Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#4061
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On Sun, 09 Nov 2003 02:49:07 GMT, tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P)
>In article <221fa157.0311081811.4c9bf6e4@posting.google.com >, st3ph3nm wrote:
>
>>> hijacking of the issue of global warming by groups who are trying to use it as an
>>> excuse for promoting their other unrelated goals.
>
>> What goals could they be?
>
>Social and political ones. (see earlier posts)
Oh, so it's not the economic destructiobn of the US?
>
>Then why does the proposed solution, the kyoto treaty, do nothing but
>encourage the relocation of CO2 output to China, India, and other such
>nations?
>
You're assuming that a belief in global warming also means that you
think Kyoto was a good idea.
>>> If the global warming people are wrong and nothing dramatic
>>> happens, millions of people will be spared the pain of having their lives
>>> rearranged for no reason.
>
>> If they're right, we'll be moving almost 50% of the world's population
>> inland.
>
>And if they are right, then their proposed solution won't stop it.
>It's so obvious that their solution won't stop CO2 based global warming
>that it makes me think that they either *want* it to happen, or know
>it *isn't* going to happen.
>
>>> We will just continue to move most of our CO2
>>> generating industries to third world countries, and in the end, NYC will still be
>>> underwater, and no one will care because everyone will be out of work anyhow.
>
>> What on earth brings you to this conclusion?
>
>The proposed solution to stop global warming by CO2 emissions is to put
>tight controls on developed nations and none on developing nations.
That's not the only option - in fact, it's one which the US should not
agree to.
>All
>this will do is further fuel a relocation of factories to the developing
>nations where they won't have to buy carbon credits. In turn all the
>products will have to be shipped longer distances resulting in *MORE*
>CO2 output per product.
>
>Or do you think that companies will just stop making stuff and go out
>of business? No, they will relocate or be replaced by businesses that
>are in a more favorable environment. So, more CO2 is released into the
>atmosphere. Some solution.
>
>> You talk about the effects on Americans to change the way they live.
>
>And here we hit the nail on the head, it's about telling americans
>how to live. As much as I dislike the wasteful stereotypical american,
>I can't get behind a flawed policy that only has a chance of making
>things worse if the theory is correct.
>
>> I suggest you think more globally, and think about the possibility
>> that no major change needs to occur to any individual for there to be
>> major drops in greenhouse gas emissions. Is anyone put out by
>> clicking on a lower wattage light globe? Is anyone harmed by living
>> in a house that requires dramatically less cooling or heating, due to
>> good design? Does anyone really care what kind of engine gets them to
>> work in the morning? Is anyone hurt by the job opportunities that are
>> created by getting cleaner, more efficient technology up and running a
>> little bit quicker. After all, you have acknowledged the move from
>> fossil fuels is a matter of "when", not "if", so why not now? Even
>> the big oil companies won't lose out: One of the biggest suppliers in
>> Australia of photo-electric cells is BP Solar. Efficiency isn't a bad
>> thing, you know. Nor is change.
>
>I have no problems with conservation, but that's not what the left
>is about in this regard. If they were about conservation they would
>be for limiting *GLOBAL* CO2 output, not that of only selected nations.
>They would be *for* making sure that the developing countries develop
>clean instead of making the same mistakes the 'west' made over again.
>We know better now. When I see a proposed solution that really does
>lower global CO2 output, I can get behind it. Until then, all I see
>is a bunch of people who feel guilty and/or want to punish the USA and
>are using this topic as their tool to do so.
You just want to bash an obviously flawed treaty which the US will never
enter into - got anything ideas on tackling the actual problem?
>
>In article <221fa157.0311081811.4c9bf6e4@posting.google.com >, st3ph3nm wrote:
>
>>> hijacking of the issue of global warming by groups who are trying to use it as an
>>> excuse for promoting their other unrelated goals.
>
>> What goals could they be?
>
>Social and political ones. (see earlier posts)
Oh, so it's not the economic destructiobn of the US?
>
>Then why does the proposed solution, the kyoto treaty, do nothing but
>encourage the relocation of CO2 output to China, India, and other such
>nations?
>
You're assuming that a belief in global warming also means that you
think Kyoto was a good idea.
>>> If the global warming people are wrong and nothing dramatic
>>> happens, millions of people will be spared the pain of having their lives
>>> rearranged for no reason.
>
>> If they're right, we'll be moving almost 50% of the world's population
>> inland.
>
>And if they are right, then their proposed solution won't stop it.
>It's so obvious that their solution won't stop CO2 based global warming
>that it makes me think that they either *want* it to happen, or know
>it *isn't* going to happen.
