Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <bn940r$ubtf5$1@ID-207166.news.uni-berlin.de>,
"Joe" <me@privacy.net (jo_ratner@yahoo.com)> wrote:
>"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...
No, the lies are that Iraq has (present tense) WMD, that these WMD posed an
imminent threat to us, that Iraq was trying to buy uranium, that Iraq bought
metal tubing suitable only for enriching uranium, that Saddam harbored
al-Qaida terrorists, that Saddam was in leaque with bin Laden, ...
>
>
>"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:
>"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...
No, the lies are that Iraq has (present tense) WMD, that these WMD posed an
imminent threat to us, that Iraq was trying to buy uranium, that Iraq bought
metal tubing suitable only for enriching uranium, that Saddam harbored
al-Qaida terrorists, that Saddam was in leaque with bin Laden, ...
>
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:bn8mhm$8s6$4@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> In article <bn6g40$u4osv$1@ID-207166.news.uni-berlin.de>,
>> "Joe" <me@privacy.net (jo_ratner@yahoo.com)> wrote:
>> >"Where are the WMD? Facts, please"
>> >Ask Bill Clinton. He said they were there too.
><snip>
>> > If we fail to respond today, Saddam, and all those who would follow in
>his
>> >footsteps, will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act
>> >with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United
>Nations
>> >Security Council, and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction
>> >program.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> So where are those huge quantities? Where is the uranium? Where are
>those
>> drones that could deliver it all here?
>>
>> Lies, all a pack of lies.
>
>
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <bn940r$ubtf5$1@ID-207166.news.uni-berlin.de>,
"Joe" <me@privacy.net (jo_ratner@yahoo.com)> wrote:
>"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...
No, the lies are that Iraq has (present tense) WMD, that these WMD posed an
imminent threat to us, that Iraq was trying to buy uranium, that Iraq bought
metal tubing suitable only for enriching uranium, that Saddam harbored
al-Qaida terrorists, that Saddam was in leaque with bin Laden, ...
>
>
>"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:
>"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...
No, the lies are that Iraq has (present tense) WMD, that these WMD posed an
imminent threat to us, that Iraq was trying to buy uranium, that Iraq bought
metal tubing suitable only for enriching uranium, that Saddam harbored
al-Qaida terrorists, that Saddam was in leaque with bin Laden, ...
>
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:bn8mhm$8s6$4@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> In article <bn6g40$u4osv$1@ID-207166.news.uni-berlin.de>,
>> "Joe" <me@privacy.net (jo_ratner@yahoo.com)> wrote:
>> >"Where are the WMD? Facts, please"
>> >Ask Bill Clinton. He said they were there too.
><snip>
>> > If we fail to respond today, Saddam, and all those who would follow in
>his
>> >footsteps, will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act
>> >with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United
>Nations
>> >Security Council, and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction
>> >program.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> So where are those huge quantities? Where is the uranium? Where are
>those
>> drones that could deliver it all here?
>>
>> Lies, all a pack of lies.
>
>
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <bn940r$ubtf5$1@ID-207166.news.uni-berlin.de>,
"Joe" <me@privacy.net (jo_ratner@yahoo.com)> wrote:
>"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...
No, the lies are that Iraq has (present tense) WMD, that these WMD posed an
imminent threat to us, that Iraq was trying to buy uranium, that Iraq bought
metal tubing suitable only for enriching uranium, that Saddam harbored
al-Qaida terrorists, that Saddam was in leaque with bin Laden, ...
>
>
>"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:
>"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...
No, the lies are that Iraq has (present tense) WMD, that these WMD posed an
imminent threat to us, that Iraq was trying to buy uranium, that Iraq bought
metal tubing suitable only for enriching uranium, that Saddam harbored
al-Qaida terrorists, that Saddam was in leaque with bin Laden, ...
>
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:bn8mhm$8s6$4@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> In article <bn6g40$u4osv$1@ID-207166.news.uni-berlin.de>,
>> "Joe" <me@privacy.net (jo_ratner@yahoo.com)> wrote:
>> >"Where are the WMD? Facts, please"
>> >Ask Bill Clinton. He said they were there too.
><snip>
>> > If we fail to respond today, Saddam, and all those who would follow in
>his
>> >footsteps, will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act
>> >with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United
>Nations
>> >Security Council, and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction
>> >program.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> So where are those huge quantities? Where is the uranium? Where are
>those
>> drones that could deliver it all here?
