Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers

SNIP YOUR ****ING POSTS!
<snip>

> Urban myth. A Sudanese man claimed he could deliver bin Laden. Turned
out he couldn't. <

Don't you wish that was the truth??!!

Bush will soon drive the Demo-Losers WILD when his campaign, already well
funded, actually gets in gear. I can't wait to see the Demo-Coward weasels
respond to their pacifist, tyrant-coddling, failed tax & spend cronyism
record. Get used to your Demo-heros losing and being increasingly
irrelevant, Parker.

In article <[email protected]>, Jerry McGeorge wrote:
>> Urban myth. A Sudanese man claimed he could deliver bin Laden. Turned
> out he couldn't. <
>
> Don't you wish that was the truth??!!
>
> Bush will soon drive the Demo-Losers WILD when his campaign, already well
> funded, actually gets in gear. I can't wait to see the Demo-Coward weasels
> respond to their pacifist, tyrant-coddling, failed tax & spend cronyism
> record. Get used to your Demo-heros losing and being increasingly
> irrelevant, Parker.

As if the republicans driving up spending with a war, rebuilding another
country or two, and a huge new entitlement program so ford, GM, and
others can drop their drug coverage for retirees is better? six of one,
half a dozen of the other.

"David J. Allen" wrote:
>
> "Benjamin Lee" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > ...So you are saying we should only teach that America is the perfect
> Country.
> > Everyone else are evil of course what were you thinking. Sounds like
> Soviet
> > Union, Chinese and the North Korea education. There is a difference
> between
> > teaching to hate America and teaching to understand the issues
>
> Oh good heavens no. Education should be dispassionate and fair as much as
> possible. It should not be afraid of making judgements, but to me, the US
> is special in history and has been such a force for good in the world that
> it stuns me that people can want to transform education of the US into a
> long list of evil deeds.
>
> The mistakes the US has made should be taught in context of the truth.
> There is evil in the world. Tyranny and despotism is worth fighting and a
> fight is never clean.
>
> > Politics are
> > influenced by many factors. There are people's prejudice, greed, large
> > corporations involvement as well as people's ego. These influence affect
> the
> > decisions, and there are consequence. Terrorism is in part one of the
> > consequence of our actions. The most important thing in education is to
> show
> > both sides of the issue. The good as well as the bad. The students today
> are
> > going to be voters tomorrow. They need to know what errors to avoid.
> > Look at something easier to understand. Why do blacks in inner city
> America
> > hate the whites so much. They don't wake up one day and decide to hate
> > someone. So much injustice have been done to them in the past that anger
> > builds up.
>
> It works both ways. Why was there such a hatred and distrust of blacks?
> Does anyone ever talk about that? It almost always starts with white racism
> as a given.
>
> > The same thing with the Arabs. If there were no oil in Middle East. I can
> > guarantee you that there would be no terrorism. Go figure. We here quickly
> > forget policies made in the past because it had no consequence us other
> than
> > that it kept our economy going and the oil flowing. Those in countries
> that
> > were affected by our policy can't forget as easily. It is dangerous to
> > ignore the cause of terrorism. Those people who thinks the terrorist are
> > just a bunch of lunatics with no cause are just adding fuel to the fire.
> > Just remember, we have until the terrorist gets their hands on a nuclear
> > weapon to solve this Middle East issue.
> >
>
> You might be suprised to know that people like me believe that it was a
> mistake for the Europeans to go into the world (colonialism) to exploit the
> natural resources of Asia, Africa and America only looking after only
> profits and power instead of the welfare of local populations.
>
> But again, one HAS to remember the context of the time. Almost every place
> the Europeans went, the local populations were barely, if at all, out of the
> stone age. That mattered. There was also the political realities inside
> Europe with wars and threats of war occuring. That mattered.
>
> You can't just start with "whites are racist, therefore...", or "the
> Europeans selfishly exploited their colonial subjects, therefore...".
> Wrong? Mistakes? Sure, but people move on. The bad things we try to fix,
> the good things we try to keep.
>
> The middle east problem would be different or less without oil to be sure.
> But the politics of the middle east are "as much" about the failure of
> middle east countries in to develop their own selves. One reason Israel
> came to be is that there was no prosperous Palestinian nation or culture.
> The whole place was sleepy and backwards. Jews came for years and began to
> use the land prosperously. The nomadic Arabs had no use for oil... at least
> at the time. The power shifted to outsiders. Terrorism is about
> re-acquiring power. They aren't lunatics, but they turn otherwise normal
> people into suicide bombing lunatics. Islam and xenophobia is the hold on
> the people, but if they were solely interested in Islam, in religion, there
> wouldn't be this terrorism.
>
> > Ben
> >
> >
> >

Bravo to you once again, David!

