"The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:bnm54u$nk9$13@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> In article <vprkhgchpgi642@corp.supernews.com>,
>> "Douglas A. Shrader" <dshrader@nospam.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>> >news:bnjeoi$b81$1@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> >> In article <vpof02qkahoq17@corp.supernews.com>,
>> >> "The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >
>> >> >> Sure, got to make sure. But the UN couldn't find them, and 150,000
>US
>> >> >troops
>> >> >> haven't found them.
>> >> >
>> >> >Bingo, The UN couldn't find them, although it is well documented that
>> >they
>> >> >existed.
>> >>
>> >> Not in 2003.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >That is why they were still looking, that is why we are still
>> >> >looking. We haven't found Saddam yet either, but we know he exists as
>> >well.
>> >> >Or do you think that is also a lie?
>> >>
>> >> Is he as big as the WMD?
>> >
>> >You do realize Saddam had twelve years in which to hide them. Where is
>Jimmy
>> >Hoffa?
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> We claimed direct evidence and knowledge that WMD were there in 2003.
>
>No, we asked for proof of where they were and if they had been destroyed, as
>per the UN Mandate. Saddam refused to provide said proof. You really are
>dumb aren't you.

And we asserted that the only reason he wouldn't prove they didn't exist
was because he still had them. We were wrong.

Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"

 

"The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:bnm54u$nk9$13@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> In article <vprkhgchpgi642@corp.supernews.com>,
>> "Douglas A. Shrader" <dshrader@nospam.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>> >news:bnjeoi$b81$1@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> >> In article <vpof02qkahoq17@corp.supernews.com>,
>> >> "The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >
>> >> >> Sure, got to make sure. But the UN couldn't find them, and 150,000
>US
>> >> >troops
>> >> >> haven't found them.
>> >> >
>> >> >Bingo, The UN couldn't find them, although it is well documented that
>> >they
>> >> >existed.
>> >>
>> >> Not in 2003.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >That is why they were still looking, that is why we are still
>> >> >looking. We haven't found Saddam yet either, but we know he exists as
>> >well.
>> >> >Or do you think that is also a lie?
>> >>
>> >> Is he as big as the WMD?
>> >
>> >You do realize Saddam had twelve years in which to hide them. Where is
>Jimmy
>> >Hoffa?
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> We claimed direct evidence and knowledge that WMD were there in 2003.
>
>No, we asked for proof of where they were and if they had been destroyed, as
>per the UN Mandate. Saddam refused to provide said proof. You really are
>dumb aren't you.

And we asserted that the only reason he wouldn't prove they didn't exist
was because he still had them. We were wrong.

Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"

 

"Marc" <whineryy@yifan.net> wrote in message
news:vie6qv4cjpqta97uahfeu8asaq72dh3u9p@4ax.com...
> "The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
> >
> >"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
> >news:bnm54u$nk9$13@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> >> In article <vprkhgchpgi642@corp.supernews.com>,
> >> "Douglas A. Shrader" <dshrader@nospam.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
> >> >news:bnjeoi$b81$1@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> >> >> In article <vpof02qkahoq17@corp.supernews.com>,
> >> >> "The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >
> >> >> >> Sure, got to make sure. But the UN couldn't find them, and
150,000
> >US
> >> >> >troops
> >> >> >> haven't found them.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Bingo, The UN couldn't find them, although it is well documented
that
> >> >they
> >> >> >existed.
> >> >>
> >> >> Not in 2003.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> >That is why they were still looking, that is why we are still
> >> >> >looking. We haven't found Saddam yet either, but we know he exists
as
> >> >well.
> >> >> >Or do you think that is also a lie?
> >> >>
> >> >> Is he as big as the WMD?
> >> >
> >> >You do realize Saddam had twelve years in which to hide them. Where is
> >Jimmy
> >> >Hoffa?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> We claimed direct evidence and knowledge that WMD were there in 2003.
> >
> >No, we asked for proof of where they were and if they had been destroyed,
as
> >per the UN Mandate. Saddam refused to provide said proof. You really are
> >dumb aren't you.
>
> And we asserted that the only reason he wouldn't prove they didn't exist
> was because he still had them. We were wrong.
>

Were we? Just because we have not yet found them does not mean he does not
have them.