>>
>> Lies, all a pack of lies.
>
>
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <3F98118D.96748C1C@ptd.net>, Vic Klein <vhklein@ptd.net> wrote:
>Why the reputations are better is likely due to advertising strategy,
>but the facts tell a different story. Comparing actual death rates per
>million registered vehicle years shows the following data (IIHS.ORG):
>
>Mercedes C class = 52
>Volvo 850 - 39
>Ford Expedition 4WD = 39
>
Great. You compare a Mercedes the size of an Escape to an SUV bigger than an
S-class.
> =Vic=
>Bear Gap, PA
>
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>
>> In article <joPlb.7776$Tr4.26144@attbi_s03>, Kevin <Kevin@el.net> wrote:
>> >RJ wrote:
>> >> Nate Nagel <njnagel@hornytoad.net> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>>RJ wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>>Nate Nagel <njnagel@hornytoad.net> wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>>Remember the days when you could buy a wagon and expect to haul
plywood
>> >>>>>and tow a trailer with it?
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>1. No 4x4 (a factor wherever it snows)
>> >>>>2. Those old beasts delivered around 12 mpg.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>If you claim that point 2 is negated by modern technology, everything
>> >>>>I've seen with seriously higher gas mileage is front wheel drive and is
>> >>>>therefore worthless as a towing vehicle.
>> >>>
>> >>>That's not the fault of "passenger cars" per se, it's the fault of CAFE
>> >>>which has killed the full sized car as we once knew it.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> The only true full size car left is the Crown Vic. Still rear wheel
>> > dirve with steel frame. Big fan, and heavy enough to keep you alive.
>> >
>> Then why do many smaller cars -- Volvos, Mercedes, etc. -- have better
safety
>> records and better safety reputations?
>>
>> And ask the hundreds of police officers killed by their CVs exploding and
>> burning them to death about the car keeping you alive. No, wait, you
can't,
>> they're DEAD!
>Why the reputations are better is likely due to advertising strategy,
>but the facts tell a different story. Comparing actual death rates per
>million registered vehicle years shows the following data (IIHS.ORG):
>
>Mercedes C class = 52
>Volvo 850 - 39
>Ford Expedition 4WD = 39
>
Great. You compare a Mercedes the size of an Escape to an SUV bigger than an
S-class.
> =Vic=
>Bear Gap, PA
>
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>
>> In article <joPlb.7776$Tr4.26144@attbi_s03>, Kevin <Kevin@el.net> wrote:
>> >RJ wrote:
>> >> Nate Nagel <njnagel@hornytoad.net> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>>RJ wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>>Nate Nagel <njnagel@hornytoad.net> wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>>Remember the days when you could buy a wagon and expect to haul
plywood
>> >>>>>and tow a trailer with it?
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>1. No 4x4 (a factor wherever it snows)
>> >>>>2. Those old beasts delivered around 12 mpg.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>If you claim that point 2 is negated by modern technology, everything
>> >>>>I've seen with seriously higher gas mileage is front wheel drive and is
>> >>>>therefore worthless as a towing vehicle.
>> >>>
>> >>>That's not the fault of "passenger cars" per se, it's the fault of CAFE
>> >>>which has killed the full sized car as we once knew it.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> The only true full size car left is the Crown Vic. Still rear wheel
>> > dirve with steel frame. Big fan, and heavy enough to keep you alive.
>> >
>> Then why do many smaller cars -- Volvos, Mercedes, etc. -- have better
safety
>> records and better safety reputations?
>>
>> And ask the hundreds of police officers killed by their CVs exploding and
>> burning them to death about the car keeping you alive. No, wait, you
can't,
>> they're DEAD!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <3F98118D.96748C1C@ptd.net>, Vic Klein <vhklein@ptd.net> wrote:
>Why the reputations are better is likely due to advertising strategy,
>but the facts tell a different story. Comparing actual death rates per
>million registered vehicle years shows the following data (IIHS.ORG):
>
>Mercedes C class = 52
>Volvo 850 - 39
>Ford Expedition 4WD = 39
>
Great. You compare a Mercedes the size of an Escape to an SUV bigger than an
S-class.
