In article <Zmhub.8235$Wy4.392@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.n et>,
"FDRanger92" <csu13081@nospammail.clayton.edu> wrote:
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:bpb4mp$13m$5@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> In article <su8ub.5087$Rk5.2701@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink. net>,
>> "FDRanger92" <csu13081@nospammail.clayton.edu> wrote:
>> >
>> >"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>> >news:bpar8i$k2h$5@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> >> In article <gYVtb.33146$pE3.5099@twister.socal.rr.com>,
>> >> "David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >"Benjamin Lee" <benmlee@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
>> >> >news:XPStb.70809$Ec1.3910324@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > > Do you think the people of Iran feel that way?
>> >> >> > > Do you think the people of Pakistan feel that way?
>> >> >> > > How about Afghanistan? Iraq?
>> >> >> > > Each of these countries *had* free democratic elections, but
>when
>> >they
>> >> >> > > elected governments whose foreign policies didn't agree with the
>> >US,
>> >> >> > > they ended up with coups d'etat funded by the US, and their
>freely
>> >> >> > > elected governments kicked out. This is not conspiracy theory,
>> >this
>> >> >> > > is history.
>> >> >> > >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > You're wrong about these countries having ever been free
>democratic
>> >> >> > societies with freely elected governments. I don't know what
>history
>> >> >book
>> >> >> > you read, but it ranks with mythology.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> This year is the 50th annaversary of the CIA's overthrow of
>Democracy
>> >in
>> >> >> Iran.
>> >> >
>> >> >First of all, to describe what Iran had in the first half of the
>century
>> >as
>> >> >a democracy is a stretch beyond reason.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> For a brief time, Mossadeq, it was correct.
>> >>
>> >> >Also, to say that the CIA overthrew
>> >> >the government is wrong.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> What would you call organizing a coup then?
>> >>
>> >> >It is true that the US supported the Monarchy (the
>> >> >Shah) in his struggle against the PM, Mossadeq, who was a Nationalist
>and
>> >a
>> >> >Secularist. Here again is proof that many non-aligned nations at the
>> >onset
>> >> >of the cold war played east against west. Mossadeq was courting favor
>> >with
>> >> >the Tudeh (the outlawed Communist party supported by the Soviets)
>because
>> >it
>> >> >gave him leverage against the west (primarily Britain, secondarily the
>> >US).
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> So, if say China doesn't like the Republican party here, it's OK for
>them
>> >to
>> >> help groups try to overthrow the US government?
>> >
>> >
>> >Kind of like China illegally donating money to AlGore's campaign and the
>> >Democrats. I keep forgetting there wasn't any controlling authority and
>Al
>> >had to take a leak from too much tea at the temple.
>> >
>> >
>> At least the Dems didn't have a Chinese spy on the payroll!
>
>They didn't need one w/ your hero giving them all the technology they
>wanted.
>
>
Two words, right-wing fundamentalist: *** Report

 