 

"Marc" <whineryy@yifan.net> wrote in message
news:vie6qv4cjpqta97uahfeu8asaq72dh3u9p@4ax.com...
> "The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
> >
> >"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
> >news:bnm54u$nk9$13@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> >> In article <vprkhgchpgi642@corp.supernews.com>,
> >> "Douglas A. Shrader" <dshrader@nospam.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
> >> >news:bnjeoi$b81$1@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> >> >> In article <vpof02qkahoq17@corp.supernews.com>,
> >> >> "The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >
> >> >> >> Sure, got to make sure. But the UN couldn't find them, and
150,000
> >US
> >> >> >troops
> >> >> >> haven't found them.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Bingo, The UN couldn't find them, although it is well documented
that
> >> >they
> >> >> >existed.
> >> >>
> >> >> Not in 2003.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> >That is why they were still looking, that is why we are still
> >> >> >looking. We haven't found Saddam yet either, but we know he exists
as
> >> >well.
> >> >> >Or do you think that is also a lie?
> >> >>
> >> >> Is he as big as the WMD?
> >> >
> >> >You do realize Saddam had twelve years in which to hide them. Where is
> >Jimmy
> >> >Hoffa?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> We claimed direct evidence and knowledge that WMD were there in 2003.
> >
> >No, we asked for proof of where they were and if they had been destroyed,
as
> >per the UN Mandate. Saddam refused to provide said proof. You really are
> >dumb aren't you.
>
> And we asserted that the only reason he wouldn't prove they didn't exist
> was because he still had them. We were wrong.
>

Were we? Just because we have not yet found them does not mean he does not
have them.

 

"Marc" <whineryy@yifan.net> wrote in message
news:vie6qv4cjpqta97uahfeu8asaq72dh3u9p@4ax.com...
> "The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
> >
> >"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
> >news:bnm54u$nk9$13@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> >> In article <vprkhgchpgi642@corp.supernews.com>,
> >> "Douglas A. Shrader" <dshrader@nospam.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
> >> >news:bnjeoi$b81$1@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> >> >> In article <vpof02qkahoq17@corp.supernews.com>,
> >> >> "The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >
> >> >> >> Sure, got to make sure. But the UN couldn't find them, and
150,000
> >US
> >> >> >troops
> >> >> >> haven't found them.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Bingo, The UN couldn't find them, although it is well documented
that
> >> >they
> >> >> >existed.
> >> >>
> >> >> Not in 2003.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> >That is why they were still looking, that is why we are still
> >> >> >looking. We haven't found Saddam yet either, but we know he exists
as
> >> >well.
> >> >> >Or do you think that is also a lie?
> >> >>
> >> >> Is he as big as the WMD?
> >> >
> >> >You do realize Saddam had twelve years in which to hide them. Where is
> >Jimmy
> >> >Hoffa?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> We claimed direct evidence and knowledge that WMD were there in 2003.
> >
> >No, we asked for proof of where they were and if they had been destroyed,
as
> >per the UN Mandate. Saddam refused to provide said proof. You really are
> >dumb aren't you.
>
> And we asserted that the only reason he wouldn't prove they didn't exist
> was because he still had them. We were wrong.
>

Were we? Just because we have not yet found them does not mean he does not
have them.

