Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#4581
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
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.
> 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.
#4582
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
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.
> 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.
#4583
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 06:34:55 GMT, "Benjamin Lee"
<benmlee@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>While we are finger pointing, the US was also quite aggressive in using the
>first nuclear bomb.
Have you read the book "War's End" by Maj gen Charles W. Sweeney,
(USAF Ret.)? This guy flew with both the Hiroshima and Nagasaki
missions and laid out a pretty good case for why we needed to use
nuclear weapons. Personally, I wouldn't call us "quite aggressive"
given the situation at the time.
Matt
99 V-10 Super Duty, Super Cab 4x4
<benmlee@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>While we are finger pointing, the US was also quite aggressive in using the
>first nuclear bomb.
Have you read the book "War's End" by Maj gen Charles W. Sweeney,
(USAF Ret.)? This guy flew with both the Hiroshima and Nagasaki
missions and laid out a pretty good case for why we needed to use
nuclear weapons. Personally, I wouldn't call us "quite aggressive"
given the situation at the time.
Matt
99 V-10 Super Duty, Super Cab 4x4
#4584
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 06:34:55 GMT, "Benjamin Lee"
<benmlee@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>While we are finger pointing, the US was also quite aggressive in using the
>first nuclear bomb.
Have you read the book "War's End" by Maj gen Charles W. Sweeney,
(USAF Ret.)? This guy flew with both the Hiroshima and Nagasaki
missions and laid out a pretty good case for why we needed to use
nuclear weapons. Personally, I wouldn't call us "quite aggressive"
given the situation at the time.
Matt
99 V-10 Super Duty, Super Cab 4x4
<benmlee@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>While we are finger pointing, the US was also quite aggressive in using the
>first nuclear bomb.
Have you read the book "War's End" by Maj gen Charles W. Sweeney,
(USAF Ret.)? This guy flew with both the Hiroshima and Nagasaki
missions and laid out a pretty good case for why we needed to use
nuclear weapons. Personally, I wouldn't call us "quite aggressive"
given the situation at the time.
Matt
99 V-10 Super Duty, Super Cab 4x4
#4585
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 06:34:55 GMT, "Benjamin Lee"
<benmlee@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>While we are finger pointing, the US was also quite aggressive in using the
>first nuclear bomb.
Have you read the book "War's End" by Maj gen Charles W. Sweeney,
(USAF Ret.)? This guy flew with both the Hiroshima and Nagasaki
missions and laid out a pretty good case for why we needed to use
nuclear weapons. Personally, I wouldn't call us "quite aggressive"
given the situation at the time.
Matt
99 V-10 Super Duty, Super Cab 4x4
<benmlee@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>While we are finger pointing, the US was also quite aggressive in using the
>first nuclear bomb.
Have you read the book "War's End" by Maj gen Charles W. Sweeney,
(USAF Ret.)? This guy flew with both the Hiroshima and Nagasaki
missions and laid out a pretty good case for why we needed to use
nuclear weapons. Personally, I wouldn't call us "quite aggressive"
given the situation at the time.
Matt
99 V-10 Super Duty, Super Cab 4x4
#4586
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <jaEub.83298$Ec1.4180446@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, Benjamin Lee wrote:
> While we are finger pointing, the US was also quite aggressive in using the
> first nuclear bomb.
The heart of revisionist history. I've studied the topic of the use of
the atomic bomb and to put a long story short, as horrible as it was it
actually saved lives. An invasion of Japan would have not only been
costly in the lives of US troops but would have killed far more japanese
people than the A-Bombs. Also, there were conventional bombing raids
using hundreds of B29s that were as or more deadly than the A-bomb.
The use of the A-bomb was effective in creating the perception that
hundreds of B29s would soon be droping them. (when in fact, 2 bombs were
all that existed)
In addition, the USA had intercepted a cargo of uranium oxide I think it
was... in any case radioactive materials sent from Germany headed to
Japan for military use. The US had no way of knowing that the this
was the only shipment or not. Japan also planed to use one of it's
sub carriers to launch a plane carrying a dirty bomb to be used on
san franisco. This was planned months in advance to be done in
august and may have occured if the war had continued. (This is
something I've only recently learned from a history channel program
on Japan's advanced weapons programs of WW2)
If the US had not used the A-bombs, the revisionists today would
have had gobs of material to blame the US for un-needed deaths
from an invasion and further conventional bombing raids and the
attacks on US cities japan may have been able do on one-way missions
with dirty bombs. Basically either decision, to use or not to use
would not have pleased critics.
But from everything I've read, pro or con, the A-bomb killed
less than allowing the war to continue.
<snip rest unread>
> While we are finger pointing, the US was also quite aggressive in using the
> first nuclear bomb.
The heart of revisionist history. I've studied the topic of the use of
the atomic bomb and to put a long story short, as horrible as it was it
actually saved lives. An invasion of Japan would have not only been
costly in the lives of US troops but would have killed far more japanese
people than the A-Bombs. Also, there were conventional bombing raids
using hundreds of B29s that were as or more deadly than the A-bomb.
