Brent P

In article <ede96581.0311181938.564142b3@posting.google.com >, Carl Taylor wrote:
> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote in message news:<L9Pqb.98132$mZ5.637079@attbi_s54>...
>
>> In article <bog9bo$44t$8@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>
>> > For half a million years, CO2 was around 280 ppm, without much variation. In
>> > the last 120 years, it's increased to 350 ppm.
>>
>> Wrong.
>> http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/...onnin2001.html
>> Levels have been varied considerably between 9,000 and 22,000 years
>> ago alone.

> Sorry, but the very people who bring you that sort of information are
> concerned about manmade CO2 additions, so they must have a perspective
> that armchair critics are quick to dismiss.

Parker demands info from the NOAA be used. I proved him wrong with
NOAA data. If you have better data, then present it.

> Ironically, speeding contributes to CO2 buildup by lowering gas
> mileage, even in the most efficient cars. Anyone who drives 90 MPH
> regularly (in any vehicle) is wasting fuel and pumping out more CO2
> than they ought to. With so many drivers speeding, slowing down alone
> could cause a notable drop in CO2 output.

Everything you do is about your idiotic drive slower than carl crusade.
Well Carl, I'll consider your fuel economy arguement to drive slower on the
interstate when you start driving 55mph to save fuel and lead by example.

> If you are inclined to tell me that speeding doesn't reduce
> efficiency, read this first:
> http://auto.howstuffworks.com/question477.htm

Nice rule-of-thumb page. That neglects a whole host of factors.
Why don't you pick up a real automotive text sometime and gain
a real understanding. Better yet, why do *YOU* drive at least 10mph
faster than the 40-60mph recommended by your cite?

And if it wasn't for LLB's like you blocking the passing lane forcing
other drivers to brake and accelerate fuel consumption would go
down as well.

So carl, when you stop blocking other people, get in the right most
lane and drive 55mph, I'll consider your arguements as worthy when
you follow them yourself. Until then, it's just your selfish notion
that you own the roads and nobody should go faster than you and nothing
else.

Benjamin Lee

>
> The point is that the Soviets were so aggressive it scared everyone. Even
> the French. Kennedy felt that nuclear war with the Soviets was
inevitable.
> They were practically daring us to use nukes, because they didn't think we
> had the guts to use them and knew they outgunned us otherwise. The
Soviets
> showed very little restraint in pushing for revolution in third world
> countries worldwide.
>

While we are finger pointing, the US was also quite aggressive in using the
first nuclear bomb. We too were agressive in third world countries, Vietnam,
Korea, Afgan. Is not necessary wrong what we did, but just to point out that
both sides were aggressive. It is war after all.

> People mock the US for believing in the domino theory. But, the Soviets
> themselves gave everyone every reason to believe in it. So to dismiss US
> policy as centered on a "phobia" of Communism is trite and shows a
complete
> lack of understanding of the times.
>
>


The real phobia is world wide totalitarianism. That is a valid fear, and it
is to be avoided at all cost. The US did the right thing in preventing the
world from going into a totalitarian society. The US policy is good. Is the
propaganda that is troubling.
There is a difference between communism and the police state. The phobia of
communism is the result of propaganda. As in all wars, there are propaganda
to rally the people. The communism concept should be looked at in light of
its own merit. Just to say there is no merit is to ignorance.


> > Communism is a economic system. It should have nothing to do with how a
> > nation is governed.
> >
>
> Wrong. The means of production is owned by the government. The economy
and
> the government are one. Property is owned by the government. Wages are
> paid by the government. People who seek to enrich themselves above others
> are punished by the government.
>
>

You have just given a text book definition of communism. Your last line
about punishment does not necessary follow prior statments. Yes, factors of
production are owned by the government in a communistic society. The
government would pay the people wage. Does that equate to a police state.
NO, no and no.
Consider these statements:
The government owns the military which has more than enough power to squash
the people like an ant. The president is head of the military. The
government owns the police which has surveilance capability to listen in on
any conversation. The government owns all the record which keeps track of
where each person lives, how much they make, and what they talked about in
newsgroups.
THEREFORE, this country must be a totalitarian state. Wrong.
You must agree government ownership of military is more powerful than
factories. Military can easily bomb the factories. So why is it not
totalitarianism. It is because of checks and balance, and most importantly,
the power of the people to vote. Checks and balance and power to vote are
not exclusive to a capitalistic society. A country with communistic economy
can have the same thing. A major country like that does not currently
exist. But, it does not mean it cannot exist. I am sure there are minor
countries that are communistic with voting power. Propaganda would have you
believe that it cannot exist, so you never even consider the possibility. I
dare you to think outside of the box.