> =Vic=
>Bear Gap, PA
>
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>
>> In article <joPlb.7776$Tr4.26144@attbi_s03>, Kevin <Kevin@el.net> wrote:
>> >RJ wrote:
>> >> Nate Nagel <njnagel@hornytoad.net> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>>RJ wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>>Nate Nagel <njnagel@hornytoad.net> wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>>Remember the days when you could buy a wagon and expect to haul
plywood
>> >>>>>and tow a trailer with it?
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>1. No 4x4 (a factor wherever it snows)
>> >>>>2. Those old beasts delivered around 12 mpg.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>If you claim that point 2 is negated by modern technology, everything
>> >>>>I've seen with seriously higher gas mileage is front wheel drive and is
>> >>>>therefore worthless as a towing vehicle.
>> >>>
>> >>>That's not the fault of "passenger cars" per se, it's the fault of CAFE
>> >>>which has killed the full sized car as we once knew it.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> The only true full size car left is the Crown Vic. Still rear wheel
>> > dirve with steel frame. Big fan, and heavy enough to keep you alive.
>> >
>> Then why do many smaller cars -- Volvos, Mercedes, etc. -- have better
safety
>> records and better safety reputations?
>>
>> And ask the hundreds of police officers killed by their CVs exploding and
>> burning them to death about the car keeping you alive. No, wait, you
can't,
>> they're DEAD!
>Why the reputations are better is likely due to advertising strategy,
>but the facts tell a different story. Comparing actual death rates per
>million registered vehicle years shows the following data (IIHS.ORG):
>
>Mercedes C class = 52
>Volvo 850 - 39
>Ford Expedition 4WD = 39
>
Great. You compare a Mercedes the size of an Escape to an SUV bigger than an
S-class.
> =Vic=
>Bear Gap, PA
>
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>
>> In article <joPlb.7776$Tr4.26144@attbi_s03>, Kevin <Kevin@el.net> wrote:
>> >RJ wrote:
>> >> Nate Nagel <njnagel@hornytoad.net> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>>RJ wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>>Nate Nagel <njnagel@hornytoad.net> wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>>Remember the days when you could buy a wagon and expect to haul
plywood
>> >>>>>and tow a trailer with it?
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>1. No 4x4 (a factor wherever it snows)
>> >>>>2. Those old beasts delivered around 12 mpg.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>If you claim that point 2 is negated by modern technology, everything
>> >>>>I've seen with seriously higher gas mileage is front wheel drive and is
>> >>>>therefore worthless as a towing vehicle.
>> >>>
>> >>>That's not the fault of "passenger cars" per se, it's the fault of CAFE
>> >>>which has killed the full sized car as we once knew it.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> The only true full size car left is the Crown Vic. Still rear wheel
>> > dirve with steel frame. Big fan, and heavy enough to keep you alive.
>> >
>> Then why do many smaller cars -- Volvos, Mercedes, etc. -- have better
safety
>> records and better safety reputations?
>>
>> And ask the hundreds of police officers killed by their CVs exploding and
>> burning them to death about the car keeping you alive. No, wait, you
can't,
>> they're DEAD!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <3F98118D.96748C1C@ptd.net>, Vic Klein <vhklein@ptd.net> wrote:
>Why the reputations are better is likely due to advertising strategy,
>but the facts tell a different story. Comparing actual death rates per
>million registered vehicle years shows the following data (IIHS.ORG):
>
>Mercedes C class = 52
>Volvo 850 - 39
>Ford Expedition 4WD = 39
>
Great. You compare a Mercedes the size of an Escape to an SUV bigger than an
S-class.
> =Vic=
>Bear Gap, PA
>
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>
>> In article <joPlb.7776$Tr4.26144@attbi_s03>, Kevin <Kevin@el.net> wrote:
>> >RJ wrote:
>> >> Nate Nagel <njnagel@hornytoad.net> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>>RJ wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>>Nate Nagel <njnagel@hornytoad.net> wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>>Remember the days when you could buy a wagon and expect to haul
plywood
>> >>>>>and tow a trailer with it?
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>1. No 4x4 (a factor wherever it snows)
>> >>>>2. Those old beasts delivered around 12 mpg.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>If you claim that point 2 is negated by modern technology, everything
>> >>>>I've seen with seriously higher gas mileage is front wheel drive and is
>> >>>>therefore worthless as a towing vehicle.
