your personal safety then, clearly, the best
> > > >strategy is not to use a SUV but to use a mid-size or large passenger
> > > >car.
> > >
> > > I care not only about my safety, but the safety of my family, so I
> > > bought a very safe SUV.
> > >
> > > Go figure.
> > >
> >
> >
>
>


 
Lloyd, stop taking all those drugs, it's completely destroying your ability
to reason.

"Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Gerald G. McGeorge" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >This is the worst crop of candidates the Democrats have yet to put
forward.
> >Worse, their attacks on the President and national policy coming at a
time
> >of war,
>
> Which lies got us into.
>
>
> >articulated for personal partisan gain, are reprehensible and a
> >disgrace to the name of their political party.
>
> Like Bush.
>
>
> >Never in history have we seen
> >a major political party so devoid of vision and so obstructionist in its
> >actions.
>
> You're an idiot.
>
> >
> >None of them has even a remote chance of beating Bush in '04, but in the
> >process of all this they give true aid & comfort to the most despicable
of
> >enemies. (As a former liberal Democrat and McGovern campaign worker, I
> >remind people I know losers when I see 'em.) Clark is nothing but a
> >chameleon, running as a Democrat because he can't run as a Republican.
> >
> >The sad part is these assholes have nothing to put forward, except "tax
the
> >rich" (which really means tax anyone making enough to afford a roof over
> >their heads) and "cut & run", proving they're nothing but cowards at
heart.
> >Imagine the total chaos in the middle east if we were to knee-jerk and
pull
> >out our troops at this time. But, if they gained power in the process,
what
> >would these selfish idiots care? Every Democrat since FDR has left a
major
> >world crisis for his successor to clean up.
> >
> >The Democrats have not articulated a inspirational, constructive vision
> >since Kennedy & Johnson. Indeed, they have not implemented anything truly
> >effective (other than confiscating income) since the New Deal. Sad, but
> >unavoidable conclusion: they're so bound up in their special interest
> >obligations they can't step forward with anything coherent or relevant to
> >lead their country. As for Bush, Americans know a real leader when they
see
> >one. He may have his flaws, but after 9/11 he passed the test with flying
> >colors.
> >
> >
> By lying? By running and hiding, like he did when he was in the NG?


 
"Gerald G. McGeorge" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> This is the worst crop of candidates the Democrats have yet to put forward.

Wrong. 1988...

> Worse, their attacks on the President and national policy coming at a time
> of war, articulated for personal partisan gain, are reprehensible and a
> disgrace to the name of their political party.

BWAHAHAHA! I love this particular brand of hypocrisy from
right-wingers.

> Never in history have we seen
> a major political party so devoid of vision and so obstructionist in its
> actions.

Wrong. GOP, 1993.

> None of them has even a remote chance of beating Bush in '04, but in the
> process of all this they give true aid & comfort to the most despicable of
> enemies.

Another bunch of BS from your typical right-winger.

> The sad part is these assholes have nothing to put forward, except "tax the
> rich" (which really means tax anyone making enough to afford a roof over
> their heads) and "cut & run", proving they're nothing but cowards at heart.

Hip deep. Maybe if you stopped listenen to your drug-addled pal on
the radio, you might have a clue.

> Imagine the total chaos in the middle east if we were to knee-jerk and pull
> out our troops at this time.

Enlighten us - when did Clark say this? Dean? Kerry? Edwards?

I guess when you don't have any real argument, you either call names
or just make **** up.

> But, if they gained power in the process, what
> would these selfish idiots care? Every Democrat since FDR has left a major
> world crisis for his successor to clean up.

Truman? Nope.

Carter? LOL. Nope.

Clinton? Only for those folks who want to pin 9/11 on him. Yeah,
those terrorist-hating GOPers really put the screws to Hezbollah in
'83. Or to Libya in '86 ('88??) Kuwait '91? Yeah, if those cowards
would have just done the job right the first time, none of it would
have happened.