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! =-----

[email protected] (Brent P) wrote in message news:<L9Pqb.98132$mZ5.637079@attbi_s54>...

> In article <[email protected]>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
> > For half a million years, CO2 was around 280 ppm, without much variation. In
> > the last 120 years, it's increased to 350 ppm.
>
> Wrong.
> http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/monnin2001/monnin2001.html
> Levels have been varied considerably between 9,000 and 22,000 years
> ago alone.

Sorry, but the very people who bring you that sort of information are
concerned about manmade CO2 additions, so they must have a perspective
that armchair critics are quick to dismiss.

Ironically, speeding contributes to CO2 buildup by lowering gas
mileage, even in the most efficient cars. Anyone who drives 90 MPH
regularly (in any vehicle) is wasting fuel and pumping out more CO2
than they ought to. With so many drivers speeding, slowing down alone
could cause a notable drop in CO2 output.

If you are inclined to tell me that speeding doesn't reduce
efficiency, read this first:
http://auto.howstuffworks.com/question477.htm

C.T.

In article <[email protected]>, Carl Taylor wrote:
> [email protected] (Brent P) wrote in message news:<L9Pqb.98132$mZ5.637079@attbi_s54>...
>
>> In article <[email protected]>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>
>> > For half a million years, CO2 was around 280 ppm, without much variation. In
>> > the last 120 years, it's increased to 350 ppm.
>>
>> Wrong.
>> http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/monnin2001/monnin2001.html
>> Levels have been varied considerably between 9,000 and 22,000 years
>> ago alone.

> Sorry, but the very people who bring you that sort of information are
> concerned about manmade CO2 additions, so they must have a perspective
> that armchair critics are quick to dismiss.

Parker demands info from the NOAA be used. I proved him wrong with
NOAA data. If you have better data, then present it.

> Ironically, speeding contributes to CO2 buildup by lowering gas
> mileage, even in the most efficient cars. Anyone who drives 90 MPH
> regularly (in any vehicle) is wasting fuel and pumping out more CO2
> than they ought to. With so many drivers speeding, slowing down alone
> could cause a notable drop in CO2 output.

Everything you do is about your idiotic drive slower than carl crusade.
Well Carl, I'll consider your fuel economy arguement to drive slower on the
interstate when you start driving 55mph to save fuel and lead by example.

> If you are inclined to tell me that speeding doesn't reduce
> efficiency, read this first:
> http://auto.howstuffworks.com/question477.htm

Nice rule-of-thumb page. That neglects a whole host of factors.
Why don't you pick up a real automotive text sometime and gain
a real understanding. Better yet, why do *YOU* drive at least 10mph
faster than the 40-60mph recommended by your cite?

And if it wasn't for LLB's like you blocking the passing lane forcing
other drivers to brake and accelerate fuel consumption would go
down as well.

So carl, when you stop blocking other people, get in the right most
lane and drive 55mph, I'll consider your arguements as worthy when
you follow them yourself. Until then, it's just your selfish notion
that you own the roads and nobody should go faster than you and nothing
else.

Ironically, speeding contributes to CO2 buildup by lowering gas
mileage, even in the most efficient cars. Anyone who drives 90 MPH regularly
(in any vehicle) is wasting fuel and pumping out more CO2 than they ought
to. With so many drivers speeding, slowing down alone could cause a notable
drop in CO2 output.<

By reducing sexual acivity, indeed, by embracing celibacy, humans will
exhale less C02, thereby saving the ice caps. All radical green zealots are
therefore to completely refrain from any form of sex in the interests of
saving the planet.

>
> The point is that the Soviets were so aggressive it scared everyone. Even
> the French. Kennedy felt that nuclear war with the Soviets was
inevitable.
> They were practically daring us to use nukes, because they didn't think we
> had the guts to use them and knew they outgunned us otherwise. The
Soviets
> showed very little restraint in pushing for revolution in third world
> countries worldwide.
>

While we are finger pointing, the US was also quite aggressive in using the
first nuclear bomb. We too were agressive in third world countries, Vietnam,
Korea, Afgan. Is not necessary wrong what we did, but just to point out that
both sides were aggressive. It is war after all.

