In article <bpe4vv01pqb@enews3.newsguy.com>,
"Jerry McGeorge" <gmcgeorge.REMOVE@frontier.net> wrote:
>> Urban myth. A Sudanese man claimed he could deliver bin Laden. Turned
>out he couldn't. <
>
>Don't you wish that was the truth??!!

I wish you wouldn't get your "facts" from right-wing propaganda sources.

>
>Bush will soon drive the Demo-Losers WILD when his campaign, already well
>funded, actually gets in gear. I can't wait to see the Demo-Coward weasels
>respond to their pacifist, tyrant-coddling, failed tax & spend cronyism
>record. Get used to your Demo-heros losing and being increasingly
>irrelevant, Parker.
>
>

 

In article <bpe4vv01pqb@enews3.newsguy.com>,
"Jerry McGeorge" <gmcgeorge.REMOVE@frontier.net> wrote:
>> Urban myth. A Sudanese man claimed he could deliver bin Laden. Turned
>out he couldn't. <
>
>Don't you wish that was the truth??!!

I wish you wouldn't get your "facts" from right-wing propaganda sources.

>
>Bush will soon drive the Demo-Losers WILD when his campaign, already well
>funded, actually gets in gear. I can't wait to see the Demo-Coward weasels
>respond to their pacifist, tyrant-coddling, failed tax & spend cronyism
>record. Get used to your Demo-heros losing and being increasingly
>irrelevant, Parker.
>
>

 

In article <bpe4vv01pqb@enews3.newsguy.com>,
"Jerry McGeorge" <gmcgeorge.REMOVE@frontier.net> wrote:
>> Urban myth. A Sudanese man claimed he could deliver bin Laden. Turned
>out he couldn't. <
>
>Don't you wish that was the truth??!!

I wish you wouldn't get your "facts" from right-wing propaganda sources.

>
>Bush will soon drive the Demo-Losers WILD when his campaign, already well
>funded, actually gets in gear. I can't wait to see the Demo-Coward weasels
>respond to their pacifist, tyrant-coddling, failed tax & spend cronyism
>record. Get used to your Demo-heros losing and being increasingly
>irrelevant, Parker.
>
>

 

In article <ede96581.0311181938.564142b3@posting.google.com >,
carl.taylor@altavista.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.

Let's see, change of 76 ppm in 6000 years (per that source). Now we've seen
an increase of the same magnitude in 120 years. Do you think there's no
difference?

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

 

In article <ede96581.0311181938.564142b3@posting.google.com >,
carl.taylor@altavista.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.

Let's see, change of 76 ppm in 6000 years (per that source). Now we've seen
an increase of the same magnitude in 120 years. Do you think there's no
difference?

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

 

In article <ede96581.0311181938.564142b3@posting.google.com >,
carl.taylor@altavista.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.

Let's see, change of 76 ppm in 6000 years (per that source). Now we've seen
an increase of the same magnitude in 120 years. Do you think there's no
difference?

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

 

In article <Q5Mub.184288$mZ5.1334817@attbi_s54>,
tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>In article <bpfqm9$hll$6@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> In article <0Zrub.38789$Dw6.179152@attbi_s02>,
>> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>
><snip what parker has no response to>
>
>>>>>>>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.
>
>You can't even quote correctly. Honesty problem lloyd?
>Here's what I actually wrote:
>
>>->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?
>
>As can be seen, there is no lie here.

OK, "needing to perform for those funds." That's your lie. Happy?


>But you knew that, your
>claim is just to divert away from an issue you've lost the debate
>on. Those who take money to run for office do need to perform for their
>contributors or they won't get more money. This is a simple fact of
>politics in the USA.

Sure, if it's passing a bill, or in the case of Bush, giving multi-billion
contracts without bids. But you're accusing Clinton of providing secret
defense info.

>
>>>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.
>
>Parker has no 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 <Q5Mub.184288$mZ5.1334817@attbi_s54>,
tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>In article <bpfqm9$hll$6@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> In article <0Zrub.38789$Dw6.179152@attbi_s02>,
>> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>
><snip what parker has no response to>
>
>>>>>>>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.
>
>You can't even quote correctly. Honesty problem lloyd?
>Here's what I actually wrote:
>
>>->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?
>
>As can be seen, there is no lie here.

OK, "needing to perform for those funds." That's your lie. Happy?


>But you knew that, your
>claim is just to divert away from an issue you've lost the debate
>on. Those who take money to run for office do need to perform for their
>contributors or they won't get more money. This is a simple fact of
>politics in the USA.

Sure, if it's passing a bill, or in the case of Bush, giving multi-billion
contracts without bids. But you're accusing Clinton of providing secret
defense info.

>
>>>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.
>
>Parker has no 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 <Q5Mub.184288$mZ5.1334817@attbi_s54>,
tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>In article <bpfqm9$hll$6@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> In article <0Zrub.38789$Dw6.179152@attbi_s02>,
>> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>
><snip what parker has no response to>
>
>>>>>>>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.
>
>You can't even quote correctly. Honesty problem lloyd?
>Here's what I actually wrote:
>
>>->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?
>
>As can be seen, there is no lie here.

OK, "needing to perform for those funds." That's your lie. Happy?


>But you knew that, your
>claim is just to divert away from an issue you've lost the debate
>on. Those who take money to run for office do need to perform for their
>contributors or they won't get more money. This is a simple fact of
>politics in the USA.

Sure, if it's passing a bill, or in the case of Bush, giving multi-billion
contracts without bids. But you're accusing Clinton of providing secret
defense info.

>
>>>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.
>
>Parker has no 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 <bpfqm9$hll$6@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
> In article <0Zrub.38789$Dw6.179152@attbi_s02>,
> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:

<snip what parker has no response to>

>>>>>>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.

You can't even quote correctly. Honesty problem lloyd?
Here's what I actually wrote:

>->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?

As can be seen, there is no lie here. But you knew that, your
claim is just to divert away from an issue you've lost the debate
on. Those who take money to run for office do need to perform for their
contributors or they won't get more money. This is a simple fact of
politics in the USA.

>>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.

Parker has no 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.