>
>>> We will just continue to move most of our CO2
>>> generating industries to third world countries, and in the end, NYC will still be
>>> underwater, and no one will care because everyone will be out of work anyhow.
>
>> What on earth brings you to this conclusion?
>
>The proposed solution to stop global warming by CO2 emissions is to put
>tight controls on developed nations and none on developing nations.
That's not the only option - in fact, it's one which the US should not
agree to.
>All
>this will do is further fuel a relocation of factories to the developing
>nations where they won't have to buy carbon credits. In turn all the
>products will have to be shipped longer distances resulting in *MORE*
>CO2 output per product.
>
>Or do you think that companies will just stop making stuff and go out
>of business? No, they will relocate or be replaced by businesses that
>are in a more favorable environment. So, more CO2 is released into the
>atmosphere. Some solution.
>
>> You talk about the effects on Americans to change the way they live.
>
>And here we hit the nail on the head, it's about telling americans
>how to live. As much as I dislike the wasteful stereotypical american,
>I can't get behind a flawed policy that only has a chance of making
>things worse if the theory is correct.
>
>> I suggest you think more globally, and think about the possibility
>> that no major change needs to occur to any individual for there to be
>> major drops in greenhouse gas emissions. Is anyone put out by
>> clicking on a lower wattage light globe? Is anyone harmed by living
>> in a house that requires dramatically less cooling or heating, due to
>> good design? Does anyone really care what kind of engine gets them to
>> work in the morning? Is anyone hurt by the job opportunities that are
>> created by getting cleaner, more efficient technology up and running a
>> little bit quicker. After all, you have acknowledged the move from
>> fossil fuels is a matter of "when", not "if", so why not now? Even
>> the big oil companies won't lose out: One of the biggest suppliers in
>> Australia of photo-electric cells is BP Solar. Efficiency isn't a bad
>> thing, you know. Nor is change.
>
>I have no problems with conservation, but that's not what the left
>is about in this regard. If they were about conservation they would
>be for limiting *GLOBAL* CO2 output, not that of only selected nations.
>They would be *for* making sure that the developing countries develop
>clean instead of making the same mistakes the 'west' made over again.
>We know better now. When I see a proposed solution that really does
>lower global CO2 output, I can get behind it. Until then, all I see
>is a bunch of people who feel guilty and/or want to punish the USA and
>are using this topic as their tool to do so.
You just want to bash an obviously flawed treaty which the US will never
enter into - got anything ideas on tackling the actual problem?
>
#4062
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On Sun, 09 Nov 2003 02:49:07 GMT, tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P)
>In article <221fa157.0311081811.4c9bf6e4@posting.google.com >, st3ph3nm wrote:
>
>>> hijacking of the issue of global warming by groups who are trying to use it as an
>>> excuse for promoting their other unrelated goals.
>
>> What goals could they be?
>
>Social and political ones. (see earlier posts)
Oh, so it's not the economic destructiobn of the US?
>
>Then why does the proposed solution, the kyoto treaty, do nothing but
>encourage the relocation of CO2 output to China, India, and other such
>nations?
>
You're assuming that a belief in global warming also means that you
think Kyoto was a good idea.
>>> If the global warming people are wrong and nothing dramatic
>>> happens, millions of people will be spared the pain of having their lives
>>> rearranged for no reason.
>
>> If they're right, we'll be moving almost 50% of the world's population
>> inland.
>
>And if they are right, then their proposed solution won't stop it.
>It's so obvious that their solution won't stop CO2 based global warming
>that it makes me think that they either *want* it to happen, or know
>it *isn't* going to happen.
>
>>> We will just continue to move most of our CO2
>>> generating industries to third world countries, and in the end, NYC will still be
>>> underwater, and no one will care because everyone will be out of work anyhow.
>
>> What on earth brings you to this conclusion?
>
>The proposed solution to stop global warming by CO2 emissions is to put
>tight controls on developed nations and none on developing nations.
That's not the only option - in fact, it's one which the US should not
agree to.
>All
>this will do is further fuel a relocation of factories to the developing
>nations where they won't have to buy carbon credits. In turn all the
>products will have to be shipped longer distances resulting in *MORE*
>CO2 output per product.
>
>Or do you think that companies will just stop making stuff and go out
>of business? No, they will relocate or be replaced by businesses that
>are in a more favorable environment. So, more CO2 is released into the
>atmosphere. Some solution.
>
>> You talk about the effects on Americans to change the way they live.