>
> If Socialism is the means of production owned or controlled by the
workers,
> then I'm not so sure the nordic countries qualify because corporations and
> business are privately held. However, they do highly tax themselves and
> provide cradle to grave services. It's a choice they make. The profit
> motive is still there, dampened by high taxes. You can also bet there is
an
> active and thriving secondary economy to get around the high taxes.
>



>
> Democracy always flourishes in at least one form inside Communist
countries.
> People flee.
>
> You may be able to separate Communism and the police state in your mind,
but
> they go hand in hand.
>

>
> Cambodia, North Korea, Albania, Eastern Europe, Cuba, USSR, China, etc.
No
> the public is quite informed of how Communism and the police state go hand
> in hand. I can't think of an example to the contrary.
>

>
> Be careful how you throw the world "socialistic" around. A society that
> chooses to tax itself to this degree is not socialistic. That happens
when
> benefits become rights and society can't vote to untax itself.
>

Yes, you must give stern warning to anyone who "throw the world socialistic
around". It is a sacrilege to "throw" such an evil word around. That
sinister word is to be used with utmost care least you applied it to the
wrong case. Gasp! God help you if you used the word "socialistic" wrong.
Instant burnt at the stake and hell for you.
This is exactly what I meant by phobia of socialism.

I would say a society that use heavy taxation to redistribute wealth so that
eveyone is equal is closer to socialism than capitalism. It might be missing
the part about government ownership of all factories, but the concept is
socialistic. Realisticly, there can never be pure socialism just like there
can never be pure capitalism or pure democracy. Living in an theoretical
world is not practical, and no country can do it. Is all a matter of degree,
and doctrination that is followed.


>
> That's the mistake socialists always make. The presumption that wealth is
a
> constant and must be redistributed equally to be fair. If the profit
motive
> is killed by taxing too high, production diminishes, unemployment rises,
or
> underground markets emerge.
>
> > If everyone made about the same wage, we would all be
> > pretty comfortable
>
> Who do you think would be paying this equal wage?
>

To be sure, there would have to be some reward structure to motivate people.
Money is a good motivator, but not necessary the best. Some people will have
to make more than other up to a certain point. I would say 16 to 1 highest
to lowest paid worker wealth ratio like Ben and Jerry's Ice Cream
Corporation. Problem with unlimited wealth is people do everything to make
more money even at the cost of the environment and the wellfare of the
nation as a whole. Look at Enron. After a certain level, just because a
person makes more money does not mean society as a whole benifit. Look at
Bill Gates and the Microsoft monopoly. We are still using computers that
crash, and are vulnerable to attacks.

> > With such a large underclass in America, the gradual
> > trend towards socialism may be inevitable. All it takes is for them to
> > realize they have voting power too, or somebody to motivate them.
> >
> >
>
> Where've you been? Under a rock? The so called underclass isn't so large
> as you think it is. It's the middle class who's votes carry the most
> weight.
>
>

No, I have not been under a rock. You must have been living under a rock if
you must use personal attacks. It does not take a genius to see that there
are more underclass people than the wealthy. Just go to the local DMV. How
many poor people do you see there. For everyone that works in an air
conditioned office, how many are there that works at low paying jobs. Look
at the statistic. The bottom 40% of the US population owns only .2% of the
total wealth. The bottom 60% owns 5% of the wealth. Now you tell me where is
the middle class? Go read my post again. Yes, middle class do carry the most
vote currently because the poor do not vote. I said WHEN the underclass
learns to vote, there will be no contest.

This is too far from the 4x4 topic.
To bring it back somewhat, I will say driving a bigger than necessary truck
harms the society as a whole. It is a show of wealth. If people are going to
show their wealth, please, just buy some expensive wine or go to an
expensive resturant or something rather than using up natural resource.