 

"Douglas A. Shrader" wrote:
>
> "Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorge@frontier.net> wrote in message
> news:bnnein02qe3@enews4.newsguy.com...
> > Thanks for posting the link & text, Doug. Indeed, back in the mid-70's
> > theses same looney greens took all the "global cooling" crap just as
> > seriously as they do all the hand wringing carbon dioxide theories now.
> >
>
> Your welcome. I remember it very well myself. I've mentioned it to Lloyd
> before, he always said I was lying, there was no proof any scientist had
> made such a claim.
> This article proves LP wrong again, it names names, even National Academy of
> Sciences and NOAA. And as expected, not a word From Lloyd about it. He must
> really hate being proven wrong on every statement he makes. ;-)

Heh heh! I'll bet the Lloyd types are working hard to purge that page
from the internet so they don't have such an uphill battle when debates
on the subject crop up - you know - if you can't produce it, it never
happened - just like they seem to have purged everything of the videos
of Robert Kennedy sitting immediately behind McCarthy during his
hearings, videos that you used to see occasionally up until about 8 or 9
years ago. Must have cost the Kennedys a pretty penny to get rid of
those all over the place.

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! =-----

 

"Douglas A. Shrader" wrote:
>
> "Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorge@frontier.net> wrote in message
> news:bnnein02qe3@enews4.newsguy.com...
> > Thanks for posting the link & text, Doug. Indeed, back in the mid-70's
> > theses same looney greens took all the "global cooling" crap just as
> > seriously as they do all the hand wringing carbon dioxide theories now.
> >
>
> Your welcome. I remember it very well myself. I've mentioned it to Lloyd
> before, he always said I was lying, there was no proof any scientist had
> made such a claim.
> This article proves LP wrong again, it names names, even National Academy of
> Sciences and NOAA. And as expected, not a word From Lloyd about it. He must
> really hate being proven wrong on every statement he makes. ;-)

Heh heh! I'll bet the Lloyd types are working hard to purge that page
from the internet so they don't have such an uphill battle when debates
on the subject crop up - you know - if you can't produce it, it never
happened - just like they seem to have purged everything of the videos
of Robert Kennedy sitting immediately behind McCarthy during his
hearings, videos that you used to see occasionally up until about 8 or 9
years ago. Must have cost the Kennedys a pretty penny to get rid of
those all over the place.

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! =-----

 

"Douglas A. Shrader" wrote:
>
> "Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorge@frontier.net> wrote in message
> news:bnnein02qe3@enews4.newsguy.com...
> > Thanks for posting the link & text, Doug. Indeed, back in the mid-70's
> > theses same looney greens took all the "global cooling" crap just as
> > seriously as they do all the hand wringing carbon dioxide theories now.
> >
>
> Your welcome. I remember it very well myself. I've mentioned it to Lloyd
> before, he always said I was lying, there was no proof any scientist had
> made such a claim.
> This article proves LP wrong again, it names names, even National Academy of
> Sciences and NOAA. And as expected, not a word From Lloyd about it. He must
> really hate being proven wrong on every statement he makes. ;-)

Heh heh! I'll bet the Lloyd types are working hard to purge that page
from the internet so they don't have such an uphill battle when debates
on the subject crop up - you know - if you can't produce it, it never
happened - just like they seem to have purged everything of the videos
of Robert Kennedy sitting immediately behind McCarthy during his
hearings, videos that you used to see occasionally up until about 8 or 9
years ago. Must have cost the Kennedys a pretty penny to get rid of
those all over the place.

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! =-----

 