>
>And here we hit the nail on the head, it's about telling americans
>how to live. As much as I dislike the wasteful stereotypical american,
>I can't get behind a flawed policy that only has a chance of making
>things worse if the theory is correct.
>
>> I suggest you think more globally, and think about the possibility
>> that no major change needs to occur to any individual for there to be
>> major drops in greenhouse gas emissions. Is anyone put out by
>> clicking on a lower wattage light globe? Is anyone harmed by living
>> in a house that requires dramatically less cooling or heating, due to
>> good design? Does anyone really care what kind of engine gets them to
>> work in the morning? Is anyone hurt by the job opportunities that are
>> created by getting cleaner, more efficient technology up and running a
>> little bit quicker. After all, you have acknowledged the move from
>> fossil fuels is a matter of "when", not "if", so why not now? Even
>> the big oil companies won't lose out: One of the biggest suppliers in
>> Australia of photo-electric cells is BP Solar. Efficiency isn't a bad
>> thing, you know. Nor is change.
>
>I have no problems with conservation, but that's not what the left
>is about in this regard. If they were about conservation they would
>be for limiting *GLOBAL* CO2 output, not that of only selected nations.
>They would be *for* making sure that the developing countries develop
>clean instead of making the same mistakes the 'west' made over again.
>We know better now. When I see a proposed solution that really does
>lower global CO2 output, I can get behind it. Until then, all I see
>is a bunch of people who feel guilty and/or want to punish the USA and
>are using this topic as their tool to do so.
You just want to bash an obviously flawed treaty which the US will never
enter into - got anything ideas on tackling the actual problem?
>
>In article <221fa157.0311081811.4c9bf6e4@posting.google.com >, st3ph3nm wrote:
>
>>> hijacking of the issue of global warming by groups who are trying to use it as an
>>> excuse for promoting their other unrelated goals.
>
>> What goals could they be?
>
>Social and political ones. (see earlier posts)
Oh, so it's not the economic destructiobn of the US?
>
>Then why does the proposed solution, the kyoto treaty, do nothing but
>encourage the relocation of CO2 output to China, India, and other such
>nations?
>
You're assuming that a belief in global warming also means that you
think Kyoto was a good idea.
>>> If the global warming people are wrong and nothing dramatic
>>> happens, millions of people will be spared the pain of having their lives
>>> rearranged for no reason.
>
>> If they're right, we'll be moving almost 50% of the world's population
>> inland.
>
>And if they are right, then their proposed solution won't stop it.
>It's so obvious that their solution won't stop CO2 based global warming
>that it makes me think that they either *want* it to happen, or know
>it *isn't* going to happen.
>
>>> We will just continue to move most of our CO2
>>> generating industries to third world countries, and in the end, NYC will still be
>>> underwater, and no one will care because everyone will be out of work anyhow.
>
>> What on earth brings you to this conclusion?
>
>The proposed solution to stop global warming by CO2 emissions is to put
>tight controls on developed nations and none on developing nations.
That's not the only option - in fact, it's one which the US should not
agree to.
>All
>this will do is further fuel a relocation of factories to the developing
>nations where they won't have to buy carbon credits. In turn all the
>products will have to be shipped longer distances resulting in *MORE*
>CO2 output per product.
>
>Or do you think that companies will just stop making stuff and go out
>of business? No, they will relocate or be replaced by businesses that
>are in a more favorable environment. So, more CO2 is released into the
>atmosphere. Some solution.
>
>> You talk about the effects on Americans to change the way they live.
>
>And here we hit the nail on the head, it's about telling americans
>how to live. As much as I dislike the wasteful stereotypical american,
>I can't get behind a flawed policy that only has a chance of making
>things worse if the theory is correct.
>
>> I suggest you think more globally, and think about the possibility
>> that no major change needs to occur to any individual for there to be
>> major drops in greenhouse gas emissions. Is anyone put out by
>> clicking on a lower wattage light globe? Is anyone harmed by living
>> in a house that requires dramatically less cooling or heating, due to
>> good design? Does anyone really care what kind of engine gets them to
>> work in the morning? Is anyone hurt by the job opportunities that are
>> created by getting cleaner, more efficient technology up and running a
>> little bit quicker. After all, you have acknowledged the move from
>> fossil fuels is a matter of "when", not "if", so why not now? Even
>> the big oil companies won't lose out: One of the biggest suppliers in
>> Australia of photo-electric cells is BP Solar. Efficiency isn't a bad
>> thing, you know. Nor is change.