> People mock the US for believing in the domino theory. But, the Soviets
> themselves gave everyone every reason to believe in it. So to dismiss US
> policy as centered on a "phobia" of Communism is trite and shows a
complete
> lack of understanding of the times.
>
>


The real phobia is world wide totalitarianism. That is a valid fear, and it
is to be avoided at all cost. The US did the right thing in preventing the
world from going into a totalitarian society. The US policy is good. Is the
propaganda that is troubling.
There is a difference between communism and the police state. The phobia of
communism is the result of propaganda. As in all wars, there are propaganda
to rally the people. The communism concept should be looked at in light of
its own merit. Just to say there is no merit is to ignorance.


> > Communism is a economic system. It should have nothing to do with how a
> > nation is governed.
> >
>
> Wrong. The means of production is owned by the government. The economy
and
> the government are one. Property is owned by the government. Wages are
> paid by the government. People who seek to enrich themselves above others
> are punished by the government.
>
>

You have just given a text book definition of communism. Your last line
about punishment does not necessary follow prior statments. Yes, factors of
production are owned by the government in a communistic society. The
government would pay the people wage. Does that equate to a police state.
NO, no and no.
Consider these statements:
The government owns the military which has more than enough power to squash
the people like an ant. The president is head of the military. The
government owns the police which has surveilance capability to listen in on
any conversation. The government owns all the record which keeps track of
where each person lives, how much they make, and what they talked about in
newsgroups.
THEREFORE, this country must be a totalitarian state. Wrong.
You must agree government ownership of military is more powerful than
factories. Military can easily bomb the factories. So why is it not
totalitarianism. It is because of checks and balance, and most importantly,
the power of the people to vote. Checks and balance and power to vote are
not exclusive to a capitalistic society. A country with communistic economy
can have the same thing. A major country like that does not currently
exist. But, it does not mean it cannot exist. I am sure there are minor
countries that are communistic with voting power. Propaganda would have you
believe that it cannot exist, so you never even consider the possibility. I
dare you to think outside of the box.



>
> If Socialism is the means of production owned or controlled by the
workers,
> then I'm not so sure the nordic countries qualify because corporations and
> business are privately held. However, they do highly tax themselves and
> provide cradle to grave services. It's a choice they make. The profit
> motive is still there, dampened by high taxes. You can also bet there is
an
> active and thriving secondary economy to get around the high taxes.
>



>
> Democracy always flourishes in at least one form inside Communist
countries.
> People flee.
>
> You may be able to separate Communism and the police state in your mind,
but
> they go hand in hand.
>

>
> Cambodia, North Korea, Albania, Eastern Europe, Cuba, USSR, China, etc.
No
> the public is quite informed of how Communism and the police state go hand
> in hand. I can't think of an example to the contrary.
>

>
> Be careful how you throw the world "socialistic" around. A society that
> chooses to tax itself to this degree is not socialistic. That happens
when
> benefits become rights and society can't vote to untax itself.
>

Yes, you must give stern warning to anyone who "throw the world socialistic
around". It is a sacrilege to "throw" such an evil word around. That
sinister word is to be used with utmost care least you applied it to the
wrong case. Gasp! God help you if you used the word "socialistic" wrong.
Instant burnt at the stake and hell for you.
This is exactly what I meant by phobia of socialism.

I would say a society that use heavy taxation to redistribute wealth so that
eveyone is equal is closer to socialism than capitalism. It might be missing
the part about government ownership of all factories, but the concept is
socialistic. Realisticly, there can never be pure socialism just like there
can never be pure capitalism or pure democracy. Living in an theoretical
world is not practical, and no country can do it. Is all a matter of degree,
and doctrination that is followed.


>
> That's the mistake socialists always make. The presumption that wealth is
a
> constant and must be redistributed equally to be fair. If the profit
motive
> is killed by taxing too high, production diminishes, unemployment rises,
or
> underground markets emerge.
>
> > If everyone made about the same wage, we would all be
> > pretty comfortable
>
> Who do you think would be paying this equal wage?
>

To be sure, there would have to be some reward structure to motivate people.
Money is a good motivator, but not necessary the best. Some people will have
to make more than other up to a certain point. I would say 16 to 1 highest
to lowest paid worker wealth ratio like Ben and Jerry's Ice Cream
Corporation. Problem with unlimited wealth is people do everything to make
more money even at the cost of the environment and the wellfare of the
nation as a whole. Look at Enron. After a certain level, just because a
person makes more money does not mean society as a whole benifit. Look at
Bill Gates and the Microsoft monopoly. We are still using computers that
crash, and are vulnerable to attacks.