> The Democrats have not articulated a inspirational, constructive vision
> since Kennedy & Johnson. Indeed, they have not implemented anything truly
> effective (other than confiscating income) since the New Deal.

Yeah, that "New Frontier" and all that man on the moon stuff was just
a bunch of crap. I getcha. Died under a GOP admin, too.

But really, the GOP hasn't even had a new idea since Lincoln.

> Sad, but
> unavoidable conclusion: they're so bound up in their special interest
> obligations they can't step forward with anything coherent or relevant to
> lead their country.

LOL. Yeah, that GOP sure is altruistic. You right-wingers crack me
up.

> As for Bush, Americans know a real leader when they see
> one.

And the Shrub ain't it. Real leaders know that charging into the guns
isn't leadership unless you can get others to follow. Following one's
convictions doesn't imply that the convictions are based on fact or
are in any way moral. Remember that Bin Laden was following his
convictions, too...

> He may have his flaws, but after 9/11 he passed the test with flying
> colors.

Any monkey in a Brooks Brothers suit could have done the right thing
after 9/11. It really was a no-brainer - just the perfect speed for
this president.

Jonesy
 

"Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "The Ancient One" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >"Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >> In article <[email protected]>,
> >> "Douglas A. Shrader" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >"Ted Mittelstaedt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> >news:[email protected]...
> >> >>
> >> >> "Douglas A. Shrader" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> >> news:[email protected]...
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> > WE know he had them, we don't know what he did with them. If you
> >owned a
> >> >> > house twelve years ago, and you could not provide evidence that
you
> >had
> >> >> sold
> >> >> > it, would it not be logical to assume you still owned it?
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> Not if it was a mobile trailer house, WMD's are generally pretty
> >mobile.
> >> >
> >> >Moving them does not change ownership, nor does it make them cease to
> >exist.
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> In any case who is "we". The CIA certainly wasn't claiming that
Saddam
> >> >had
> >> >> WMD's
> >> >
> >> >In the case of Saddam his chemical and biological weapons are and have
> >> >always been called WMD's, and yes the CIA knew he had them, he has
used
> >them
> >> >at least 12 times.
> >>
> >> Did he have them in 2003? If so, where are they?
> >
> >You know Lloyd, if they made a list of the one hundred dumbest people on
> >earth, you name would be in every spot.
> >If I have something in 1990, and I don't get rid of it, then yes, I will
> >still have it in 2003.
>
> Provide proof. remember, the UN destroyed weapons after the GW I.
>

Prove you have more intelligence than a dead goose, you csn't do it. The
facts are there for you to read, do so. Better yet, get your students to
explain it to you. In a battle of wits, you're not only unarmed, you're
braidnead and ready for buriel. I've wasted enough time on you, but yes,
until they are proven destroyed, which even the UN said they had NOT been,.
(You need to read the news once in awhile Lloyd) then it must be assumed
they still exist and are an imminent threat to US and World security.