>
>I have no problems with conservation, but that's not what the left
>is about in this regard. If they were about conservation they would
>be for limiting *GLOBAL* CO2 output, not that of only selected nations.
>They would be *for* making sure that the developing countries develop
>clean instead of making the same mistakes the 'west' made over again.
>We know better now. When I see a proposed solution that really does
>lower global CO2 output, I can get behind it. Until then, all I see
>is a bunch of people who feel guilty and/or want to punish the USA and
>are using this topic as their tool to do so.
You just want to bash an obviously flawed treaty which the US will never
enter into - got anything ideas on tackling the actual problem?
>
#4063
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On Sun, 09 Nov 2003 02:49:07 GMT, tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P)
>In article <221fa157.0311081811.4c9bf6e4@posting.google.com >, st3ph3nm wrote:
>
>>> hijacking of the issue of global warming by groups who are trying to use it as an
>>> excuse for promoting their other unrelated goals.
>
>> What goals could they be?
>
>Social and political ones. (see earlier posts)
Oh, so it's not the economic destructiobn of the US?
>
>Then why does the proposed solution, the kyoto treaty, do nothing but
>encourage the relocation of CO2 output to China, India, and other such
>nations?
>
You're assuming that a belief in global warming also means that you
think Kyoto was a good idea.
>>> If the global warming people are wrong and nothing dramatic
>>> happens, millions of people will be spared the pain of having their lives
>>> rearranged for no reason.
>
>> If they're right, we'll be moving almost 50% of the world's population
>> inland.
>
>And if they are right, then their proposed solution won't stop it.
>It's so obvious that their solution won't stop CO2 based global warming
>that it makes me think that they either *want* it to happen, or know
>it *isn't* going to happen.
>
>>> We will just continue to move most of our CO2
>>> generating industries to third world countries, and in the end, NYC will still be
>>> underwater, and no one will care because everyone will be out of work anyhow.
>
>> What on earth brings you to this conclusion?
>
>The proposed solution to stop global warming by CO2 emissions is to put
>tight controls on developed nations and none on developing nations.
That's not the only option - in fact, it's one which the US should not
agree to.
>All
>this will do is further fuel a relocation of factories to the developing
>nations where they won't have to buy carbon credits. In turn all the
>products will have to be shipped longer distances resulting in *MORE*
>CO2 output per product.
>
>Or do you think that companies will just stop making stuff and go out
>of business? No, they will relocate or be replaced by businesses that
>are in a more favorable environment. So, more CO2 is released into the
>atmosphere. Some solution.
>
>> You talk about the effects on Americans to change the way they live.
>
>And here we hit the nail on the head, it's about telling americans
>how to live. As much as I dislike the wasteful stereotypical american,
>I can't get behind a flawed policy that only has a chance of making
>things worse if the theory is correct.
>
>> I suggest you think more globally, and think about the possibility
>> that no major change needs to occur to any individual for there to be
>> major drops in greenhouse gas emissions. Is anyone put out by
>> clicking on a lower wattage light globe? Is anyone harmed by living
>> in a house that requires dramatically less cooling or heating, due to
>> good design? Does anyone really care what kind of engine gets them to
>> work in the morning? Is anyone hurt by the job opportunities that are
>> created by getting cleaner, more efficient technology up and running a
>> little bit quicker. After all, you have acknowledged the move from
>> fossil fuels is a matter of "when", not "if", so why not now? Even
>> the big oil companies won't lose out: One of the biggest suppliers in
>> Australia of photo-electric cells is BP Solar. Efficiency isn't a bad
>> thing, you know. Nor is change.
>
>I have no problems with conservation, but that's not what the left
>is about in this regard. If they were about conservation they would
>be for limiting *GLOBAL* CO2 output, not that of only selected nations.
>They would be *for* making sure that the developing countries develop
>clean instead of making the same mistakes the 'west' made over again.
>We know better now. When I see a proposed solution that really does
>lower global CO2 output, I can get behind it. Until then, all I see
>is a bunch of people who feel guilty and/or want to punish the USA and
>are using this topic as their tool to do so.
You just want to bash an obviously flawed treaty which the US will never
enter into - got anything ideas on tackling the actual problem?
>
>In article <221fa157.0311081811.4c9bf6e4@posting.google.com >, st3ph3nm wrote:
>
>>> hijacking of the issue of global warming by groups who are trying to use it as an
>>> excuse for promoting their other unrelated goals.
>
>> What goals could they be?
>
>Social and political ones. (see earlier posts)
Oh, so it's not the economic destructiobn of the US?