Benjamin Lee

>
> The point is that the Soviets were so aggressive it scared everyone. Even
> the French. Kennedy felt that nuclear war with the Soviets was
inevitable.
> They were practically daring us to use nukes, because they didn't think we
> had the guts to use them and knew they outgunned us otherwise. The
Soviets
> showed very little restraint in pushing for revolution in third world
> countries worldwide.
>

While we are finger pointing, the US was also quite aggressive in using the
first nuclear bomb. We too were agressive in third world countries, Vietnam,
Korea, Afgan. Is not necessary wrong what we did, but just to point out that
both sides were aggressive. It is war after all.

> People mock the US for believing in the domino theory. But, the Soviets
> themselves gave everyone every reason to believe in it. So to dismiss US
> policy as centered on a "phobia" of Communism is trite and shows a
complete
> lack of understanding of the times.
>
>


The real phobia is world wide totalitarianism. That is a valid fear, and it
is to be avoided at all cost. The US did the right thing in preventing the
world from going into a totalitarian society. The US policy is good. Is the
propaganda that is troubling.
There is a difference between communism and the police state. The phobia of
communism is the result of propaganda. As in all wars, there are propaganda
to rally the people. The communism concept should be looked at in light of
its own merit. Just to say there is no merit is to ignorance.


> > Communism is a economic system. It should have nothing to do with how a
> > nation is governed.
> >
>
> Wrong. The means of production is owned by the government. The economy
and
> the government are one. Property is owned by the government. Wages are
> paid by the government. People who seek to enrich themselves above others
> are punished by the government.
>
>

You have just given a text book definition of communism. Your last line
about punishment does not necessary follow prior statments. Yes, factors of
production are owned by the government in a communistic society. The
government would pay the people wage. Does that equate to a police state.
NO, no and no.
Consider these statements:
The government owns the military which has more than enough power to squash
the people like an ant. The president is head of the military. The
government owns the police which has surveilance capability to listen in on
any conversation. The government owns all the record which keeps track of
where each person lives, how much they make, and what they talked about in
newsgroups.
THEREFORE, this country must be a totalitarian state. Wrong.
You must agree government ownership of military is more powerful than
factories. Military can easily bomb the factories. So why is it not
totalitarianism. It is because of checks and balance, and most importantly,
the power of the people to vote. Checks and balance and power to vote are
not exclusive to a capitalistic society. A country with communistic economy
can have the same thing. A major country like that does not currently
exist. But, it does not mean it cannot exist. I am sure there are minor
countries that are communistic with voting power. Propaganda would have you
believe that it cannot exist, so you never even consider the possibility. I
dare you to think outside of the box.



>
> If Socialism is the means of production owned or controlled by the
workers,
> then I'm not so sure the nordic countries qualify because corporations and
> business are privately held. However, they do highly tax themselves and
> provide cradle to grave services. It's a choice they make. The profit
> motive is still there, dampened by high taxes. You can also bet there is
an
> active and thriving secondary economy to get around the high taxes.
>



>
> Democracy always flourishes in at least one form inside Communist
countries.
> People flee.
>
> You may be able to separate Communism and the police state in your mind,
but
> they go hand in hand.
>

>
> Cambodia, North Korea, Albania, Eastern Europe, Cuba, USSR, China, etc.
No
> the public is quite informed of how Communism and the police state go hand
> in hand. I can't think of an example to the contrary.
>

>
> Be careful how you throw the world "socialistic" around. A society that
> chooses to tax itself to this degree is not socialistic. That happens
when
> benefits become rights and society can't vote to untax itself.
>

Yes, you must give stern warning to anyone who "throw the world socialistic
around". It is a sacrilege to "throw" such an evil word around. That
sinister word is to be used with utmost care least you applied it to the
wrong case. Gasp! God help you if you used the word "socialistic" wrong.
Instant burnt at the stake and hell for you.
This is exactly what I meant by phobia of socialism.

I would say a society that use heavy taxation to redistribute wealth so that
eveyone is equal is closer to socialism than capitalism. It might be missing
the part about government ownership of all factories, but the concept is
socialistic. Realisticly, there can never be pure socialism just like there
can never be pure capitalism or pure democracy. Living in an theoretical
world is not practical, and no country can do it. Is all a matter of degree,
and doctrination that is followed.


