Lloyd, how many petroleum based products are in your computer?

"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bn8n2i$8s6$8@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <7OAlb.1739$HS4.3963@attbi_s01>,
> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
> >In article <gqcdpv8kjiq0tr3gbqd96g9fk50jal4l2t@4ax.com>, Bill Funk wrote:
> >> On Tue, 21 Oct 03 16:44:28 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (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, ----------supporting hog. (It still blocks other drivers'
view
> and tends to roll over, however...)

 

"CO2 is produced by human activities"
and nothing else. So there was NO CO2 before humans evolved??


"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bn8mdq$8s6$2@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <gqcdpv8kjiq0tr3gbqd96g9fk50jal4l2t@4ax.com>,
> Bill Funk <bfunk33@qwest.net> wrote:
> >On Tue, 21 Oct 03 16:44:28 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
> >wrote:
> >
> >>In article <3fjapvs1d2qrejkbqd74rkua3k15pfpfvg@4ax.com>,
> >> Bill Funk <bfunk33@qwest.net> wrote:
> >>>On Tue, 21 Oct 03 10:41:33 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
> >>>wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Your SUV uses more natural resources,
> >>>
> >>>Than what? Your MB?
> >>
> >>Than pretty much any CAR.
> >
> >Nice backpeddle.
> >>
> >>>>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?
> >
> >Yup. Do you?
> >No emergencies.
> >Lots of people who still managed to still get on with life.
> >Some people moderately inconvenienced.
>
> I remember what happened to the economy too. When that much money gets
sucked
> out of the economy and sent overseas, when industries shut down for lack
of
> fuel, ...
>
>
> >Many people doing really stupid things like topping off everytime
> >their gas gauges moved off "Full".
> >>
> >>>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?
> >
> >Actually, we could.
>
> With ANWR?
>
>
> >We wouldn't *need* to, though, because we have
> >several days of gas in the pipeline, including the gas in our tanks
> >today.
> >Or are you one of those who tops up whtn the gas gauge moves off
> >"Full"?
> >>
> >>>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?
> >
> >The fact that Kuwait *didn't* do so os not proof that it (or indeed, a
> >coalition of oil producing countries) *can't* do so.
> >They can.
> >Like I said.
> >That they asked for our help doesn't negate any of that.
> >
> >Am I to conclude from what you say that you would prefer to let rogue
> >countries (like Saddam's Iraq) have their way?
>
> We let China, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Israel, etc., have their way now.
It
> seems to depend on Bush's mood each day.
>
> >>
> >>>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.
> >
> >Global warming is indeed an established fact.
> >
> >What's not established is *why* it's happening.
>
> Yes it is. Read the scientific literature. Read the National Academy of
> Sciences report. Read the IPCC report.
>
> >There are those who ignore facts, refuse to admit that this has
> >happened many times before without the help of man, and want to help
> >their agenda by claiming that *this time*, we are at fault.
> >They use computer models to impress the masses, while trying to hide
> >the fact that such models are extremely easy to program (that's all
> >these models are: programs) to show anything the programmer wants.
> >Such "facts" are extremely suspect.
>
> No, computer models are only used to try to predict what GW will be like
in
> the future. We know from data (CO2 is up, temp. is up) and basic
scientific
> principles (CO2 is produced by human activities, CO2 traps heat) what's
> causing GW.
>
> >
> >>
> >>>>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.
> >>>
> >

 

"CO2 is produced by human activities"
and nothing else. So there was NO CO2 before humans evolved??