> > With such a large underclass in America, the gradual
> > trend towards socialism may be inevitable. All it takes is for them to
> > realize they have voting power too, or somebody to motivate them.
> >
> >
>
> Where've you been? Under a rock? The so called underclass isn't so large
> as you think it is. It's the middle class who's votes carry the most
> weight.
>
>

No, I have not been under a rock. You must have been living under a rock if
you must use personal attacks. It does not take a genius to see that there
are more underclass people than the wealthy. Just go to the local DMV. How
many poor people do you see there. For everyone that works in an air
conditioned office, how many are there that works at low paying jobs. Look
at the statistic. The bottom 40% of the US population owns only .2% of the
total wealth. The bottom 60% owns 5% of the wealth. Now you tell me where is
the middle class? Go read my post again. Yes, middle class do carry the most
vote currently because the poor do not vote. I said WHEN the underclass
learns to vote, there will be no contest.

This is too far from the 4x4 topic.
To bring it back somewhat, I will say driving a bigger than necessary truck
harms the society as a whole. It is a show of wealth. If people are going to
show their wealth, please, just buy some expensive wine or go to an
expensive resturant or something rather than using up natural resource.

In article <0Zrub.38789$Dw6.179152@attbi_s02>,
[email protected] (Brent P) wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> [email protected] (Brent P) wrote:
>>>In article <[email protected]>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>>> [email protected] (Brent P) wrote:
>>>>>In article <[email protected]>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>>>>>>>> So, if say China doesn't like the Republican party here, it's OK for
them
>>>>>>>to help groups try to overthrow the US government?
>
>>>>>>>Kind of like China illegally donating money to AlGore's campaign and
the
>>>>>>>Democrats. I keep forgetting there wasn't any controlling authority and
Al
>>>>>>>had to take a leak from too much tea at the temple.
>
>>>>>> At least the Dems didn't have a Chinese spy on the payroll!
>
>>>>>Interesting, you consider being infiltrated by a chinese spy, having
>>>>>a mole in the organization who is really there working for someone
>>>>>else to be far worse than taking payment from the chinese and then
>>>>>needing to perform for those funds?
>
>>>> I consider it about equal to lying like you're doing.
>
>>>In other words you have no response and attack me by claiming I am
>>>'lying' but not defining about what. Lame Lloyd.
>
>No response from parker.
>
>>>>>What you are saying is that in order to find out what republicans
>>>>>were doing the Chinese had to use traditional spying techniques and have
>>>>>a mole work its way in. But the democrats, all the chinese had to do was
>>>>>go to the top guys and give them some money. So the democrats were
>>>>>easily bought, but the republicans couldn't be and had to be spied on
>>>>>instead.
>
>>>> Bought how?
>
>>>You accepted that the democrats were bought by the chinese via campaign
>>>donations a couple posts ago with your 'but there wasn't a spy' response.
>
>> I accepted none of your lies.
>
>Same tatic as the one before. Attack me with a vague acusation of lying

"performing for those funds" -- you lied.

>instead of responding. The quoted material is at the top of this post.
>Your response is not that what the person you were responding to was
>lying, it was a 'not as bad as'. That is response that accepts what
>the previous person had written but saying it doesn't matter because
>someone else did something worse in your opinion.
>
>Funny thing is, I would consider being infiltrated by a spy to be far
>less serious than supporting that same foreign nation's intrests for
>money.
>
>
>>>>>I don't know about you, but I'd rather require foreign nations to
>>>>>work in spies to get low-level information than have the top people
>>>>>hand stuff over for cash.
>

In article <[email protected]>,
"The Ancient One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> In article <Wcrub.236439$Tr4.695855@attbi_s03>,
>>
>> I accepted none of your lies.
>>
>
>In other words, you've lost yet another argument Lloyd.

Another fool with 3rd grade reading skills, I see.