In article <Zmhub.8235$Wy4.392@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.n et>,
"FDRanger92" <csu13081@nospammail.clayton.edu> wrote:
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:bpb4mp$13m$5@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> In article <su8ub.5087$Rk5.2701@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink. net>,
>> "FDRanger92" <csu13081@nospammail.clayton.edu> wrote:
>> >
>> >"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>> >news:bpar8i$k2h$5@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> >> In article <gYVtb.33146$pE3.5099@twister.socal.rr.com>,
>> >> "David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >"Benjamin Lee" <benmlee@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
>> >> >news:XPStb.70809$Ec1.3910324@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > > Do you think the people of Iran feel that way?
>> >> >> > > Do you think the people of Pakistan feel that way?
>> >> >> > > How about Afghanistan? Iraq?
>> >> >> > > Each of these countries *had* free democratic elections, but
>when
>> >they
>> >> >> > > elected governments whose foreign policies didn't agree with the
>> >US,
>> >> >> > > they ended up with coups d'etat funded by the US, and their
>freely
>> >> >> > > elected governments kicked out. This is not conspiracy theory,
>> >this
>> >> >> > > is history.
>> >> >> > >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > You're wrong about these countries having ever been free
>democratic
>> >> >> > societies with freely elected governments. I don't know what
>history
>> >> >book
>> >> >> > you read, but it ranks with mythology.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> This year is the 50th annaversary of the CIA's overthrow of
>Democracy
>> >in
>> >> >> Iran.
>> >> >
>> >> >First of all, to describe what Iran had in the first half of the
>century
>> >as
>> >> >a democracy is a stretch beyond reason.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> For a brief time, Mossadeq, it was correct.
>> >>
>> >> >Also, to say that the CIA overthrew
>> >> >the government is wrong.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> What would you call organizing a coup then?
>> >>
>> >> >It is true that the US supported the Monarchy (the
>> >> >Shah) in his struggle against the PM, Mossadeq, who was a Nationalist
>and
>> >a
>> >> >Secularist. Here again is proof that many non-aligned nations at the
>> >onset
>> >> >of the cold war played east against west. Mossadeq was courting favor
>> >with
>> >> >the Tudeh (the outlawed Communist party supported by the Soviets)
>because
>> >it
>> >> >gave him leverage against the west (primarily Britain, secondarily the
>> >US).
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> So, if say China doesn't like the Republican party here, it's OK for
>them
>> >to
>> >> help groups try to overthrow the US government?
>> >
>> >
>> >Kind of like China illegally donating money to AlGore's campaign and the
>> >Democrats. I keep forgetting there wasn't any controlling authority and
>Al
>> >had to take a leak from too much tea at the temple.
>> >
>> >
>> At least the Dems didn't have a Chinese spy on the payroll!
>
>They didn't need one w/ your hero giving them all the technology they
>wanted.
>
>
Two words, right-wing fundamentalist: *** Report

 

In article <Wcrub.236439$Tr4.695855@attbi_s03>,
tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>In article <bpdcio$l1i$3@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> In article <TM9ub.174022$275.554498@attbi_s53>,
>> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>>In article <bpb4mp$13m$5@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> So, if say China doesn't like the Republican party here, it's OK for
them
>>>>>to help groups try to overthrow the US government?
>>>
>>>>>Kind of like China illegally donating money to AlGore's campaign and the
>>>>>Democrats. I keep forgetting there wasn't any controlling authority and
Al
>>>>>had to take a leak from too much tea at the temple.
>>>
>>>> At least the Dems didn't have a Chinese spy on the payroll!
>>>
>>>Interesting, you consider being infiltrated by a chinese spy, having
>>>a mole in the organization who is really there working for someone
>>>else to be far worse than taking payment from the chinese and then
>>>needing to perform for those funds?
>
>> I consider it about equal to lying like you're doing.
>
>In other words you have no response and attack me by claiming I am
>'lying' but not defining about what. Lame Lloyd.
>
>>>What you are saying is that in order to find out what republicans
>>>were doing the Chinese had to use traditional spying techniques and have
>>>a mole work its way in. But the democrats, all the chinese had to do was
>>>go to the top guys and give them some money. So the democrats were
>>>easily bought, but the republicans couldn't be and had to be spied on
>>>instead.
>
>> Bought how?
>
>You accepted that the democrats were bought by the chinese via campaign
>donations a couple posts ago with your 'but there wasn't a spy' response.

I accepted none of your lies.

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

 

In article <Wcrub.236439$Tr4.695855@attbi_s03>,
tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>In article <bpdcio$l1i$3@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> In article <TM9ub.174022$275.554498@attbi_s53>,
>> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>>In article <bpb4mp$13m$5@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> So, if say China doesn't like the Republican party here, it's OK for
them
>>>>>to help groups try to overthrow the US government?
>>>
>>>>>Kind of like China illegally donating money to AlGore's campaign and the
>>>>>Democrats. I keep forgetting there wasn't any controlling authority and
Al
>>>>>had to take a leak from too much tea at the temple.
>>>
>>>> At least the Dems didn't have a Chinese spy on the payroll!
>>>
>>>Interesting, you consider being infiltrated by a chinese spy, having
>>>a mole in the organization who is really there working for someone
>>>else to be far worse than taking payment from the chinese and then
>>>needing to perform for those funds?
>
>> I consider it about equal to lying like you're doing.
>
>In other words you have no response and attack me by claiming I am
>'lying' but not defining about what. Lame Lloyd.
>
>>>What you are saying is that in order to find out what republicans
>>>were doing the Chinese had to use traditional spying techniques and have
>>>a mole work its way in. But the democrats, all the chinese had to do was
>>>go to the top guys and give them some money. So the democrats were
>>>easily bought, but the republicans couldn't be and had to be spied on
>>>instead.
>
>> Bought how?
>
>You accepted that the democrats were bought by the chinese via campaign
>donations a couple posts ago with your 'but there wasn't a spy' response.