>> >>>
>> >>>That's not the fault of "passenger cars" per se, it's the fault of CAFE
>> >>>which has killed the full sized car as we once knew it.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> The only true full size car left is the Crown Vic. Still rear wheel
>> > dirve with steel frame. Big fan, and heavy enough to keep you alive.
>> >
>> Then why do many smaller cars -- Volvos, Mercedes, etc. -- have better
safety
>> records and better safety reputations?
>>
>> And ask the hundreds of police officers killed by their CVs exploding and
>> burning them to death about the car keeping you alive. No, wait, you
can't,
>> they're DEAD!
>Why the reputations are better is likely due to advertising strategy,
>but the facts tell a different story. Comparing actual death rates per
>million registered vehicle years shows the following data (IIHS.ORG):
>
>Mercedes C class = 52
>Volvo 850 - 39
>Ford Expedition 4WD = 39
>
Great. You compare a Mercedes the size of an Escape to an SUV bigger than an
S-class.
> =Vic=
>Bear Gap, PA
>
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>
>> In article <joPlb.7776$Tr4.26144@attbi_s03>, Kevin <Kevin@el.net> wrote:
>> >RJ wrote:
>> >> Nate Nagel <njnagel@hornytoad.net> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>>RJ wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>>Nate Nagel <njnagel@hornytoad.net> wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>>Remember the days when you could buy a wagon and expect to haul
plywood
>> >>>>>and tow a trailer with it?
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>1. No 4x4 (a factor wherever it snows)
>> >>>>2. Those old beasts delivered around 12 mpg.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>If you claim that point 2 is negated by modern technology, everything
>> >>>>I've seen with seriously higher gas mileage is front wheel drive and is
>> >>>>therefore worthless as a towing vehicle.
>> >>>
>> >>>That's not the fault of "passenger cars" per se, it's the fault of CAFE
>> >>>which has killed the full sized car as we once knew it.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> The only true full size car left is the Crown Vic. Still rear wheel
>> > dirve with steel frame. Big fan, and heavy enough to keep you alive.
>> >
>> Then why do many smaller cars -- Volvos, Mercedes, etc. -- have better
safety
>> records and better safety reputations?
>>
>> And ask the hundreds of police officers killed by their CVs exploding and
>> burning them to death about the car keeping you alive. No, wait, you
can't,
>> they're DEAD!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <bn94hv$ut0mr$1@ID-207166.news.uni-berlin.de>,
"Joe" <me@privacy.net (jo_ratner@yahoo.com)> wrote:
>I'd say "all" liberals are guilty of treason...
>
Then you're stupid.
>http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=treason
>
>"Violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign, especially the
>betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by consciously and
>purposely acting to aid its enemies. "
>
>Here's treason defined in Teddy Kennedy's (you know, the murdering liberal
>from MA) state:
>http://www.state.ma.us/legis/laws/mgl/264-1.htm
>"Treason against the commonwealth shall consist only in levying war against
>it, or in adhering to the enemies thereof, giving them aid and comfort; it
>shall not be bailable."
>Note the giving the enemy aid part...
>Punishable by LIFE in prison:
>http://www.state.ma.us/legis/laws/mgl/264-2.htm
>
>
>
>
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:bn8mic$8s6$5@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> In article <bn6g96$tihh9$1@ID-207166.news.uni-berlin.de>,
>> "Joe" <me@privacy.net (jo_ratner@yahoo.com)> wrote:
>> >"You can join Ann Coulter and advocate killing them, I guess"
>> >Well, treason is punishable by death (I think)...
>>
>> I suggest you read the constitution for is "treason" is.
>>
>
>
>
"Joe" <me@privacy.net (jo_ratner@yahoo.com)> wrote:
>I'd say "all" liberals are guilty of treason...
>
Then you're stupid.
>http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=treason
>
>"Violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign, especially the
>betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by consciously and
>purposely acting to aid its enemies. "
>
>Here's treason defined in Teddy Kennedy's (you know, the murdering liberal
>from MA) state:
>http://www.state.ma.us/legis/laws/mgl/264-1.htm
>"Treason against the commonwealth shall consist only in levying war against
>it, or in adhering to the enemies thereof, giving them aid and comfort; it
>shall not be bailable."
>Note the giving the enemy aid part...