>
> > Saddam had them, he never provided any evidence that
> >he destroyed them, so yes, he still has them to this day until and unless
> >proven, PROVEN, otherwise.
>
> OK, you had your baby teeth. Prove you lost them, or we must assume you
still
> have them.
>
> >Where are they? Well hidden, he had twelve years to do so,
>
> Bush claimed there were an imminent threat to us. That means out, ready
to
> use, not hidden. Powell showed the UN pictures of where they allegedly
were.
>
>
> >they may be
> >buired in the desert, he may have transfered them to another country,
until
> >they are found we won't know.
>
> So they weren't ready to be used, an imminent threat to us?
>
>
> >The fact that they are unaccounted for makes
> >it imperative that we keep looking until we do know where they are, or if
he
> >in fact did destroy them, and simply hid that fact in an attempt to bluff
> >us, which is what Hans Blix is suggesting. A suggestion, I might add, he
> >would not have made if he and the inspectors knew they had been
destroyed,
> >which is what you claimed, thus proving you once again a lying asshole.
You
> >really should be taking classes instead of teaching them, you have so
much
> >to learn.
> >
>
> Where are the WMD? Simple question, the thing we went to war over.
>
> >
> >>
> >> >
> >> >> and why did the Bush administraton blow a deep-CIA agent's cover in
> >> >revenge?
> >> >
> >> >Speculation
> >> >
> >> >> And
> >> >> why haven't they come up with the name of the person in the Bush
> >> >> administration who
> >> >> released the name?
> >> >
> >> >You just claimed Bush was responsible, now you admit the identity is
> >> >unknown. I leave speculation to others, the truth will be known
> >eventually.
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> Your wasting your time attempting to use WMD's as a justification
for
> >> >going
> >> >> to war
> >> >> in Iraq. Nukes might have been there 10 years ago, or partial
nukes,
> >but
> >> >> it's preposterous
> >> >> to suggest they were there before the war.
> >> >
> >> >No one, including Bush, has ever claimed Sadam has or ever had Nukes.
The
> >> >claim was that Saddam was trying to aquire them.
> >>
> >> Which turned out to be a lie.
> >
> >Not at all. The claim he tried to aquire weapons grade Uranium from
Nigeria
> >turned out to be a lie, but that does not equate to Saddam seeking to
aquire
> >Nukes being a lie, that remains to be seen.
> >
> >>
> >> >
> >> >The case is a bit stronger for
> >> >> bio agents,
> >> >> but still inconclusive.
> >> >
> >> >How so, when he has used them several times already?
> >>
> >> Where are they?
> >
> >Ther ones he used? Ask the hundreds of thousands of people he killed with
> >them. The fact you are questioning this at all proves you a heartless
> >bastard who would murder your own family if you thought it would benifit
> >you. Your support of a Dictator who murdered for sport is sickening.
> >
> >>
> >> >What further proof could you possibly require that Saddam has them
than
> >the
> >> >fact he has used them repeatedly, both against his own people and
Iran?
> >>
> >> "Has" is present tense. Where are they?
> >
> >You know where they are you lying bastard. Pull your liberal head out of
> >Gores ass and think for yourself, you sound like a parrot.
> >
> >>
> >> >
> >> > It is clearly obvious to anyone with any education
> >> >> that basing the
> >> >> Iraq invasion on WMD was a lie.
> >> >
> >> >Your opinion.
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> However what is not clear to most people, even now it seems, is that
> >WMD's
> >> >> are not
> >> >> the only justification for a unilateral invasion of another country.
> >> >
> >> >I know of no one who thought it was. WMD were only one of the reasons.
> >>
> >> The one given to us by Bush.
> >
> >And Clinton, and Clintons staff.
> >
> >>
> >> >
> >> > Lloyd
> >> >> may be able to
> >> >> make a coherent argument that Bush was lying when Bush used WMD's as
> >> >pretext
> >> >> for
> >> >> going to war in Iraq.
> >> >
> >> >Lloyd is incapable of coherant thought, much less arqument.
> >> >
> >> > But there is absolutely no logical, reasonable, or
> >> >> moral argument
> >> >> Lloyd can make for allowing a dictator to remain in power who for
fun
> >> >would
> >> >> cut the eyes
> >> >> and tongues of people out of their heads, who killed his own brother
in
> >> >> broad daylight
> >> >> and who committed numerous other atrocities. It was a terrible
> >terrible
> >> >> thing for the
> >> >> nations of the world to stand idly by and allow this to continue
year
> >> >after
> >> >> year, and they
> >> >> damn well know it, they know it even now because they all want to
> >pretend
> >> >> that Iraq
> >> >> doesen't exist right now. The invasion of Iraq was justified on
moral
> >and
> >> >> human rights
> >> >> grounds, and does not need further justification. Iraqi's today,
> >despite
> >> >> the mess in the
> >> >> country, are better off now than they were under Saddam.
> >> >
> >> >I fully agree with you here.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> It is a shame that the President has not made this clear. But I can
> >tell
> >> >> you why he has not,
> >> >> because if he did, then he would have to hold his own administration
up
> >to
> >> >> the same moral
> >> >> standards. This is why people in the Bush administration have no
> >problem
> >> >> with basically
> >> >> committing treason by revealing the name of one of our better CIA
> >agents,
> >> >> thank God she
> >> >> was in the country when they did it. In short, the Bush
administration
> >is
> >> >> totally morally
> >> >> bankrupt. They do not believe that the invasion of Iraq was
justified
> >on
> >> >> moral grounds
> >> >> simply because they themselves give absolutely no credit to
morality.
> >All
> >> >> they care about
> >> >> is personal power and greed.
> >> >>
> >> >> Ted
> >> >
> >> >Your opinion. But if Bush is as bad as you think, how much worse was
> >> >Clinton? In my opinion Clinton was by far the worse President this
> >country
> >> >has ever had, bar none. That is my opinion.
> >>
> >> Yes, thank goodness our long national nightmare of peace and prosperity
> >under
> >> Clinton is over.
> >
> >
> >Which Clinton had nothing to do with. The economy was improving when
Clinton
> >took over. The current recession, however, began thanks to Clinton. The
more
> >you post, the more people see your ignorance for themselves. Keep it up.
> >
> >>
> >> >My opinion of Lloyd is simple, he is a lying hypocrit.
> >> >Why do I say this? If Al Gore had won the election, and had then
proceded
> >to
> >> >deal with Iraq exactly the way Bush has done, Lloyd would be singing
his
> >> >praises. To Lloyd, as a Liberal he must publicly support any decision
> >made
> >> >by a Liberal, and he must oppose any decision made by a Conservative.
> >Bush
> >> >is wrong simply because he is a Repulican instead of a Democrat. I
would
> >> >support the President in Iraq regardless, not because I wanted this
war,
> >I
> >> >didn't, but because I do feel it had to be done, and better now than
> >latter.
> >> > You are an intelligent person Ted, I respect your opinion on this,
even
> >the
> >> >parts I disagree with you on.
> >> >Lloyd believes himself superior to anyone who isn't a Liberal or a
> >> >scientist, so I can't help but take him down a few pegs. Beyond that I
> >> >really have no interest in discussing Iraq or politics in general, and
I
> >> >vote for as many Democrats come election time as I do Republicans,
> >depends
> >> >on who I think is better qualified.
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >
> >