>You would save
>yourself a world of embarassment if you just stopped replying on subjects
>you know nothing about, your old "he's lying" routine fools no one but you.
>
>

In article <[email protected]>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
> In article <0Zrub.38789$Dw6.179152@attbi_s02>,
> [email protected] (Brent P) wrote:

<snip what parker has no response to>

>>>>>>What you are saying is that in order to find out what republicans
>>>>>>were doing the Chinese had to use traditional spying techniques and have
>>>>>>a mole work its way in. But the democrats, all the chinese had to do was
>>>>>>go to the top guys and give them some money. So the democrats were
>>>>>>easily bought, but the republicans couldn't be and had to be spied on
>>>>>>instead.

>>>>> Bought how?

>>>>You accepted that the democrats were bought by the chinese via campaign
>>>>donations a couple posts ago with your 'but there wasn't a spy' response.

>>> I accepted none of your lies.

>>Same tatic as the one before. Attack me with a vague acusation of lying

> "performing for those funds" -- you lied.

You can't even quote correctly. Honesty problem lloyd?
Here's what I actually wrote:

>->Interesting, you consider being infiltrated by a chinese spy, having
>->a mole in the organization who is really there working for someone
>->else to be far worse than taking payment from the chinese and then
>->needing to perform for those funds?

As can be seen, there is no lie here. But you knew that, your
claim is just to divert away from an issue you've lost the debate
on. Those who take money to run for office do need to perform for their
contributors or they won't get more money. This is a simple fact of
politics in the USA.

>>instead of responding. The quoted material is at the top of this post.
>>Your response is not that what the person you were responding to was
>>lying, it was a 'not as bad as'. That is response that accepts what
>>the previous person had written but saying it doesn't matter because
>>someone else did something worse in your opinion.

>>Funny thing is, I would consider being infiltrated by a spy to be far
>>less serious than supporting that same foreign nation's intrests for
>>money.

Parker has no response.

>>>>>>I don't know about you, but I'd rather require foreign nations to
>>>>>>work in spies to get low-level information than have the top people
>>>>>>hand stuff over for cash.

On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 06:34:55 GMT, "Benjamin Lee"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>While we are finger pointing, the US was also quite aggressive in using the
>first nuclear bomb.


Have you read the book "War's End" by Maj gen Charles W. Sweeney,
(USAF Ret.)? This guy flew with both the Hiroshima and Nagasaki
missions and laid out a pretty good case for why we needed to use
nuclear weapons. Personally, I wouldn't call us "quite aggressive"
given the situation at the time.

Matt
99 V-10 Super Duty, Super Cab 4x4

In article <[email protected]>,
"Jerry McGeorge" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Urban myth. A Sudanese man claimed he could deliver bin Laden. Turned
>out he couldn't. <
>
>Don't you wish that was the truth??!!

I wish you wouldn't get your "facts" from right-wing propaganda sources.

>
>Bush will soon drive the Demo-Losers WILD when his campaign, already well
>funded, actually gets in gear. I can't wait to see the Demo-Coward weasels
>respond to their pacifist, tyrant-coddling, failed tax & spend cronyism
>record. Get used to your Demo-heros losing and being increasingly
>irrelevant, Parker.
>
>

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (Carl Taylor) wrote:
>[email protected] (Brent P) wrote in message
news:<L9Pqb.98132$mZ5.637079@attbi_s54>...
>
>> In article <[email protected]>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>
>> > For half a million years, CO2 was around 280 ppm, without much variation.
In
>> > the last 120 years, it's increased to 350 ppm.
>>
>> Wrong.
>> http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/monnin2001/monnin2001.html
>> Levels have been varied considerably between 9,000 and 22,000 years
>> ago alone.
>
>Sorry, but the very people who bring you that sort of information are
>concerned about manmade CO2 additions, so they must have a perspective
>that armchair critics are quick to dismiss.

Let's see, change of 76 ppm in 6000 years (per that source). Now we've seen
an increase of the same magnitude in 120 years. Do you think there's no
difference?

>
>Ironically, speeding contributes to CO2 buildup by lowering gas
>mileage, even in the most efficient cars. Anyone who drives 90 MPH
>regularly (in any vehicle) is wasting fuel and pumping out more CO2
>than they ought to. With so many drivers speeding, slowing down alone
>could cause a notable drop in CO2 output.
>
>If you are inclined to tell me that speeding doesn't reduce
>efficiency, read this first:
>http://auto.howstuffworks.com/question477.htm
>
>C.T.