>Punishable by LIFE in prison:
>http://www.state.ma.us/legis/laws/mgl/264-2.htm
>
>
>
>
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:bn8mic$8s6$5@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> In article <bn6g96$tihh9$1@ID-207166.news.uni-berlin.de>,
>> "Joe" <me@privacy.net (jo_ratner@yahoo.com)> wrote:
>> >"You can join Ann Coulter and advocate killing them, I guess"
>> >Well, treason is punishable by death (I think)...
>>
>> I suggest you read the constitution for is "treason" is.
>>
>
>
>
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <bn94hv$ut0mr$1@ID-207166.news.uni-berlin.de>,
"Joe" <me@privacy.net (jo_ratner@yahoo.com)> wrote:
>I'd say "all" liberals are guilty of treason...
>
Then you're stupid.
>http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=treason
>
>"Violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign, especially the
>betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by consciously and
>purposely acting to aid its enemies. "
>
>Here's treason defined in Teddy Kennedy's (you know, the murdering liberal
>from MA) state:
>http://www.state.ma.us/legis/laws/mgl/264-1.htm
>"Treason against the commonwealth shall consist only in levying war against
>it, or in adhering to the enemies thereof, giving them aid and comfort; it
>shall not be bailable."
>Note the giving the enemy aid part...
>Punishable by LIFE in prison:
>http://www.state.ma.us/legis/laws/mgl/264-2.htm
>
>
>
>
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:bn8mic$8s6$5@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> In article <bn6g96$tihh9$1@ID-207166.news.uni-berlin.de>,
>> "Joe" <me@privacy.net (jo_ratner@yahoo.com)> wrote:
>> >"You can join Ann Coulter and advocate killing them, I guess"
>> >Well, treason is punishable by death (I think)...
>>
>> I suggest you read the constitution for is "treason" is.
>>
>
>
>
"Joe" <me@privacy.net (jo_ratner@yahoo.com)> wrote:
>I'd say "all" liberals are guilty of treason...
>
Then you're stupid.
>http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=treason
>
>"Violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign, especially the
>betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by consciously and
>purposely acting to aid its enemies. "
>
>Here's treason defined in Teddy Kennedy's (you know, the murdering liberal
>from MA) state:
>http://www.state.ma.us/legis/laws/mgl/264-1.htm
>"Treason against the commonwealth shall consist only in levying war against
>it, or in adhering to the enemies thereof, giving them aid and comfort; it
>shall not be bailable."
>Note the giving the enemy aid part...
>Punishable by LIFE in prison:
>http://www.state.ma.us/legis/laws/mgl/264-2.htm
>
>
>
>
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:bn8mic$8s6$5@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> In article <bn6g96$tihh9$1@ID-207166.news.uni-berlin.de>,
>> "Joe" <me@privacy.net (jo_ratner@yahoo.com)> wrote:
>> >"You can join Ann Coulter and advocate killing them, I guess"
>> >Well, treason is punishable by death (I think)...
>>
>> I suggest you read the constitution for is "treason" is.
>>
>
>
>
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <bn94hv$ut0mr$1@ID-207166.news.uni-berlin.de>,
"Joe" <me@privacy.net (jo_ratner@yahoo.com)> wrote:
>I'd say "all" liberals are guilty of treason...
>
Then you're stupid.
>http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=treason
>
>"Violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign, especially the
>betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by consciously and
>purposely acting to aid its enemies. "
>
>Here's treason defined in Teddy Kennedy's (you know, the murdering liberal
>from MA) state:
>http://www.state.ma.us/legis/laws/mgl/264-1.htm
>"Treason against the commonwealth shall consist only in levying war against
>it, or in adhering to the enemies thereof, giving them aid and comfort; it
>shall not be bailable."
>Note the giving the enemy aid part...
>Punishable by LIFE in prison:
>http://www.state.ma.us/legis/laws/mgl/264-2.htm
>
>
>
>
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:bn8mic$8s6$5@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> In article <bn6g96$tihh9$1@ID-207166.news.uni-berlin.de>,
>> "Joe" <me@privacy.net (jo_ratner@yahoo.com)> wrote:
>> >"You can join Ann Coulter and advocate killing them, I guess"
>> >Well, treason is punishable by death (I think)...
>>
>> I suggest you read the constitution for is "treason" is.
>>
>
>
>
"Joe" <me@privacy.net (jo_ratner@yahoo.com)> wrote:
>I'd say "all" liberals are guilty of treason...
>
Then you're stupid.