I accepted none of your lies.

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

 

In article <Wcrub.236439$Tr4.695855@attbi_s03>,
tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>In article <bpdcio$l1i$3@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> In article <TM9ub.174022$275.554498@attbi_s53>,
>> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>>In article <bpb4mp$13m$5@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> So, if say China doesn't like the Republican party here, it's OK for
them
>>>>>to help groups try to overthrow the US government?
>>>
>>>>>Kind of like China illegally donating money to AlGore's campaign and the
>>>>>Democrats. I keep forgetting there wasn't any controlling authority and
Al
>>>>>had to take a leak from too much tea at the temple.
>>>
>>>> At least the Dems didn't have a Chinese spy on the payroll!
>>>
>>>Interesting, you consider being infiltrated by a chinese spy, having
>>>a mole in the organization who is really there working for someone
>>>else to be far worse than taking payment from the chinese and then
>>>needing to perform for those funds?
>
>> I consider it about equal to lying like you're doing.
>
>In other words you have no response and attack me by claiming I am
>'lying' but not defining about what. Lame Lloyd.
>
>>>What you are saying is that in order to find out what republicans
>>>were doing the Chinese had to use traditional spying techniques and have
>>>a mole work its way in. But the democrats, all the chinese had to do was
>>>go to the top guys and give them some money. So the democrats were
>>>easily bought, but the republicans couldn't be and had to be spied on
>>>instead.
>
>> Bought how?
>
>You accepted that the democrats were bought by the chinese via campaign
>donations a couple posts ago with your 'but there wasn't a spy' response.

I accepted none of your lies.

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

 

Thanks for defining "TROLL" for us all...

"Dianelos Georgoudis" <dianelos@tecapro.com> wrote in message
news:5ac380ce.0310170752.726bdf86@posting.google.c om...
> Recently (October 14, 2003) the National Highway Traffic Safety
> Administration (NHTSA) released a study about vehicle safety and
> weight. See:
>
> http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/...pdf/809662.pdf
>
> As expected, the NHTSA study did find that heavier vehicles are safer
> for their occupants when they crash with a lighter vehicle. This is
> well known, and many people buy SUVs thinking that their weight gives
> them a safety advantage. Some publications stress this fact (for
> example one by USA Today is titled "Lighter cars mean more deaths" so
> many people who drive SUVs may feel reassured).
>
> In fact, as far as SUVs go, the NHTSA study could not have been more
> unfavorable. Using real world statistics about tens of millions of
> vehicles over several years they prove that the overall safety of SUVs
> is worse than of lighter passenger cars. One of the reasons is that
> SUVs have a much higher tendency to roll over. This means that many
> people spend more to buy a SUV, spend more on gas, and also endanger
> others, without much any advantage for themselves. The relevant
> numbers are:
>
> Vehicle type Average weight Driver fatalities
> (pounds) per billion miles
>
> Mid-size 4-door car 3,061 5.26
> Large 4-door cars 3,596 3.30
> Small 4-door SUVs 3,147 5.68
> Mid-size 4-door SUVs 4,022 6.73
> Large 4-door SUVs 5,141 3.79
>
> So it is more probable that you will be killed in a small or mid-size
> SUV than in a mid-size car that weights less. Only large SUVs are
> safer for their drivers than mid-size cars, but they are less safe
> than large cars, even though large SUVs are 1,500 pounds heavier!
>
> These are amazing numbers. The prorated figures, which take into
> account the fatalities in other vehicles involved, are, as expected,
> even worse.
>
> The study does show that SUVs are safer than small and very small
> cars, which have a disadvantage only because there are so many much
> heavier vehicles around. Very few people who end up buying a SUV were
> thinking of maybe buying a small or very small car, so this advantage
> is irrelevant. Pound for pound SUVs are always less safe for their
> passengers.
>
> Even when comparing SUVs only, more weight is not always better.
> Significantly, small SUVs are safer for their drivers than mid-size
> SUVs, even though the latter weight 900 pounds more. I suppose small
> SUVs are more car-like and therefore avoid some of the safety
> disadvantages of the SUV design.
>
> If you care about your personal safety then, clearly, the best
> strategy is not to use a SUV but to use a mid-size or large passenger
> car.
>
> Of course, the safest strategy for society would be to put an upper
> limit to the weight of passenger cars: then we all would drive safer,
> spend less money on cars, spend less on gas, protect others, protect
> the environment, and be less dependent on unstable oil-producing
> countries. Limiting the weight of vehicles is a
> win-win-win-win-win-win proposition. Vehicles that have to be heavy
> (such as trucks, heavy duty off-roaders, buses, etc) should have their
> top speed electronically limited to low levels as to not endanger
> other vehicles on the asphalt.