>
>Then why does the proposed solution, the kyoto treaty, do nothing but
>encourage the relocation of CO2 output to China, India, and other such
>nations?
>
You're assuming that a belief in global warming also means that you
think Kyoto was a good idea.
>>> If the global warming people are wrong and nothing dramatic
>>> happens, millions of people will be spared the pain of having their lives
>>> rearranged for no reason.
>
>> If they're right, we'll be moving almost 50% of the world's population
>> inland.
>
>And if they are right, then their proposed solution won't stop it.
>It's so obvious that their solution won't stop CO2 based global warming
>that it makes me think that they either *want* it to happen, or know
>it *isn't* going to happen.
>
>>> We will just continue to move most of our CO2
>>> generating industries to third world countries, and in the end, NYC will still be
>>> underwater, and no one will care because everyone will be out of work anyhow.
>
>> What on earth brings you to this conclusion?
>
>The proposed solution to stop global warming by CO2 emissions is to put
>tight controls on developed nations and none on developing nations.
That's not the only option - in fact, it's one which the US should not
agree to.
>All
>this will do is further fuel a relocation of factories to the developing
>nations where they won't have to buy carbon credits. In turn all the
>products will have to be shipped longer distances resulting in *MORE*
>CO2 output per product.
>
>Or do you think that companies will just stop making stuff and go out
>of business? No, they will relocate or be replaced by businesses that
>are in a more favorable environment. So, more CO2 is released into the
>atmosphere. Some solution.
>
>> You talk about the effects on Americans to change the way they live.
>
>And here we hit the nail on the head, it's about telling americans
>how to live. As much as I dislike the wasteful stereotypical american,
>I can't get behind a flawed policy that only has a chance of making
>things worse if the theory is correct.
>
>> I suggest you think more globally, and think about the possibility
>> that no major change needs to occur to any individual for there to be
>> major drops in greenhouse gas emissions. Is anyone put out by
>> clicking on a lower wattage light globe? Is anyone harmed by living
>> in a house that requires dramatically less cooling or heating, due to
>> good design? Does anyone really care what kind of engine gets them to
>> work in the morning? Is anyone hurt by the job opportunities that are
>> created by getting cleaner, more efficient technology up and running a
>> little bit quicker. After all, you have acknowledged the move from
>> fossil fuels is a matter of "when", not "if", so why not now? Even
>> the big oil companies won't lose out: One of the biggest suppliers in
>> Australia of photo-electric cells is BP Solar. Efficiency isn't a bad
>> thing, you know. Nor is change.
>
>I have no problems with conservation, but that's not what the left
>is about in this regard. If they were about conservation they would
>be for limiting *GLOBAL* CO2 output, not that of only selected nations.
>They would be *for* making sure that the developing countries develop
>clean instead of making the same mistakes the 'west' made over again.
>We know better now. When I see a proposed solution that really does
>lower global CO2 output, I can get behind it. Until then, all I see
>is a bunch of people who feel guilty and/or want to punish the USA and
>are using this topic as their tool to do so.
You just want to bash an obviously flawed treaty which the US will never
enter into - got anything ideas on tackling the actual problem?
>
#4064
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
> Apparently Dean felt that people should have been offended by his own
> remarks since he personally felt compelled to apologize to Reverend Al
> for having made them. Again, since I believe whatever liberals say, I
Actually, I read his apology. It was better than I thought. He
apologized for hurting Al's feelings. Not for making the statement.
There's a BIG difference.
> > Do you seriously think that Al Sharpton was offended by Dean?
> I think that the character that Sharpton plays demands that he pretend to
> be offended. Maybe that's what you think he's doing? Or do you think
> he's genuinely offended?
I think he's playing. I agree with you here.
> The point in my original post was that Dean (and all the other
> "candidates") is deparately trying to convince people to vote for him,
Yes. Of course, that is the nature of politics. The question, when
you vote, is not whther the candidate is trying to get your vote. The
question is how.
Dean is raising money in a grassroots camapaign, and he publishes all
his policies, in detail, on his website.
http://www.deanforamerica.com/ (Click on the issues)
You can't say that about any other of the top candidates.
> gets elected. All the candidates know this, but he basically stepped on
> his dork trying to appease certain "favored" groups and in that attempt
I would contend that offending Al Sharpton and raising a brouhaha in
the media is NOT a bad thing for Dean. I would contend that this is
precisely the sort of incident that will make him more popular with
people like you and I. Although less popular wih a minority of angry
idiots that won't matter in the long run.