 

"Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Douglas A. Shrader" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> Did he have them in 2003? If so, where are they?
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Yes. Read every post I've made LP, I've answered this a dozen times.
>
> No, you've said they MAY be hidden, they MIGHT have been transferred,
PERHAPS
> they're buried. If he had them, an imminent threat, ready to use, where
are
> they?
>
>
> > You're
> >the scientist, you tell me. If an item is created, and is not destroyed
in
> >anyway, does it still exist?
>
> You're assuming he didn't destroy them. Prove it.

Irrelevant. It was up to Saddam, as per the UN resolution which every nation
signed, to prove he had indeed destroyed them. He failed to do so, no
further justification is required.

>
> >Your like the little kid who keeps saying "why" everytime it gets an
answer,
> >no matter how thorough the answer is, until the parent finally has enough
> >and states BECAUSE I SAID SO!.
> >LP, BECAUSE I SAID SO!!. Now shut up and go to bed, you wish to act like
a
> >child I'll treat you like one.
> >
> >


 

"Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Dori Schmetterling" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >I suppose it depends on what you use as definition of the sun. Strictly,
> >the verse implying the sun and the moon certainly comes after plants, but
> >"light" in general came before that.
>
> Did God have a big halogen lamp then?

If God is real, and God created the Universe, then God could have anything
he desired, including a big Halogen light.