Brent P wrote:
>
> In article <9327eab3.0310291827.631fffde@posting.google.com >, tortrix wrote:
> > "Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorge@frontier.net> wrote in message news:<bnp3rl0vi8@enews3.newsguy.com>...
> >
> ><fanatical anti-socialist, anti-communist crap snipped>
> >
> >> The bottom line is, CO2 is a non-poisonous, life-sustaining gas.
>
> > Tell that to the Apollo 13 astronauts.
> > What biology course did YOU take? I got two A's in biology.
> > I saw NOWHERE that humans breathe CO2.
> > Get a clue: even chemical engineering and chemistry departments
> > teach us that ANY chemical is toxic enough in high enough doses:
> > even O2 for humans and CO2 for deciduous trees.
>
> Someone is playing usenet games. Nobody is talking about "high enough
> doses" in a closed box. In the global environnment he is correct so
> long as one considers that plants are alive. CO2 is needed for life
> on this planet, it is not poisonous in the levels being discussed (in
> the atmosphere). If you think it's poisonous you shouldn't be in the
> same room with yourself. Because you spew it every momement of every
> day.
>
> > How about the freedom to live in a world with a few trees left,
> > some clean air and water, some privacy free of overpopulation,
> > and where the quality of life is better than death?
>
> Then why do developing nations get a pass? Why is the environmental movement
> not *DEMANDING* that the developing world use known methods of
> protecting the environment? Why is the environmental movement supporting
> policies that will relocate factories from the USA and western europe
> where the environment is protected to nations where it is not protected?
>
> I want a clean world where the environment is protected and not destroyed.
> This is why I try to buy products made in nations with at least a decent
> level of regulation to achieve that goal. However the environmental
> movement doesn't stand for that. They stand for some political and social
> agenda where the USA is considered evil and the standard of living must
> be knocked down several pegs. The environment is being used for an
> excuse and it sickens me.
>
> And then guess what happens when someone decides to build a wind farm
> near the homes of some rich liberals? They throw a hissy fit.

And they'll badmouth mean old big business for moving their operations
offshore to survive. Guess that's a flaw in their plan they didn't
anticipate - but I'm sure they're working on plugging that "loophole" as
we speak to make the knocking down of our standard of living that you
speak of more robust.

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! =-----

 

Brent P wrote:
>
> In article <9327eab3.0310291827.631fffde@posting.google.com >, tortrix wrote:
> > "Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorge@frontier.net> wrote in message news:<bnp3rl0vi8@enews3.newsguy.com>...
> >
> ><fanatical anti-socialist, anti-communist crap snipped>
> >
> >> The bottom line is, CO2 is a non-poisonous, life-sustaining gas.
>
> > Tell that to the Apollo 13 astronauts.
> > What biology course did YOU take? I got two A's in biology.
> > I saw NOWHERE that humans breathe CO2.
> > Get a clue: even chemical engineering and chemistry departments
> > teach us that ANY chemical is toxic enough in high enough doses:
> > even O2 for humans and CO2 for deciduous trees.
>
> Someone is playing usenet games. Nobody is talking about "high enough
> doses" in a closed box. In the global environnment he is correct so
> long as one considers that plants are alive. CO2 is needed for life
> on this planet, it is not poisonous in the levels being discussed (in
> the atmosphere). If you think it's poisonous you shouldn't be in the
> same room with yourself. Because you spew it every momement of every
> day.
>
> > How about the freedom to live in a world with a few trees left,
> > some clean air and water, some privacy free of overpopulation,
> > and where the quality of life is better than death?
>
> Then why do developing nations get a pass? Why is the environmental movement
> not *DEMANDING* that the developing world use known methods of
> protecting the environment? Why is the environmental movement supporting
> policies that will relocate factories from the USA and western europe
> where the environment is protected to nations where it is not protected?
>
> I want a clean world where the environment is protected and not destroyed.
> This is why I try to buy products made in nations with at least a decent
> level of regulation to achieve that goal. However the environmental
> movement doesn't stand for that. They stand for some political and social
> agenda where the USA is considered evil and the standard of living must
> be knocked down several pegs. The environment is being used for an
> excuse and it sickens me.
>
> And then guess what happens when someone decides to build a wind farm
> near the homes of some rich liberals? They throw a hissy fit.

And they'll badmouth mean old big business for moving their operations
offshore to survive. Guess that's a flaw in their plan they didn't
anticipate - but I'm sure they're working on plugging that "loophole" as
we speak to make the knocking down of our standard of living that you
speak of more robust.

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! =-----