The use of the A-bomb was effective in creating the perception that
hundreds of B29s would soon be droping them. (when in fact, 2 bombs were
all that existed)
In addition, the USA had intercepted a cargo of uranium oxide I think it
was... in any case radioactive materials sent from Germany headed to
Japan for military use. The US had no way of knowing that the this
was the only shipment or not. Japan also planed to use one of it's
sub carriers to launch a plane carrying a dirty bomb to be used on
san franisco. This was planned months in advance to be done in
august and may have occured if the war had continued. (This is
something I've only recently learned from a history channel program
on Japan's advanced weapons programs of WW2)
If the US had not used the A-bombs, the revisionists today would
have had gobs of material to blame the US for un-needed deaths
from an invasion and further conventional bombing raids and the
attacks on US cities japan may have been able do on one-way missions
with dirty bombs. Basically either decision, to use or not to use
would not have pleased critics.
But from everything I've read, pro or con, the A-bomb killed
less than allowing the war to continue.
<snip rest unread>
#4587
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <jaEub.83298$Ec1.4180446@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, Benjamin Lee wrote:
> While we are finger pointing, the US was also quite aggressive in using the
> first nuclear bomb.
The heart of revisionist history. I've studied the topic of the use of
the atomic bomb and to put a long story short, as horrible as it was it
actually saved lives. An invasion of Japan would have not only been
costly in the lives of US troops but would have killed far more japanese
people than the A-Bombs. Also, there were conventional bombing raids
using hundreds of B29s that were as or more deadly than the A-bomb.
The use of the A-bomb was effective in creating the perception that
hundreds of B29s would soon be droping them. (when in fact, 2 bombs were
all that existed)
In addition, the USA had intercepted a cargo of uranium oxide I think it
was... in any case radioactive materials sent from Germany headed to
Japan for military use. The US had no way of knowing that the this
was the only shipment or not. Japan also planed to use one of it's
sub carriers to launch a plane carrying a dirty bomb to be used on
san franisco. This was planned months in advance to be done in
august and may have occured if the war had continued. (This is
something I've only recently learned from a history channel program
on Japan's advanced weapons programs of WW2)
If the US had not used the A-bombs, the revisionists today would
have had gobs of material to blame the US for un-needed deaths
from an invasion and further conventional bombing raids and the
attacks on US cities japan may have been able do on one-way missions
with dirty bombs. Basically either decision, to use or not to use
would not have pleased critics.
But from everything I've read, pro or con, the A-bomb killed
less than allowing the war to continue.
<snip rest unread>
> While we are finger pointing, the US was also quite aggressive in using the
> first nuclear bomb.
The heart of revisionist history. I've studied the topic of the use of
the atomic bomb and to put a long story short, as horrible as it was it
actually saved lives. An invasion of Japan would have not only been
costly in the lives of US troops but would have killed far more japanese
people than the A-Bombs. Also, there were conventional bombing raids
using hundreds of B29s that were as or more deadly than the A-bomb.
The use of the A-bomb was effective in creating the perception that
hundreds of B29s would soon be droping them. (when in fact, 2 bombs were
all that existed)
In addition, the USA had intercepted a cargo of uranium oxide I think it
was... in any case radioactive materials sent from Germany headed to
Japan for military use. The US had no way of knowing that the this
was the only shipment or not. Japan also planed to use one of it's
sub carriers to launch a plane carrying a dirty bomb to be used on
san franisco. This was planned months in advance to be done in
august and may have occured if the war had continued. (This is
something I've only recently learned from a history channel program
on Japan's advanced weapons programs of WW2)
If the US had not used the A-bombs, the revisionists today would
have had gobs of material to blame the US for un-needed deaths
from an invasion and further conventional bombing raids and the
attacks on US cities japan may have been able do on one-way missions
with dirty bombs. Basically either decision, to use or not to use
would not have pleased critics.
But from everything I've read, pro or con, the A-bomb killed
less than allowing the war to continue.
<snip rest unread>
#4588
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <jaEub.83298$Ec1.4180446@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, Benjamin Lee wrote:
> While we are finger pointing, the US was also quite aggressive in using the
> first nuclear bomb.
The heart of revisionist history. I've studied the topic of the use of
the atomic bomb and to put a long story short, as horrible as it was it
actually saved lives. An invasion of Japan would have not only been
costly in the lives of US troops but would have killed far more japanese
people than the A-Bombs. Also, there were conventional bombing raids
using hundreds of B29s that were as or more deadly than the A-bomb.
The use of the A-bomb was effective in creating the perception that
hundreds of B29s would soon be droping them. (when in fact, 2 bombs were
all that existed)
In addition, the USA had intercepted a cargo of uranium oxide I think it
was... in any case radioactive materials sent from Germany headed to
Japan for military use. The US had no way of knowing that the this
was the only shipment or not. Japan also planed to use one of it's
sub carriers to launch a plane carrying a dirty bomb to be used on
san franisco. This was planned months in advance to be done in
august and may have occured if the war had continued. (This is
something I've only recently learned from a history channel program
on Japan's advanced weapons programs of WW2)
If the US had not used the A-bombs, the revisionists today would
have had gobs of material to blame the US for un-needed deaths
from an invasion and further conventional bombing raids and the
attacks on US cities japan may have been able do on one-way missions
with dirty bombs. Basically either decision, to use or not to use
would not have pleased critics.