>
> That's the mistake socialists always make. The presumption that wealth is
a
> constant and must be redistributed equally to be fair. If the profit
motive
> is killed by taxing too high, production diminishes, unemployment rises,
or
> underground markets emerge.
>
> > If everyone made about the same wage, we would all be
> > pretty comfortable
>
> Who do you think would be paying this equal wage?
>

To be sure, there would have to be some reward structure to motivate people.
Money is a good motivator, but not necessary the best. Some people will have
to make more than other up to a certain point. I would say 16 to 1 highest
to lowest paid worker wealth ratio like Ben and Jerry's Ice Cream
Corporation. Problem with unlimited wealth is people do everything to make
more money even at the cost of the environment and the wellfare of the
nation as a whole. Look at Enron. After a certain level, just because a
person makes more money does not mean society as a whole benifit. Look at
Bill Gates and the Microsoft monopoly. We are still using computers that
crash, and are vulnerable to attacks.

> > With such a large underclass in America, the gradual
> > trend towards socialism may be inevitable. All it takes is for them to
> > realize they have voting power too, or somebody to motivate them.
> >
> >
>
> Where've you been? Under a rock? The so called underclass isn't so large
> as you think it is. It's the middle class who's votes carry the most
> weight.
>
>

No, I have not been under a rock. You must have been living under a rock if
you must use personal attacks. It does not take a genius to see that there
are more underclass people than the wealthy. Just go to the local DMV. How
many poor people do you see there. For everyone that works in an air
conditioned office, how many are there that works at low paying jobs. Look
at the statistic. The bottom 40% of the US population owns only .2% of the
total wealth. The bottom 60% owns 5% of the wealth. Now you tell me where is
the middle class? Go read my post again. Yes, middle class do carry the most
vote currently because the poor do not vote. I said WHEN the underclass
learns to vote, there will be no contest.

This is too far from the 4x4 topic.
To bring it back somewhat, I will say driving a bigger than necessary truck
harms the society as a whole. It is a show of wealth. If people are going to
show their wealth, please, just buy some expensive wine or go to an
expensive resturant or something rather than using up natural resource.

Benjamin Lee

>
> The point is that the Soviets were so aggressive it scared everyone. Even
> the French. Kennedy felt that nuclear war with the Soviets was
inevitable.
> They were practically daring us to use nukes, because they didn't think we
> had the guts to use them and knew they outgunned us otherwise. The
Soviets
> showed very little restraint in pushing for revolution in third world
> countries worldwide.
>

While we are finger pointing, the US was also quite aggressive in using the
first nuclear bomb. We too were agressive in third world countries, Vietnam,
Korea, Afgan. Is not necessary wrong what we did, but just to point out that
both sides were aggressive. It is war after all.

> People mock the US for believing in the domino theory. But, the Soviets
> themselves gave everyone every reason to believe in it. So to dismiss US
> policy as centered on a "phobia" of Communism is trite and shows a
complete
> lack of understanding of the times.
>
>


The real phobia is world wide totalitarianism. That is a valid fear, and it
is to be avoided at all cost. The US did the right thing in preventing the
world from going into a totalitarian society. The US policy is good. Is the
propaganda that is troubling.
There is a difference between communism and the police state. The phobia of
communism is the result of propaganda. As in all wars, there are propaganda
to rally the people. The communism concept should be looked at in light of
its own merit. Just to say there is no merit is to ignorance.