In article <[email protected]>, Benjamin Lee wrote:

> While we are finger pointing, the US was also quite aggressive in using the
> first nuclear bomb.

The heart of revisionist history. I've studied the topic of the use of
the atomic bomb and to put a long story short, as horrible as it was it
actually saved lives. An invasion of Japan would have not only been
costly in the lives of US troops but would have killed far more japanese
people than the A-Bombs. Also, there were conventional bombing raids
using hundreds of B29s that were as or more deadly than the A-bomb.
The use of the A-bomb was effective in creating the perception that
hundreds of B29s would soon be droping them. (when in fact, 2 bombs were
all that existed)

In addition, the USA had intercepted a cargo of uranium oxide I think it
was... in any case radioactive materials sent from Germany headed to
Japan for military use. The US had no way of knowing that the this
was the only shipment or not. Japan also planed to use one of it's
sub carriers to launch a plane carrying a dirty bomb to be used on
san franisco. This was planned months in advance to be done in
august and may have occured if the war had continued. (This is
something I've only recently learned from a history channel program
on Japan's advanced weapons programs of WW2)

If the US had not used the A-bombs, the revisionists today would
have had gobs of material to blame the US for un-needed deaths
from an invasion and further conventional bombing raids and the
attacks on US cities japan may have been able do on one-way missions
with dirty bombs. Basically either decision, to use or not to use
would not have pleased critics.

But from everything I've read, pro or con, the A-bomb killed
less than allowing the war to continue.


<snip rest unread>

In article <Q5Mub.184288$mZ5.1334817@attbi_s54>,
[email protected] (Brent P) wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> In article <0Zrub.38789$Dw6.179152@attbi_s02>,
>> [email protected] (Brent P) wrote:
>
><snip what parker has no response to>
>
>>>>>>>What you are saying is that in order to find out what republicans
>>>>>>>were doing the Chinese had to use traditional spying techniques and
have
>>>>>>>a mole work its way in. But the democrats, all the chinese had to do
was
>>>>>>>go to the top guys and give them some money. So the democrats were
>>>>>>>easily bought, but the republicans couldn't be and had to be spied on
>>>>>>>instead.
>
>>>>>> Bought how?
>
>>>>>You accepted that the democrats were bought by the chinese via campaign
>>>>>donations a couple posts ago with your 'but there wasn't a spy' response.
>
>>>> I accepted none of your lies.
>
>>>Same tatic as the one before. Attack me with a vague acusation of lying
>
>> "performing for those funds" -- you lied.
>
>You can't even quote correctly. Honesty problem lloyd?
>Here's what I actually wrote:
>
>>->Interesting, you consider being infiltrated by a chinese spy, having
>>->a mole in the organization who is really there working for someone
>>->else to be far worse than taking payment from the chinese and then
>>->needing to perform for those funds?
>
>As can be seen, there is no lie here.

OK, "needing to perform for those funds." That's your lie. Happy?


>But you knew that, your
>claim is just to divert away from an issue you've lost the debate
>on. Those who take money to run for office do need to perform for their
>contributors or they won't get more money. This is a simple fact of
>politics in the USA.

Sure, if it's passing a bill, or in the case of Bush, giving multi-billion
contracts without bids. But you're accusing Clinton of providing secret
defense info.

>
>>>instead of responding. The quoted material is at the top of this post.
>>>Your response is not that what the person you were responding to was
>>>lying, it was a 'not as bad as'. That is response that accepts what
>>>the previous person had written but saying it doesn't matter because
>>>someone else did something worse in your opinion.
>
>>>Funny thing is, I would consider being infiltrated by a spy to be far
>>>less serious than supporting that same foreign nation's intrests for
>>>money.
>
>Parker has no response.
>
>>>>>>>I don't know about you, but I'd rather require foreign nations to
>>>>>>>work in spies to get low-level information than have the top people
>>>>>>>hand stuff over for cash.
>

In article <[email protected]>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
> In article <Q5Mub.184288$mZ5.1334817@attbi_s54>,

>>Here's what I actually wrote:
>>
>>>->Interesting, you consider being infiltrated by a chinese spy, having
>>>->a mole in the organization who is really there working for someone
>>>->else to be far worse than taking payment from the chinese and then
>>>->needing to perform for those funds?
>>
>>As can be seen, there is no lie here.
>
> OK, "needing to perform for those funds." That's your lie. Happy?