"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bn8mdq$8s6$2@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <gqcdpv8kjiq0tr3gbqd96g9fk50jal4l2t@4ax.com>,
> Bill Funk <bfunk33@qwest.net> wrote:
> >On Tue, 21 Oct 03 16:44:28 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
> >wrote:
> >
> >>In article <3fjapvs1d2qrejkbqd74rkua3k15pfpfvg@4ax.com>,
> >> Bill Funk <bfunk33@qwest.net> wrote:
> >>>On Tue, 21 Oct 03 10:41:33 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
> >>>wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Your SUV uses more natural resources,
> >>>
> >>>Than what? Your MB?
> >>
> >>Than pretty much any CAR.
> >
> >Nice backpeddle.
> >>
> >>>>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?
> >
> >Yup. Do you?
> >No emergencies.
> >Lots of people who still managed to still get on with life.
> >Some people moderately inconvenienced.
>
> I remember what happened to the economy too. When that much money gets
sucked
> out of the economy and sent overseas, when industries shut down for lack
of
> fuel, ...
>
>
> >Many people doing really stupid things like topping off everytime
> >their gas gauges moved off "Full".
> >>
> >>>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?
> >
> >Actually, we could.
>
> With ANWR?
>
>
> >We wouldn't *need* to, though, because we have
> >several days of gas in the pipeline, including the gas in our tanks
> >today.
> >Or are you one of those who tops up whtn the gas gauge moves off
> >"Full"?
> >>
> >>>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?
> >
> >The fact that Kuwait *didn't* do so os not proof that it (or indeed, a
> >coalition of oil producing countries) *can't* do so.
> >They can.
> >Like I said.
> >That they asked for our help doesn't negate any of that.
> >
> >Am I to conclude from what you say that you would prefer to let rogue
> >countries (like Saddam's Iraq) have their way?
>
> We let China, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Israel, etc., have their way now.
It
> seems to depend on Bush's mood each day.
>
> >>
> >>>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.
> >
> >Global warming is indeed an established fact.
> >
> >What's not established is *why* it's happening.
>
> Yes it is. Read the scientific literature. Read the National Academy of
> Sciences report. Read the IPCC report.
>
> >There are those who ignore facts, refuse to admit that this has
> >happened many times before without the help of man, and want to help
> >their agenda by claiming that *this time*, we are at fault.
> >They use computer models to impress the masses, while trying to hide
> >the fact that such models are extremely easy to program (that's all
> >these models are: programs) to show anything the programmer wants.
> >Such "facts" are extremely suspect.
>
> No, computer models are only used to try to predict what GW will be like
in
> the future. We know from data (CO2 is up, temp. is up) and basic
scientific
> principles (CO2 is produced by human activities, CO2 traps heat) what's
> causing GW.
>
> >
> >>
> >>>>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.
> >>>
> >

 

"CO2 is produced by human activities"
and nothing else. So there was NO CO2 before humans evolved??


"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bn8mdq$8s6$2@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <gqcdpv8kjiq0tr3gbqd96g9fk50jal4l2t@4ax.com>,
> Bill Funk <bfunk33@qwest.net> wrote:
> >On Tue, 21 Oct 03 16:44:28 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
> >wrote:
> >
> >>In article <3fjapvs1d2qrejkbqd74rkua3k15pfpfvg@4ax.com>,
> >> Bill Funk <bfunk33@qwest.net> wrote:
> >>>On Tue, 21 Oct 03 10:41:33 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
> >>>wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Your SUV uses more natural resources,
> >>>
> >>>Than what? Your MB?
> >>
> >>Than pretty much any CAR.
> >
> >Nice backpeddle.
> >>
> >>>>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?
> >
> >Yup. Do you?
> >No emergencies.
> >Lots of people who still managed to still get on with life.
> >Some people moderately inconvenienced.
>
> I remember what happened to the economy too. When that much money gets
sucked
> out of the economy and sent overseas, when industries shut down for lack
of
> fuel, ...
>
>
> >Many people doing really stupid things like topping off everytime
> >their gas gauges moved off "Full".
> >>
> >>>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?
> >
> >Actually, we could.
>
> With ANWR?
>
>
> >We wouldn't *need* to, though, because we have
> >several days of gas in the pipeline, including the gas in our tanks
> >today.
> >Or are you one of those who tops up whtn the gas gauge moves off
> >"Full"?
> >>
> >>>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?
> >
> >The fact that Kuwait *didn't* do so os not proof that it (or indeed, a
> >coalition of oil producing countries) *can't* do so.
> >They can.
> >Like I said.
> >That they asked for our help doesn't negate any of that.
> >
> >Am I to conclude from what you say that you would prefer to let rogue
> >countries (like Saddam's Iraq) have their way?
>
> We let China, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Israel, etc., have their way now.
It
> seems to depend on Bush's mood each day.
>
> >>
> >>>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.
> >
> >Global warming is indeed an established fact.
> >
> >What's not established is *why* it's happening.
>
> Yes it is. Read the scientific literature. Read the National Academy of
> Sciences report. Read the IPCC report.
>
> >There are those who ignore facts, refuse to admit that this has
> >happened many times before without the help of man, and want to help
> >their agenda by claiming that *this time*, we are at fault.
> >They use computer models to impress the masses, while trying to hide
> >the fact that such models are extremely easy to program (that's all
> >these models are: programs) to show anything the programmer wants.
> >Such "facts" are extremely suspect.
>
> No, computer models are only used to try to predict what GW will be like
in
> the future. We know from data (CO2 is up, temp. is up) and basic
scientific
> principles (CO2 is produced by human activities, CO2 traps heat) what's
> causing GW.
>
> >
> >>
> >>>>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.
> >>>
> >