 

Thanks for defining "TROLL" for us all...

"Dianelos Georgoudis" <dianelos@tecapro.com> wrote in message
news:5ac380ce.0310170752.726bdf86@posting.google.c om...
> Recently (October 14, 2003) the National Highway Traffic Safety
> Administration (NHTSA) released a study about vehicle safety and
> weight. See:
>
> http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/...pdf/809662.pdf
>
> As expected, the NHTSA study did find that heavier vehicles are safer
> for their occupants when they crash with a lighter vehicle. This is
> well known, and many people buy SUVs thinking that their weight gives
> them a safety advantage. Some publications stress this fact (for
> example one by USA Today is titled "Lighter cars mean more deaths" so
> many people who drive SUVs may feel reassured).
>
> In fact, as far as SUVs go, the NHTSA study could not have been more
> unfavorable. Using real world statistics about tens of millions of
> vehicles over several years they prove that the overall safety of SUVs
> is worse than of lighter passenger cars. One of the reasons is that
> SUVs have a much higher tendency to roll over. This means that many
> people spend more to buy a SUV, spend more on gas, and also endanger
> others, without much any advantage for themselves. The relevant
> numbers are:
>
> Vehicle type Average weight Driver fatalities
> (pounds) per billion miles
>
> Mid-size 4-door car 3,061 5.26
> Large 4-door cars 3,596 3.30
> Small 4-door SUVs 3,147 5.68
> Mid-size 4-door SUVs 4,022 6.73
> Large 4-door SUVs 5,141 3.79
>
> So it is more probable that you will be killed in a small or mid-size
> SUV than in a mid-size car that weights less. Only large SUVs are
> safer for their drivers than mid-size cars, but they are less safe
> than large cars, even though large SUVs are 1,500 pounds heavier!
>
> These are amazing numbers. The prorated figures, which take into
> account the fatalities in other vehicles involved, are, as expected,
> even worse.
>
> The study does show that SUVs are safer than small and very small
> cars, which have a disadvantage only because there are so many much
> heavier vehicles around. Very few people who end up buying a SUV were
> thinking of maybe buying a small or very small car, so this advantage
> is irrelevant. Pound for pound SUVs are always less safe for their
> passengers.
>
> Even when comparing SUVs only, more weight is not always better.
> Significantly, small SUVs are safer for their drivers than mid-size
> SUVs, even though the latter weight 900 pounds more. I suppose small
> SUVs are more car-like and therefore avoid some of the safety
> disadvantages of the SUV design.
>
> If you care about your personal safety then, clearly, the best
> strategy is not to use a SUV but to use a mid-size or large passenger
> car.
>
> Of course, the safest strategy for society would be to put an upper
> limit to the weight of passenger cars: then we all would drive safer,
> spend less money on cars, spend less on gas, protect others, protect
> the environment, and be less dependent on unstable oil-producing
> countries. Limiting the weight of vehicles is a
> win-win-win-win-win-win proposition. Vehicles that have to be heavy
> (such as trucks, heavy duty off-roaders, buses, etc) should have their
> top speed electronically limited to low levels as to not endanger
> other vehicles on the asphalt.

 

Thanks for defining "TROLL" for us all...