Show that political office holders do not need to perform for the
donations they recieve to run for office, then you can call it
untrue. I believe they perform for their contributors so it cannot
be a lie.

>>But you knew that, your
>>claim is just to divert away from an issue you've lost the debate
>>on. Those who take money to run for office do need to perform for their
>>contributors or they won't get more money. This is a simple fact of
>>politics in the USA.

> Sure, if it's passing a bill, or in the case of Bush, giving multi-billion
> contracts without bids.

Democrats also perform for their contributors. That's the US government
Parker, the best government money can buy.

> But you're accusing Clinton of providing secret
> defense info.

I have not accused clinton of any such thing. Your claims of lies nothing
but your projection.

Clinton and Gore performed well for their contributors, including the
Chinese government by acting to allow profitable business relationships
and US corporations to transfer technology to china in the process of
making money.

"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 <Wcrub.236439$Tr4.695855@attbi_s03>,
> >>
> >> I accepted none of your lies.
> >>
> >
> >In other words, you've lost yet another argument Lloyd.
>
> Another fool with 3rd grade reading skills, I see.
>

Still can't think of an intelligent response can you Lloyd.

>
> >You would save
> >yourself a world of embarassment if you just stopped replying on subjects
> >you know nothing about, your old "he's lying" routine fools no one but
you.
> >
> >

"Benjamin Lee" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> >
> > <snip> The Soviets
> > showed very little restraint in pushing for revolution in third world
> > countries worldwide.
> >
>
> While we are finger pointing, the US was also quite aggressive in using
the
> first nuclear bomb. We too were agressive in third world countries,
Vietnam,
> Korea, Afgan. Is not necessary wrong what we did, but just to point out
that
> both sides were aggressive. It is war after all.
>

The point isn't being "aggressive". Aggression is not good or bad by
itself. The Soviet policy was Socialist revolution in the third world.
Their policy was subversion in western Europe. They fomented revolution in
Korea and Vietnam where the Communists in the north attacked the south, not
the other way around. It was the Soviets who tried to impose Communism in
Afghanistan. Their policy was aggresive expansionism. The bad part of that
sentence is expansionism. The aggressive nature of it made it very scary.


> > People mock the US for believing in the domino theory. But, the Soviets
> > themselves gave everyone every reason to believe in it. So to dismiss
US
> > policy as centered on a "phobia" of Communism is trite and shows a
complete
> > lack of understanding of the times.
> >
>
> The real phobia is world wide totalitarianism. That is a valid fear, and
it
> is to be avoided at all cost. The US did the right thing in preventing the
> world from going into a totalitarian society. The US policy is good. Is
the
> propaganda that is troubling.
> There is a difference between communism and the police state. The phobia
of
> communism is the result of propaganda. As in all wars, there are
propaganda
> to rally the people. The communism concept should be looked at in light of
> its own merit. Just to say there is no merit is to ignorance.
>

Communism had it's chance in the first half of the 20th century. It was
very popular and trendy among the idealists in the west. But Communism
fails on multiple levels and makes it necessary for the government to impose
it. That's why you never see a "free" Communist country. They have to
build walls and fences to keep people in. They must kill those connected to
the bourgoisie past.

>
> > > Communism is a economic system. It should have nothing to do with how
a
> > > nation is governed.
> > >
> > Wrong. The means of production is owned by the government. The economy
and
> > the government are one. Property is owned by the government. Wages are
> > paid by the government. People who seek to enrich themselves above
others
> > are punished by the government.
> >
>
> You have just given a text book definition of communism. Your last line
> about punishment does not necessary follow prior statments.

Yes it does!! Not only are the means of production owned by the government,
but the product itself is owned by the government to distribute equally to
all. Anyone who keeps product for himself is "stealing" from others.
That's why there's no personal liberty in Communist states.

That's why it's hard or impossible to leave a Communist state. They trained
you, so *you* are regarded as a capital asset of the state. They own you.
Leaving is like stealing to enrich yourself. Just think of the Berlin wall,
machine guns, Chinese "boat people", Cubans floating rafts 90 miles to the
Florida Keys, etc.; the list is long.

> Yes, factors of
> production are owned by the government in a communistic society. The
> government would pay the people wage. Does that equate to a police state.
> NO, no and no.