 

"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bn8n6u$8s6$10@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <3F96FF06.5CFC5AD0@kinez.net>,
> Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net> 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.
>

That's funny, if the UN inspectors destroyed them, you would think they
would have remembered that. Was this before or after they were kicked out of
Iraq by Saddam?

> >
> >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.
>

Since Saddam has used them several times in the past, only a totally
braindead Liberal could claim they didn't exist. Question is Where are they
now, not do they exist. If they were destroyed, why couldn't, or wouldn't,
Saddam provide proof of it? Keep posting Lloyd, everytime you do it serves
to educate all the new readers about just how ignorant you truly are.

! =-----

 

"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bn8n6u$8s6$10@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <3F96FF06.5CFC5AD0@kinez.net>,
> Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net> 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.
>

That's funny, if the UN inspectors destroyed them, you would think they
would have remembered that. Was this before or after they were kicked out of
Iraq by Saddam?

> >
> >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.
>

Since Saddam has used them several times in the past, only a totally
braindead Liberal could claim they didn't exist. Question is Where are they
now, not do they exist. If they were destroyed, why couldn't, or wouldn't,
Saddam provide proof of it? Keep posting Lloyd, everytime you do it serves
to educate all the new readers about just how ignorant you truly are.

! =-----

 

"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bn8n6u$8s6$10@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <3F96FF06.5CFC5AD0@kinez.net>,
> Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net> 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.
>

That's funny, if the UN inspectors destroyed them, you would think they
would have remembered that. Was this before or after they were kicked out of
Iraq by Saddam?

> >
> >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.
>

Since Saddam has used them several times in the past, only a totally
braindead Liberal could claim they didn't exist. Question is Where are they
now, not do they exist. If they were destroyed, why couldn't, or wouldn't,
Saddam provide proof of it? Keep posting Lloyd, everytime you do it serves
to educate all the new readers about just how ignorant you truly are.

! =-----

 

"Joe" <me@privacy.net (jo_ratner@yahoo.com)> wrote in message
news:bn940r$ubtf5$1@ID-207166.news.uni-berlin.de...
> "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...
>
>

Why not? Lloyd lies, and he's Liberal, plus Clinton is his hero. If lying
under oath was good enough for slick *****, it's good enough for Lloyd.

> "Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
> news:bn8mhm$8s6$4@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> > In article <bn6g40$u4osv$1@ID-207166.news.uni-berlin.de>,
> > "Joe" <me@privacy.net (jo_ratner@yahoo.com)> 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.
>
>

 

"Joe" <me@privacy.net (jo_ratner@yahoo.com)> wrote in message
news:bn940r$ubtf5$1@ID-207166.news.uni-berlin.de...
> "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...
>
>

Why not? Lloyd lies, and he's Liberal, plus Clinton is his hero. If lying
under oath was good enough for slick *****, it's good enough for Lloyd.

> "Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
> news:bn8mhm$8s6$4@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> > In article <bn6g40$u4osv$1@ID-207166.news.uni-berlin.de>,
> > "Joe" <me@privacy.net (jo_ratner@yahoo.com)> 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.
>
>

 

"Joe" <me@privacy.net (jo_ratner@yahoo.com)> wrote in message
news:bn940r$ubtf5$1@ID-207166.news.uni-berlin.de...
> "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...
>
>

Why not? Lloyd lies, and he's Liberal, plus Clinton is his hero. If lying
under oath was good enough for slick *****, it's good enough for Lloyd.

> "Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
> news:bn8mhm$8s6$4@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> > In article <bn6g40$u4osv$1@ID-207166.news.uni-berlin.de>,
> > "Joe" <me@privacy.net (jo_ratner@yahoo.com)> 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.
>
>