> > Communism is a economic system. It should have nothing to do with how a
> > nation is governed.
> >
>
> Wrong. The means of production is owned by the government. The economy
and
> the government are one. Property is owned by the government. Wages are
> paid by the government. People who seek to enrich themselves above others
> are punished by the government.
>
>

You have just given a text book definition of communism. Your last line
about punishment does not necessary follow prior statments. Yes, factors of
production are owned by the government in a communistic society. The
government would pay the people wage. Does that equate to a police state.
NO, no and no.
Consider these statements:
The government owns the military which has more than enough power to squash
the people like an ant. The president is head of the military. The
government owns the police which has surveilance capability to listen in on
any conversation. The government owns all the record which keeps track of
where each person lives, how much they make, and what they talked about in
newsgroups.
THEREFORE, this country must be a totalitarian state. Wrong.
You must agree government ownership of military is more powerful than
factories. Military can easily bomb the factories. So why is it not
totalitarianism. It is because of checks and balance, and most importantly,
the power of the people to vote. Checks and balance and power to vote are
not exclusive to a capitalistic society. A country with communistic economy
can have the same thing. A major country like that does not currently
exist. But, it does not mean it cannot exist. I am sure there are minor
countries that are communistic with voting power. Propaganda would have you
believe that it cannot exist, so you never even consider the possibility. I
dare you to think outside of the box.



>
> If Socialism is the means of production owned or controlled by the
workers,
> then I'm not so sure the nordic countries qualify because corporations and
> business are privately held. However, they do highly tax themselves and
> provide cradle to grave services. It's a choice they make. The profit
> motive is still there, dampened by high taxes. You can also bet there is
an
> active and thriving secondary economy to get around the high taxes.
>



>
> Democracy always flourishes in at least one form inside Communist
countries.
> People flee.
>
> You may be able to separate Communism and the police state in your mind,
but
> they go hand in hand.
>

>
> Cambodia, North Korea, Albania, Eastern Europe, Cuba, USSR, China, etc.
No
> the public is quite informed of how Communism and the police state go hand
> in hand. I can't think of an example to the contrary.
>

>
> Be careful how you throw the world "socialistic" around. A society that
> chooses to tax itself to this degree is not socialistic. That happens
when
> benefits become rights and society can't vote to untax itself.
>

Yes, you must give stern warning to anyone who "throw the world socialistic
around". It is a sacrilege to "throw" such an evil word around. That
sinister word is to be used with utmost care least you applied it to the
wrong case. Gasp! God help you if you used the word "socialistic" wrong.
Instant burnt at the stake and hell for you.
This is exactly what I meant by phobia of socialism.

I would say a society that use heavy taxation to redistribute wealth so that
eveyone is equal is closer to socialism than capitalism. It might be missing
the part about government ownership of all factories, but the concept is
socialistic. Realisticly, there can never be pure socialism just like there
can never be pure capitalism or pure democracy. Living in an theoretical
world is not practical, and no country can do it. Is all a matter of degree,
and doctrination that is followed.


>
> That's the mistake socialists always make. The presumption that wealth is
a
> constant and must be redistributed equally to be fair. If the profit
motive
> is killed by taxing too high, production diminishes, unemployment rises,
or
> underground markets emerge.
>
> > If everyone made about the same wage, we would all be
> > pretty comfortable
>
> Who do you think would be paying this equal wage?
>

To be sure, there would have to be some reward structure to motivate people.
Money is a good motivator, but not necessary the best. Some people will have
to make more than other up to a certain point. I would say 16 to 1 highest
to lowest paid worker wealth ratio like Ben and Jerry's Ice Cream
Corporation. Problem with unlimited wealth is people do everything to make
more money even at the cost of the environment and the wellfare of the
nation as a whole. Look at Enron. After a certain level, just because a
person makes more money does not mean society as a whole benifit. Look at
Bill Gates and the Microsoft monopoly. We are still using computers that
crash, and are vulnerable to attacks.

> > With such a large underclass in America, the gradual
> > trend towards socialism may be inevitable. All it takes is for them to
> > realize they have voting power too, or somebody to motivate them.
> >
> >
>
> Where've you been? Under a rock? The so called underclass isn't so large
> as you think it is. It's the middle class who's votes carry the most
> weight.
>
>

No, I have not been under a rock. You must have been living under a rock if
you must use personal attacks. It does not take a genius to see that there
are more underclass people than the wealthy. Just go to the local DMV. How
many poor people do you see there. For everyone that works in an air
conditioned office, how many are there that works at low paying jobs. Look
at the statistic. The bottom 40% of the US population owns only .2% of the
total wealth. The bottom 60% owns 5% of the wealth. Now you tell me where is
the middle class? Go read my post again. Yes, middle class do carry the most
vote currently because the poor do not vote. I said WHEN the underclass
learns to vote, there will be no contest.