> remarks since he personally felt compelled to apologize to Reverend Al
> for having made them. Again, since I believe whatever liberals say, I
Actually, I read his apology. It was better than I thought. He
apologized for hurting Al's feelings. Not for making the statement.
There's a BIG difference.
> > Do you seriously think that Al Sharpton was offended by Dean?
> I think that the character that Sharpton plays demands that he pretend to
> be offended. Maybe that's what you think he's doing? Or do you think
> he's genuinely offended?
I think he's playing. I agree with you here.
> The point in my original post was that Dean (and all the other
> "candidates") is deparately trying to convince people to vote for him,
Yes. Of course, that is the nature of politics. The question, when
you vote, is not whther the candidate is trying to get your vote. The
question is how.
Dean is raising money in a grassroots camapaign, and he publishes all
his policies, in detail, on his website.
http://www.deanforamerica.com/ (Click on the issues)
You can't say that about any other of the top candidates.
> gets elected. All the candidates know this, but he basically stepped on
> his dork trying to appease certain "favored" groups and in that attempt
I would contend that offending Al Sharpton and raising a brouhaha in
the media is NOT a bad thing for Dean. I would contend that this is
precisely the sort of incident that will make him more popular with
people like you and I. Although less popular wih a minority of angry
idiots that won't matter in the long run.
#4065
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
> Apparently Dean felt that people should have been offended by his own
> remarks since he personally felt compelled to apologize to Reverend Al
> for having made them. Again, since I believe whatever liberals say, I
Actually, I read his apology. It was better than I thought. He
apologized for hurting Al's feelings. Not for making the statement.
There's a BIG difference.
> > Do you seriously think that Al Sharpton was offended by Dean?
> I think that the character that Sharpton plays demands that he pretend to
> be offended. Maybe that's what you think he's doing? Or do you think
> he's genuinely offended?
I think he's playing. I agree with you here.
> The point in my original post was that Dean (and all the other
> "candidates") is deparately trying to convince people to vote for him,
Yes. Of course, that is the nature of politics. The question, when
you vote, is not whther the candidate is trying to get your vote. The
question is how.
Dean is raising money in a grassroots camapaign, and he publishes all
his policies, in detail, on his website.
http://www.deanforamerica.com/ (Click on the issues)
You can't say that about any other of the top candidates.
> gets elected. All the candidates know this, but he basically stepped on
> his dork trying to appease certain "favored" groups and in that attempt
I would contend that offending Al Sharpton and raising a brouhaha in
the media is NOT a bad thing for Dean. I would contend that this is
precisely the sort of incident that will make him more popular with
people like you and I. Although less popular wih a minority of angry
idiots that won't matter in the long run.
> remarks since he personally felt compelled to apologize to Reverend Al
> for having made them. Again, since I believe whatever liberals say, I
Actually, I read his apology. It was better than I thought. He
apologized for hurting Al's feelings. Not for making the statement.
There's a BIG difference.
> > Do you seriously think that Al Sharpton was offended by Dean?
> I think that the character that Sharpton plays demands that he pretend to
> be offended. Maybe that's what you think he's doing? Or do you think
> he's genuinely offended?
I think he's playing. I agree with you here.
> The point in my original post was that Dean (and all the other
> "candidates") is deparately trying to convince people to vote for him,
Yes. Of course, that is the nature of politics. The question, when
you vote, is not whther the candidate is trying to get your vote. The
question is how.
Dean is raising money in a grassroots camapaign, and he publishes all
his policies, in detail, on his website.
http://www.deanforamerica.com/ (Click on the issues)
You can't say that about any other of the top candidates.
> gets elected. All the candidates know this, but he basically stepped on
> his dork trying to appease certain "favored" groups and in that attempt
I would contend that offending Al Sharpton and raising a brouhaha in
the media is NOT a bad thing for Dean. I would contend that this is
precisely the sort of incident that will make him more popular with
people like you and I. Although less popular wih a minority of angry
idiots that won't matter in the long run.
#4066
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
> Apparently Dean felt that people should have been offended by his own
> remarks since he personally felt compelled to apologize to Reverend Al
> for having made them. Again, since I believe whatever liberals say, I
Actually, I read his apology. It was better than I thought. He
apologized for hurting Al's feelings. Not for making the statement.
There's a BIG difference.
> > Do you seriously think that Al Sharpton was offended by Dean?
> I think that the character that Sharpton plays demands that he pretend to
> be offended. Maybe that's what you think he's doing? Or do you think
> he's genuinely offended?
I think he's playing. I agree with you here.