But from everything I've read, pro or con, the A-bomb killed
less than allowing the war to continue.
<snip rest unread>
> While we are finger pointing, the US was also quite aggressive in using the
> first nuclear bomb.
The heart of revisionist history. I've studied the topic of the use of
the atomic bomb and to put a long story short, as horrible as it was it
actually saved lives. An invasion of Japan would have not only been
costly in the lives of US troops but would have killed far more japanese
people than the A-Bombs. Also, there were conventional bombing raids
using hundreds of B29s that were as or more deadly than the A-bomb.
The use of the A-bomb was effective in creating the perception that
hundreds of B29s would soon be droping them. (when in fact, 2 bombs were
all that existed)
In addition, the USA had intercepted a cargo of uranium oxide I think it
was... in any case radioactive materials sent from Germany headed to
Japan for military use. The US had no way of knowing that the this
was the only shipment or not. Japan also planed to use one of it's
sub carriers to launch a plane carrying a dirty bomb to be used on
san franisco. This was planned months in advance to be done in
august and may have occured if the war had continued. (This is
something I've only recently learned from a history channel program
on Japan's advanced weapons programs of WW2)
If the US had not used the A-bombs, the revisionists today would
have had gobs of material to blame the US for un-needed deaths
from an invasion and further conventional bombing raids and the
attacks on US cities japan may have been able do on one-way missions
with dirty bombs. Basically either decision, to use or not to use
would not have pleased critics.
But from everything I've read, pro or con, the A-bomb killed
less than allowing the war to continue.
<snip rest unread>
#4589
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <bpg4q0$r96$19@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
> In article <Q5Mub.184288$mZ5.1334817@attbi_s54>,
>>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?
Show that political office holders do not need to perform for the
donations they recieve to run for office, then you can call it
untrue. I believe they perform for their contributors so it cannot
be a lie.
>>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.
Democrats also perform for their contributors. That's the US government
Parker, the best government money can buy.
> But you're accusing Clinton of providing secret
> defense info.
I have not accused clinton of any such thing. Your claims of lies nothing
but your projection.
Clinton and Gore performed well for their contributors, including the
Chinese government by acting to allow profitable business relationships
and US corporations to transfer technology to china in the process of
making money.
> In article <Q5Mub.184288$mZ5.1334817@attbi_s54>,
>>Here's what I actually wrote:
>>
>>>->Interesting, you consider being infiltrated by a chinese spy, having
>>>->a mole in the organization who is really there working for someone
>>>->else to be far worse than taking payment from the chinese and then
>>>->needing to perform for those funds?
>>
>>As can be seen, there is no lie here.
>
> OK, "needing to perform for those funds." That's your lie. Happy?
Show that political office holders do not need to perform for the
donations they recieve to run for office, then you can call it
untrue. I believe they perform for their contributors so it cannot
be a lie.
>>But you knew that, your
>>claim is just to divert away from an issue you've lost the debate
>>on. Those who take money to run for office do need to perform for their
>>contributors or they won't get more money. This is a simple fact of
>>politics in the USA.
> Sure, if it's passing a bill, or in the case of Bush, giving multi-billion
> contracts without bids.
Democrats also perform for their contributors. That's the US government
Parker, the best government money can buy.
> But you're accusing Clinton of providing secret
> defense info.
I have not accused clinton of any such thing. Your claims of lies nothing
but your projection.
Clinton and Gore performed well for their contributors, including the
Chinese government by acting to allow profitable business relationships
and US corporations to transfer technology to china in the process of
making money.
#4590
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <bpg4q0$r96$19@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
> In article <Q5Mub.184288$mZ5.1334817@attbi_s54>,
>>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?
Show that political office holders do not need to perform for the
donations they recieve to run for office, then you can call it
untrue. I believe they perform for their contributors so it cannot
be a lie.
>>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.
Democrats also perform for their contributors. That's the US government
Parker, the best government money can buy.
> But you're accusing Clinton of providing secret
> defense info.
I have not accused clinton of any such thing. Your claims of lies nothing
but your projection.
Clinton and Gore performed well for their contributors, including the
Chinese government by acting to allow profitable business relationships
and US corporations to transfer technology to china in the process of
making money.
> In article <Q5Mub.184288$mZ5.1334817@attbi_s54>,
>>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?
Show that political office holders do not need to perform for the
donations they recieve to run for office, then you can call it
untrue. I believe they perform for their contributors so it cannot
be a lie.
>>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.
Democrats also perform for their contributors. That's the US government
Parker, the best government money can buy.
> But you're accusing Clinton of providing secret
> defense info.
I have not accused clinton of any such thing. Your claims of lies nothing
but your projection.
Clinton and Gore performed well for their contributors, including the
Chinese government by acting to allow profitable business relationships
and US corporations to transfer technology to china in the process of
making money.