This is too far from the 4x4 topic.
To bring it back somewhat, I will say driving a bigger than necessary truck
harms the society as a whole. It is a show of wealth. If people are going to
show their wealth, please, just buy some expensive wine or go to an
expensive resturant or something rather than using up natural resource.

Lloyd Parker

In article <0Zrub.38789$Dw6.179152@attbi_s02>,
tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>In article <bpdgp4$l1i$43@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>>In article <bpdcio$l1i$3@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>>> 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.
>
>No response from parker.
>
>>>>>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.
>
>Same tatic as the one before. Attack me with a vague acusation of lying

"performing for those funds" -- you lied.

>instead of responding. The quoted material is at the top of this post.
>Your response is not that what the person you were responding to was
>lying, it was a 'not as bad as'. That is response that accepts what
>the previous person had written but saying it doesn't matter because
>someone else did something worse in your opinion.
>
>Funny thing is, I would consider being infiltrated by a spy to be far
>less serious than supporting that same foreign nation's intrests for
>money.
>
>
>>>>>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.
>

Lloyd Parker

In article <0Zrub.38789$Dw6.179152@attbi_s02>,
tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>In article <bpdgp4$l1i$43@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>>In article <bpdcio$l1i$3@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>>> 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.
>
>No response from parker.
>
>>>>>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.
>
>Same tatic as the one before. Attack me with a vague acusation of lying

"performing for those funds" -- you lied.

>instead of responding. The quoted material is at the top of this post.
>Your response is not that what the person you were responding to was
>lying, it was a 'not as bad as'. That is response that accepts what
>the previous person had written but saying it doesn't matter because
>someone else did something worse in your opinion.
>
>Funny thing is, I would consider being infiltrated by a spy to be far
>less serious than supporting that same foreign nation's intrests for
>money.
>
>
>>>>>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.
>

Lloyd Parker

In article <0Zrub.38789$Dw6.179152@attbi_s02>,
tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>In article <bpdgp4$l1i$43@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>>In article <bpdcio$l1i$3@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>>> 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.
>
>No response from parker.
>
>>>>>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.
>
>Same tatic as the one before. Attack me with a vague acusation of lying

"performing for those funds" -- you lied.

>instead of responding. The quoted material is at the top of this post.
>Your response is not that what the person you were responding to was
>lying, it was a 'not as bad as'. That is response that accepts what
>the previous person had written but saying it doesn't matter because
>someone else did something worse in your opinion.
>
>Funny thing is, I would consider being infiltrated by a spy to be far
>less serious than supporting that same foreign nation's intrests for
>money.
>
>
>>>>>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.
>

Lloyd Parker

In article <vrkjjeptaknp95@corp.supernews.com>,
"The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:bpdgp4$l1i$43@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> In article <Wcrub.236439$Tr4.695855@attbi_s03>,
>>
>> I accepted none of your lies.
>>
>
>In other words, you've lost yet another argument Lloyd.

Another fool with 3rd grade reading skills, I see.


>You would save
>yourself a world of embarassment if you just stopped replying on subjects
>you know nothing about, your old "he's lying" routine fools no one but you.
>
>

Lloyd Parker

In article <vrkjjeptaknp95@corp.supernews.com>,
"The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:bpdgp4$l1i$43@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> In article <Wcrub.236439$Tr4.695855@attbi_s03>,
>>
>> I accepted none of your lies.
>>
>
>In other words, you've lost yet another argument Lloyd.

Another fool with 3rd grade reading skills, I see.


>You would save
>yourself a world of embarassment if you just stopped replying on subjects
>you know nothing about, your old "he's lying" routine fools no one but you.
>
>

Lloyd Parker

In article <vrkjjeptaknp95@corp.supernews.com>,
"The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:bpdgp4$l1i$43@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> In article <Wcrub.236439$Tr4.695855@attbi_s03>,
>>
>> I accepted none of your lies.
>>
>
>In other words, you've lost yet another argument Lloyd.

Another fool with 3rd grade reading skills, I see.


>You would save
>yourself a world of embarassment if you just stopped replying on subjects
>you know nothing about, your old "he's lying" routine fools no one but you.
>
>