> The point in my original post was that Dean (and all the other
> "candidates") is deparately trying to convince people to vote for him,
Yes. Of course, that is the nature of politics. The question, when
you vote, is not whther the candidate is trying to get your vote. The
question is how.
Dean is raising money in a grassroots camapaign, and he publishes all
his policies, in detail, on his website.
http://www.deanforamerica.com/ (Click on the issues)
You can't say that about any other of the top candidates.
> gets elected. All the candidates know this, but he basically stepped on
> his dork trying to appease certain "favored" groups and in that attempt
I would contend that offending Al Sharpton and raising a brouhaha in
the media is NOT a bad thing for Dean. I would contend that this is
precisely the sort of incident that will make him more popular with
people like you and I. Although less popular wih a minority of angry
idiots that won't matter in the long run.
> remarks since he personally felt compelled to apologize to Reverend Al
> for having made them. Again, since I believe whatever liberals say, I
Actually, I read his apology. It was better than I thought. He
apologized for hurting Al's feelings. Not for making the statement.
There's a BIG difference.
> > Do you seriously think that Al Sharpton was offended by Dean?
> I think that the character that Sharpton plays demands that he pretend to
> be offended. Maybe that's what you think he's doing? Or do you think
> he's genuinely offended?
I think he's playing. I agree with you here.
> The point in my original post was that Dean (and all the other
> "candidates") is deparately trying to convince people to vote for him,
Yes. Of course, that is the nature of politics. The question, when
you vote, is not whther the candidate is trying to get your vote. The
question is how.
Dean is raising money in a grassroots camapaign, and he publishes all
his policies, in detail, on his website.
http://www.deanforamerica.com/ (Click on the issues)
You can't say that about any other of the top candidates.
> gets elected. All the candidates know this, but he basically stepped on
> his dork trying to appease certain "favored" groups and in that attempt
I would contend that offending Al Sharpton and raising a brouhaha in
the media is NOT a bad thing for Dean. I would contend that this is
precisely the sort of incident that will make him more popular with
people like you and I. Although less popular wih a minority of angry
idiots that won't matter in the long run.
#4067
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycan be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Me wrote:
> In article <3FAAAB43.B4072C31@mindspring.com>,
> "C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>>To sum it up - even if global warming is true, I believe the cure is worse
>>than the disease. And furthermore, I think that even if it is true, the
>>case is being dramatically overstated.
>
>
> If I want my car's carb fixed, I will go to the best mechanic I can find
> to do the job.
>
> If I want my heart fixed, I will go to the best cardiologist I can find
> to do the job.
>
> If I want information about a problem with the environment that has the
> potential to wipe out life on this planet, I will go to scientists who
> spend their lives investigating the environment. I will certainly not go
> to rec.driving.autos for such information.
They also spend their lives trying to get the next research grant.
Sensational topics get more research money.
Matt
> In article <3FAAAB43.B4072C31@mindspring.com>,
> "C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>>To sum it up - even if global warming is true, I believe the cure is worse
>>than the disease. And furthermore, I think that even if it is true, the
>>case is being dramatically overstated.
>
>
> If I want my car's carb fixed, I will go to the best mechanic I can find
> to do the job.
>
> If I want my heart fixed, I will go to the best cardiologist I can find
> to do the job.
>
> If I want information about a problem with the environment that has the
> potential to wipe out life on this planet, I will go to scientists who
> spend their lives investigating the environment. I will certainly not go
> to rec.driving.autos for such information.
They also spend their lives trying to get the next research grant.
Sensational topics get more research money.
Matt
#4068
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycan be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Me wrote:
> In article <3FAAAB43.B4072C31@mindspring.com>,
> "C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>>To sum it up - even if global warming is true, I believe the cure is worse
>>than the disease. And furthermore, I think that even if it is true, the
>>case is being dramatically overstated.
>
>
> If I want my car's carb fixed, I will go to the best mechanic I can find
> to do the job.
>
> If I want my heart fixed, I will go to the best cardiologist I can find
> to do the job.
>
> If I want information about a problem with the environment that has the
> potential to wipe out life on this planet, I will go to scientists who
> spend their lives investigating the environment. I will certainly not go
> to rec.driving.autos for such information.
They also spend their lives trying to get the next research grant.
Sensational topics get more research money.
Matt
> In article <3FAAAB43.B4072C31@mindspring.com>,
> "C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>>To sum it up - even if global warming is true, I believe the cure is worse
>>than the disease. And furthermore, I think that even if it is true, the
>>case is being dramatically overstated.
>
>
> If I want my car's carb fixed, I will go to the best mechanic I can find
> to do the job.