"Dianelos Georgoudis" <dianelos@tecapro.com> wrote in message
news:5ac380ce.0310170752.726bdf86@posting.google.c om...
> Recently (October 14, 2003) the National Highway Traffic Safety
> Administration (NHTSA) released a study about vehicle safety and
> weight. See:
>
> http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/...pdf/809662.pdf
>
> As expected, the NHTSA study did find that heavier vehicles are safer
> for their occupants when they crash with a lighter vehicle. This is
> well known, and many people buy SUVs thinking that their weight gives
> them a safety advantage. Some publications stress this fact (for
> example one by USA Today is titled "Lighter cars mean more deaths" so
> many people who drive SUVs may feel reassured).
>
> In fact, as far as SUVs go, the NHTSA study could not have been more
> unfavorable. Using real world statistics about tens of millions of
> vehicles over several years they prove that the overall safety of SUVs
> is worse than of lighter passenger cars. One of the reasons is that
> SUVs have a much higher tendency to roll over. This means that many
> people spend more to buy a SUV, spend more on gas, and also endanger
> others, without much any advantage for themselves. The relevant
> numbers are:
>
> Vehicle type Average weight Driver fatalities
> (pounds) per billion miles
>
> Mid-size 4-door car 3,061 5.26
> Large 4-door cars 3,596 3.30
> Small 4-door SUVs 3,147 5.68
> Mid-size 4-door SUVs 4,022 6.73
> Large 4-door SUVs 5,141 3.79
>
> So it is more probable that you will be killed in a small or mid-size
> SUV than in a mid-size car that weights less. Only large SUVs are
> safer for their drivers than mid-size cars, but they are less safe
> than large cars, even though large SUVs are 1,500 pounds heavier!
>
> These are amazing numbers. The prorated figures, which take into
> account the fatalities in other vehicles involved, are, as expected,
> even worse.
>
> The study does show that SUVs are safer than small and very small
> cars, which have a disadvantage only because there are so many much
> heavier vehicles around. Very few people who end up buying a SUV were
> thinking of maybe buying a small or very small car, so this advantage
> is irrelevant. Pound for pound SUVs are always less safe for their
> passengers.
>
> Even when comparing SUVs only, more weight is not always better.
> Significantly, small SUVs are safer for their drivers than mid-size
> SUVs, even though the latter weight 900 pounds more. I suppose small
> SUVs are more car-like and therefore avoid some of the safety
> disadvantages of the SUV design.
>
> If you care about your personal safety then, clearly, the best
> strategy is not to use a SUV but to use a mid-size or large passenger
> car.
>
> Of course, the safest strategy for society would be to put an upper
> limit to the weight of passenger cars: then we all would drive safer,
> spend less money on cars, spend less on gas, protect others, protect
> the environment, and be less dependent on unstable oil-producing
> countries. Limiting the weight of vehicles is a
> win-win-win-win-win-win proposition. Vehicles that have to be heavy
> (such as trucks, heavy duty off-roaders, buses, etc) should have their
> top speed electronically limited to low levels as to not endanger
> other vehicles on the asphalt.

 

In article <bpdcio$l1i$3@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
> In article <TM9ub.174022$275.554498@attbi_s53>,
> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>In article <bpb4mp$13m$5@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>
>>>>> So, if say China doesn't like the Republican party here, it's OK for them
>>>>to help groups try to overthrow the US government?
>>
>>>>Kind of like China illegally donating money to AlGore's campaign and the
>>>>Democrats. I keep forgetting there wasn't any controlling authority and Al
>>>>had to take a leak from too much tea at the temple.
>>
>>> At least the Dems didn't have a Chinese spy on the payroll!
>>
>>Interesting, you consider being infiltrated by a chinese spy, having
>>a mole in the organization who is really there working for someone
>>else to be far worse than taking payment from the chinese and then
>>needing to perform for those funds?

> I consider it about equal to lying like you're doing.

In other words you have no response and attack me by claiming I am
'lying' but not defining about what. Lame Lloyd.

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

> Bought how?

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

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

 

In article <bpdcio$l1i$3@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
> In article <TM9ub.174022$275.554498@attbi_s53>,
> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>In article <bpb4mp$13m$5@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>
>>>>> So, if say China doesn't like the Republican party here, it's OK for them
>>>>to help groups try to overthrow the US government?
>>
>>>>Kind of like China illegally donating money to AlGore's campaign and the
>>>>Democrats. I keep forgetting there wasn't any controlling authority and Al
>>>>had to take a leak from too much tea at the temple.
>>
>>> At least the Dems didn't have a Chinese spy on the payroll!
>>
>>Interesting, you consider being infiltrated by a chinese spy, having
>>a mole in the organization who is really there working for someone
>>else to be far worse than taking payment from the chinese and then
>>needing to perform for those funds?

> I consider it about equal to lying like you're doing.

In other words you have no response and attack me by claiming I am
'lying' but not defining about what. Lame Lloyd.

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

> Bought how?

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

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