>
> >
> >The rest of the sequence is not bad, though, is it?
>
> Which one? The one where man comes first and then animals, or the one
where
> the animals are made first and then man last?
>
> >
> >Then there is the question of the definition of a "day".
>
> If you don't take this part of the Bible literally, how can you demand
people
> take any part of it literally?
>
> >
> >Does Creationism require a belief in Joshua stopping the sun?
>
> Taking the Bible literally does.
>
> >
> >
> >If we had been there in a Sebring convertible with the roof off we could
> >have seen for ourselves.
> >
> >
> >As regards a flood, it is interesting that some sort of flood has been
> >reported in a number of old, unrelated texts, IIRC.
> >
>
> World-wide, as the Bible says? where did the water drain off to?
>
> >DAS


 

"Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "The Ancient One" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >"Gerald G. McGeorge" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >> Great reply, Brent. Ask Ted Kennedy & his Hyannisport chums why they're
> >> blocking off shore wind turbines. Just another bunch of Liberal NIMBY
> >> hypocrites.
> >
> >The same Ted Kennedy who murded that girl at Chappaquidik and used his
name
> >to get off.
> >
>
> You forgot to claim Clinton murdered Vince Foster.

Hmm, didn't know that, tell me more.

>
> >
> >>
> >> > I want a clean world where the environment is protected and not
> >destroyed.
> >> > This is why I try to buy products made in nations with at least a
decent
> >> > level of regulation to achieve that goal. However the environmental
> >> > movement doesn't stand for that. They stand for some political and
> >social
> >> > agenda where the USA is considered evil and the standard of living
must
> >> > be knocked down several pegs. The environment is being used for an
> >> > excuse and it sickens me.
> >> >
> >> > And then guess what happens when someone decides to build a wind farm
> >> > near the homes of some rich liberals? They throw a hissy fit.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >
> >


 

"Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "The Ancient One" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >"Dave Milne" <jeep@_nospam_milne.info> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >> Looks like Lloyd replied to every other post except this one. I guess
that
> >> when he shouts "Learn some science", our educator didn't mean from
> >himself.
> >> Interesting how he is vocal in criticizing other opinions as long as
they
> >> don't come from other scientists, and equally has no intention in
backing
> >up
> >> what he believes himself.
> >
> >Lloyd tries hard to never post facts, because then it is harder for him
to
> >lie his way out of it. Of course when confronted with facts he can't lie
his
> >way around he simply doesn't respond.
> >
>
> The facts are in the IPCC report, the National Academy of Sciences report.
> But you'd have to read to read them, not just cut and paste from your
usual
> right-wing web sites.
>

You mean the same people who claimed we were heading into an ice age 25
years ago should now be believed because they cry global warming. Boy Lloyd,
you're sure gullible, wanna buy a bridge?

> >>
> >> Dave Milne, Scotland
> >> '99 TJ 4.0 Sahara
> >>
> >> "Dave Milne" <jeep@_nospam_milne.info> wrote in message
> >> news:[email protected]...
> >> : Lloyd, what's your opinion on the sunspot theory ? This has been a
long
> >> and
> >> : boring thread, but if you can give us an intelligent critique on it,
I
> >for
> >> : one would be genuinely interested.
> >> :
> >> : Dave Milne, Scotland
> >> : '99 TJ 4.0 Sahara
> >> :
> >> : "Matthew S. Whiting" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> : news:[email protected]...
> >> : : And now another theory as to possible causation for global warming:
> >> : :
> >> : : http://www.drudgereport.com/flash2.htm
> >> :
> >> :
> >>
> >>
> >
> >


 

"Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Dave Milne" <jeep@_nospam_milne.info> wrote:
> >Looks like Lloyd replied to every other post except this one. I guess
that
> >when he shouts "Learn some science", our educator didn't mean from
himself.
> >Interesting how he is vocal in criticizing other opinions as long as they
> >don't come from other scientists, and equally has no intention in backing
up
> >what he believes himself.
>
> Yes, I criticize dithering that doesn't come from science. Consider
yourself
> so criticized.

Then you should critisize every post you make Lloyd, because you haven't
used science yet.