>
> If I want my heart fixed, I will go to the best cardiologist I can find
> to do the job.
>
> If I want information about a problem with the environment that has the
> potential to wipe out life on this planet, I will go to scientists who
> spend their lives investigating the environment. I will certainly not go
> to rec.driving.autos for such information.
They also spend their lives trying to get the next research grant.
Sensational topics get more research money.
Matt
#4069
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycan be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Me wrote:
> In article <3FAAAB43.B4072C31@mindspring.com>,
> "C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>>To sum it up - even if global warming is true, I believe the cure is worse
>>than the disease. And furthermore, I think that even if it is true, the
>>case is being dramatically overstated.
>
>
> If I want my car's carb fixed, I will go to the best mechanic I can find
> to do the job.
>
> If I want my heart fixed, I will go to the best cardiologist I can find
> to do the job.
>
> If I want information about a problem with the environment that has the
> potential to wipe out life on this planet, I will go to scientists who
> spend their lives investigating the environment. I will certainly not go
> to rec.driving.autos for such information.
They also spend their lives trying to get the next research grant.
Sensational topics get more research money.
Matt
> In article <3FAAAB43.B4072C31@mindspring.com>,
> "C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>>To sum it up - even if global warming is true, I believe the cure is worse
>>than the disease. And furthermore, I think that even if it is true, the
>>case is being dramatically overstated.
>
>
> If I want my car's carb fixed, I will go to the best mechanic I can find
> to do the job.
>
> If I want my heart fixed, I will go to the best cardiologist I can find
> to do the job.
>
> If I want information about a problem with the environment that has the
> potential to wipe out life on this planet, I will go to scientists who
> spend their lives investigating the environment. I will certainly not go
> to rec.driving.autos for such information.
They also spend their lives trying to get the next research grant.
Sensational topics get more research money.
Matt
#4070
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
DTJ <dtj@comcast.net> wrote in message news:<gu5tqvcuqj5rf4n4bie9qjjfd90nd2t66c@4ax.com>. ..
> On Sun, 09 Nov 2003 02:49:07 GMT, tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P)
> wrote:
>
<snip>
> >We know better now. When I see a proposed solution that really does
> >lower global CO2 output, I can get behind it. Until then, all I see
> >is a bunch of people who feel guilty and/or want to punish the USA and
> >are using this topic as their tool to do so.
>
> You hit the nail on the head. The left has a single purpose - punish
> those in the United States by redistributing our wealth to others.
I would disagree. Coming from a (well, for you guys, fairly
extremely) leftist background (my Dad was a member of the Labour party
here back when that's what it was) that's not surprising, though I
guess. I don't think the US needs to be punished for being rich. I'm
not jealous of your lifestyle, or your political system. Having said
that, IIRC, something like 22% of our (human caused) greenhouse gas
emissions come from a country that has 7% of the worlds population.
Surely if that 7% can dramatically reduce the amount it's putting out,
it's going to have a significant impact on overall amounts? And
there's no reason not to reduce output of these gases, when in most
cases it can be done by being more efficient - which I would have
thought guys on the right would be into. I would hope that in any
Western country, we could lead the way, develop the technologies, and
sell them on to the developing markets. I wish Australia hadn't
followed the US lead on Kyoto, but there you go.
Cheers,
Steve
> On Sun, 09 Nov 2003 02:49:07 GMT, tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P)
> wrote:
>
<snip>
> >We know better now. When I see a proposed solution that really does
> >lower global CO2 output, I can get behind it. Until then, all I see
> >is a bunch of people who feel guilty and/or want to punish the USA and
> >are using this topic as their tool to do so.
>
> You hit the nail on the head. The left has a single purpose - punish
> those in the United States by redistributing our wealth to others.
I would disagree. Coming from a (well, for you guys, fairly
extremely) leftist background (my Dad was a member of the Labour party
here back when that's what it was) that's not surprising, though I
guess. I don't think the US needs to be punished for being rich. I'm
not jealous of your lifestyle, or your political system. Having said
that, IIRC, something like 22% of our (human caused) greenhouse gas
emissions come from a country that has 7% of the worlds population.
Surely if that 7% can dramatically reduce the amount it's putting out,
it's going to have a significant impact on overall amounts? And
there's no reason not to reduce output of these gases, when in most
cases it can be done by being more efficient - which I would have
thought guys on the right would be into. I would hope that in any
Western country, we could lead the way, develop the technologies, and
sell them on to the developing markets. I wish Australia hadn't
followed the US lead on Kyoto, but there you go.
Cheers,
Steve