>http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=treason
>
>"Violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign, especially the
>betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by consciously and
>purposely acting to aid its enemies. "
>
>Here's treason defined in Teddy Kennedy's (you know, the murdering liberal
>from MA) state:
>http://www.state.ma.us/legis/laws/mgl/264-1.htm
>"Treason against the commonwealth shall consist only in levying war against
>it, or in adhering to the enemies thereof, giving them aid and comfort; it
>shall not be bailable."
>Note the giving the enemy aid part...
>Punishable by LIFE in prison:
>http://www.state.ma.us/legis/laws/mgl/264-2.htm
>
>
>
>
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:bn8mic$8s6$5@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> In article <bn6g96$tihh9$1@ID-207166.news.uni-berlin.de>,
>> "Joe" <me@privacy.net (jo_ratner@yahoo.com)> wrote:
>> >"You can join Ann Coulter and advocate killing them, I guess"
>> >Well, treason is punishable by death (I think)...
>>
>> I suggest you read the constitution for is "treason" is.
>>
>
>
>
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <bn94l7$ubsfu$1@ID-207166.news.uni-berlin.de>,
"Joe" <me@privacy.net (jo_ratner@yahoo.com)> wrote:
>No, I WON'T do it because it's a rat hole... you beleive what you want.
>
>"there are facts supporting creationism."
Liar.
>No to use the friends argument here but the greatest minds in the world all
>thought that the world was flat.
And based on science, discovered it was not.
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:bn8mjb$8s6$6@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> In article <bn6gl7$t5f98$1@ID-207166.news.uni-berlin.de>,
>> "Joe" <me@privacy.net (jo_ratner@yahoo.com)> wrote:
>> >Again, shouldn't be too hard to find "facts" to contradict the facts you
>> >have... No, I'm not going to do it because i know you've heard it all
>> >already...
>>
>> You can't do it because there are none on your side. It's like someone
>> claiming there are facts supporting creationism.
>>
>> >
>> >"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>> >news:bn65gj$f7v$4@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> >> In article <FAllb.10282$W16.1400@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink .net>,
>> >> "Joe" <jo_ratner@NOSPAM.yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> >"global warming is as established fact"
>> >>
>> >> Yes.
>> >>
>> >> >Fact? Every "fact" you post will be contradicted by an equally
>credible
>> >> >fact from the other (correct) side...
>> >>
>> >> No. Look at the scientific literature, look at IPCC, look at NASA,
>look
>> >at
>> >> NOAA, look at EPA, look at National Academy of Sciences.
>> >>
>> >> As I said, it's as settled as atoms, gravity, relativity, evolution,
>etc.
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>> >> >news:bn45qs$beo$1@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> >> >> 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.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >>increases our dependence on foreign oil,
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >We don't depend on foreign oil; you should know that.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Remember what happened the 2 times it was cut off?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >We have made a choice, for economic reasons, to use oil that is
>> >> >> >cheaper to buy than using our own.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> And we couldn't replace it tomorrow, could we?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >Our own oil isn't intrinsically cheaper, but getting iot out of the
>> >> >> >ground has been made much more expensive by government fiat.
>> >> >> >>forces us to spend more on defending those countries,
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Hardly; they can use their own oil profits to defend themselves.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Why did we go to war in Gulf War I? Why do we maintain troops and
>> >ships
>> >> >in
>> >> >> the Persian Gulf?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >Our problem with them is that they want to govern themselves, and
>make
>> >> >> >their own choices as to what friends they make. That we don't like
>> >> >> >their choices shouldn't be used as an excuse for military action.
>> >> >> >>forces us to risk lives defending those countries,
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Where?
>> >> >> >>hurts our balance of payments,
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Brought on by government regulations, which in turn are brought on
>by
>> >> >> >those who would rather see other countries use their oil rather
>than
>> >> >> >our own, claiming that "it's for our children."
>> >> >> >Tree huggers don't seem to have a problem with "raping" other
>> >> >> >countries if it means our children are safe.
>> >> >> >>and increases global warming.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >That's truly laughable.
>> >> >> >What did we do to bring the world out of the last big ice age? BBQ
>too
>> >> >> >many mammoths?