>
> >
> >Dave Milne, Scotland
> >'99 TJ 4.0 Sahara
> >
> >"Dave Milne" <jeep@_nospam_milne.info> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >: Lloyd, what's your opinion on the sunspot theory ? This has been a long
> >and
> >: boring thread, but if you can give us an intelligent critique on it, I
for
> >: one would be genuinely interested.
> >:
> >: Dave Milne, Scotland
> >: '99 TJ 4.0 Sahara
> >:
> >: "Matthew S. Whiting" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >: news:[email protected]...
> >: : And now another theory as to possible causation for global warming:
> >: :
> >: : http://www.drudgereport.com/flash2.htm
> >:
> >:
> >
> >


 
I'll cut to the chase, my well-indoctrinated leftist, I used to be a liberal
Democrat until the lies & hypocrisy became too much to ignore. I register as
an independent and in '00 I voted for Nader. Given the crap the Democrats
are putting up as leaders, I'll vote for Bush this time for sure.

"Jonesy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Gerald G. McGeorge" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> > This is the worst crop of candidates the Democrats have yet to put
forward.
>
> Wrong. 1988...
>
> > Worse, their attacks on the President and national policy coming at a
time
> > of war, articulated for personal partisan gain, are reprehensible and a
> > disgrace to the name of their political party.
>
> BWAHAHAHA! I love this particular brand of hypocrisy from
> right-wingers.
>
> > Never in history have we seen
> > a major political party so devoid of vision and so obstructionist in its
> > actions.
>
> Wrong. GOP, 1993.
>
> > None of them has even a remote chance of beating Bush in '04, but in the
> > process of all this they give true aid & comfort to the most despicable
of
> > enemies.
>
> Another bunch of BS from your typical right-winger.
>
> > The sad part is these assholes have nothing to put forward, except "tax
the
> > rich" (which really means tax anyone making enough to afford a roof over
> > their heads) and "cut & run", proving they're nothing but cowards at
heart.
>
> Hip deep. Maybe if you stopped listenen to your drug-addled pal on
> the radio, you might have a clue.
>
> > Imagine the total chaos in the middle east if we were to knee-jerk and
pull
> > out our troops at this time.
>
> Enlighten us - when did Clark say this? Dean? Kerry? Edwards?
>
> I guess when you don't have any real argument, you either call names
> or just make **** up.
>
> > But, if they gained power in the process, what
> > would these selfish idiots care? Every Democrat since FDR has left a
major
> > world crisis for his successor to clean up.
>
> Truman? Nope.
>
> Carter? LOL. Nope.
>
> Clinton? Only for those folks who want to pin 9/11 on him. Yeah,
> those terrorist-hating GOPers really put the screws to Hezbollah in
> '83. Or to Libya in '86 ('88??) Kuwait '91? Yeah, if those cowards
> would have just done the job right the first time, none of it would
> have happened.
>
> > The Democrats have not articulated a inspirational, constructive vision
> > since Kennedy & Johnson. Indeed, they have not implemented anything
truly
> > effective (other than confiscating income) since the New Deal.
>
> Yeah, that "New Frontier" and all that man on the moon stuff was just
> a bunch of crap. I getcha. Died under a GOP admin, too.
>
> But really, the GOP hasn't even had a new idea since Lincoln.
>
> > Sad, but
> > unavoidable conclusion: they're so bound up in their special interest
> > obligations they can't step forward with anything coherent or relevant
to
> > lead their country.
>
> LOL. Yeah, that GOP sure is altruistic. You right-wingers crack me
> up.
>
> > As for Bush, Americans know a real leader when they see
> > one.
>
> And the Shrub ain't it. Real leaders know that charging into the guns
> isn't leadership unless you can get others to follow. Following one's
> convictions doesn't imply that the convictions are based on fact or
> are in any way moral. Remember that Bin Laden was following his
> convictions, too...
>
> > He may have his flaws, but after 9/11 he passed the test with flying
> > colors.
>
> Any monkey in a Brooks Brothers suit could have done the right thing
> after 9/11. It really was a no-brainer - just the perfect speed for
> this president.
>
> Jonesy


 
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