Yes, yes and yes. If there were free will, people would be free to enrich
themselves. And they would try... or leave. When you can't work in your
own self interest, nothing you do affects your well being. That's why
productivity in Communist countries is rock bottom; that's why store shelves
are bare; that's why there's rampant alcoholism; rampant black markets.

> Consider these statements:
> The government owns the military which has more than enough power to
squash
> the people like an ant. The president is head of the military. The
> government owns the police which has surveilance capability to listen in
on
> any conversation. The government owns all the record which keeps track of
> where each person lives, how much they make, and what they talked about in
> newsgroups.
> THEREFORE, this country must be a totalitarian state. Wrong.
> You must agree government ownership of military is more powerful than
> factories. Military can easily bomb the factories. So why is it not
> totalitarianism. It is because of checks and balance, and most
importantly,
> the power of the people to vote. Checks and balance and power to vote are
> not exclusive to a capitalistic society. A country with communistic
economy
> can have the same thing. A major country like that does not currently
> exist. But, it does not mean it cannot exist. I am sure there are minor
> countries that are communistic with voting power. Propaganda would have
you
> believe that it cannot exist, so you never even consider the possibility.
I
> dare you to think outside of the box.
>

You're all wrong here. Personal liberty cannot exist in Communism. A
police state must exist in Communist societies because they must enforce the
interest of the state against the interests of individuals.

In capitalism, the presumption is personal liberty and free enterprise. No
police state necessary. People are free to work in their self interest all
they want.


> >
> > > If everyone made about the same wage, we would all be
> > > pretty comfortable
> >
> > Who do you think would be paying this equal wage?
> >
>
> To be sure, there would have to be some reward structure to motivate
people.
> Money is a good motivator, but not necessary the best. Some people will
have
> to make more than other up to a certain point. I would say 16 to 1 highest
> to lowest paid worker wealth ratio like Ben and Jerry's Ice Cream
> Corporation. Problem with unlimited wealth is people do everything to make
> more money even at the cost of the environment and the wellfare of the
> nation as a whole. Look at Enron. After a certain level, just because a
> person makes more money does not mean society as a whole benifit. Look at
> Bill Gates and the Microsoft monopoly. We are still using computers that
> crash, and are vulnerable to attacks.
>

The problem with what you say is that a society with personal liberty and
free enterprise can't impose upon individuals that they can't make more than
some arbitrary amount or more than someone else. The existense of vast
wealth, vis a vis, Bill Gates is not bad!!!! These people CREATE wealth.
They don't confiscate it from others!!

Monopolistic wealth is a problem. Government does serve the public interest
in regulating free enterpise when it does harm. However, it should do so
carefully and somewhat reluctantly. The best "check and balance" system is
cometition and education.


> > > With such a large underclass in America, the gradual
> > > trend towards socialism may be inevitable. All it takes is for them to
> > > realize they have voting power too, or somebody to motivate them.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Where've you been? Under a rock? The so called underclass isn't so
large
> > as you think it is. It's the middle class who's votes carry the most
> > weight.
> >
> >
>
> No, I have not been under a rock. You must have been living under a rock
if
> you must use personal attacks. It does not take a genius to see that there
> are more underclass people than the wealthy. Just go to the local DMV. How
> many poor people do you see there. For everyone that works in an air
> conditioned office, how many are there that works at low paying jobs. Look
> at the statistic. The bottom 40% of the US population owns only .2% of the
> total wealth. The bottom 60% owns 5% of the wealth. Now you tell me where
is
> the middle class? Go read my post again. Yes, middle class do carry the
most
> vote currently because the poor do not vote. I said WHEN the underclass
> learns to vote, there will be no contest.
>

No personal attack intended. If by "underclass" you mean the poor living in
poverty, you're dead wrong. If you mean people who make less than the likes
of Bill Gates, then there's nothing bad about that. If people weren't free
to create wealth, wealth wouldn't be created.


> This is too far from the 4x4 topic.
> To bring it back somewhat, I will say driving a bigger than necessary
truck
> harms the society as a whole. It is a show of wealth. If people are going
to
> show their wealth, please, just buy some expensive wine or go to an
> expensive resturant or something rather than using up natural resource.
>

> Let's see, change of 76 ppm in 6000 years (per that source). Now we've
seen an increase of the same magnitude in 120 years. Do you think there's
no difference? <

The difference is 1) there's no way you can detect the rate of change over
6000 yeasrs with any degree of certainty, and 2) the second number is pure
bull****, as is this entire theory.