Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#4591
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.
#4592
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
> 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? <
The difference is 1) there's no way you can detect the rate of change over
6000 yeasrs with any degree of certainty, and 2) the second number is pure
--------, as is this entire theory.
seen an increase of the same magnitude in 120 years. Do you think there's
no difference? <
The difference is 1) there's no way you can detect the rate of change over
6000 yeasrs with any degree of certainty, and 2) the second number is pure
--------, as is this entire theory.
#4593
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
> 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? <
The difference is 1) there's no way you can detect the rate of change over
6000 yeasrs with any degree of certainty, and 2) the second number is pure
--------, as is this entire theory.
seen an increase of the same magnitude in 120 years. Do you think there's
no difference? <
The difference is 1) there's no way you can detect the rate of change over
6000 yeasrs with any degree of certainty, and 2) the second number is pure
--------, as is this entire theory.
#4594
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
> 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? <
The difference is 1) there's no way you can detect the rate of change over
6000 yeasrs with any degree of certainty, and 2) the second number is pure
--------, as is this entire theory.
seen an increase of the same magnitude in 120 years. Do you think there's
no difference? <
The difference is 1) there's no way you can detect the rate of change over
6000 yeasrs with any degree of certainty, and 2) the second number is pure
--------, as is this entire theory.
#4595
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
> I wish you wouldn't get your "facts" from right-wing propaganda sources.>
As opposed to what, your lefty friends in academia, the socialist press,
looney-left websites, etc.?
As opposed to what, your lefty friends in academia, the socialist press,
looney-left websites, etc.?
#4596
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
> I wish you wouldn't get your "facts" from right-wing propaganda sources.>
As opposed to what, your lefty friends in academia, the socialist press,
looney-left websites, etc.?
As opposed to what, your lefty friends in academia, the socialist press,
looney-left websites, etc.?
#4597
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
> I wish you wouldn't get your "facts" from right-wing propaganda sources.>
As opposed to what, your lefty friends in academia, the socialist press,
looney-left websites, etc.?
As opposed to what, your lefty friends in academia, the socialist press,
looney-left websites, etc.?