>> >> >> >Why do those who claim "global warming" is both unnatural and our
>> >> >> >fault completely ignore the past?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I suggest you learn some science; global warming is as established
>fact
>> >as
>> >> >> evolution, relativity, quantum behavior, etc.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >>It's laughable that people doing so much to hurt our country drive
>> >> >> >>around with American flags on their SUVs.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >It's also laughable that so many who don't seem to understand their
>> >> >> >own ideals, and the consequences of them, continue to cry that
>those
>> >> >> >who don't believe as they do are trying to hurt the USA.
>> >> >> >For you rinformation, SUVs are not the problem so many seem to
>think
>> >> >> >they are. I'll put the emissions from my SUV against your MB
>anytime.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >
>> >
>
>
"Joe" <me@privacy.net (jo_ratner@yahoo.com)> wrote:
>No, I WON'T do it because it's a rat hole... you beleive what you want.
>
>"there are facts supporting creationism."
Liar.
>No to use the friends argument here but the greatest minds in the world all
>thought that the world was flat.
And based on science, discovered it was not.
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:bn8mjb$8s6$6@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> In article <bn6gl7$t5f98$1@ID-207166.news.uni-berlin.de>,
>> "Joe" <me@privacy.net (jo_ratner@yahoo.com)> wrote:
>> >Again, shouldn't be too hard to find "facts" to contradict the facts you
>> >have... No, I'm not going to do it because i know you've heard it all
>> >already...
>>
>> You can't do it because there are none on your side. It's like someone
>> claiming there are facts supporting creationism.
>>
>> >
>> >"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>> >news:bn65gj$f7v$4@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> >> In article <FAllb.10282$W16.1400@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink .net>,
>> >> "Joe" <jo_ratner@NOSPAM.yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> >"global warming is as established fact"
>> >>
>> >> Yes.
>> >>
>> >> >Fact? Every "fact" you post will be contradicted by an equally
>credible
>> >> >fact from the other (correct) side...
>> >>
>> >> No. Look at the scientific literature, look at IPCC, look at NASA,
>look
>> >at
>> >> NOAA, look at EPA, look at National Academy of Sciences.
>> >>
>> >> As I said, it's as settled as atoms, gravity, relativity, evolution,
>etc.
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>> >> >news:bn45qs$beo$1@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> >> >> 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.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >>increases our dependence on foreign oil,
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >We don't depend on foreign oil; you should know that.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Remember what happened the 2 times it was cut off?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >We have made a choice, for economic reasons, to use oil that is
>> >> >> >cheaper to buy than using our own.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> And we couldn't replace it tomorrow, could we?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >Our own oil isn't intrinsically cheaper, but getting iot out of the
>> >> >> >ground has been made much more expensive by government fiat.
>> >> >> >>forces us to spend more on defending those countries,
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Hardly; they can use their own oil profits to defend themselves.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Why did we go to war in Gulf War I? Why do we maintain troops and
>> >ships
>> >> >in
>> >> >> the Persian Gulf?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >Our problem with them is that they want to govern themselves, and
>make
>> >> >> >their own choices as to what friends they make. That we don't like
>> >> >> >their choices shouldn't be used as an excuse for military action.
>> >> >> >>forces us to risk lives defending those countries,
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Where?
>> >> >> >>hurts our balance of payments,
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Brought on by government regulations, which in turn are brought on
>by
>> >> >> >those who would rather see other countries use their oil rather
>than
>> >> >> >our own, claiming that "it's for our children."
>> >> >> >Tree huggers don't seem to have a problem with "raping" other
>> >> >> >countries if it means our children are safe.
>> >> >> >>and increases global warming.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >That's truly laughable.
>> >> >> >What did we do to bring the world out of the last big ice age? BBQ
>too
>> >> >> >many mammoths?
>> >> >> >Why do those who claim "global warming" is both unnatural and our
>> >> >> >fault completely ignore the past?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I suggest you learn some science; global warming is as established
>fact
>> >as
>> >> >> evolution, relativity, quantum behavior, etc.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >>It's laughable that people doing so much to hurt our country drive
>> >> >> >>around with American flags on their SUVs.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >It's also laughable that so many who don't seem to understand their
>> >> >> >own ideals, and the consequences of them, continue to cry that
>those
>> >> >> >who don't believe as they do are trying to hurt the USA.
>> >> >> >For you rinformation, SUVs are not the problem so many seem to
>think
>> >> >> >they are. I'll put the emissions from my SUV against your MB
>anytime.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >
>> >
>
>
