Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety canbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On Wed, 03 Dec 03 10:46:25 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:
>In article <rdqdncPcUbqAYlGiRTvUqQ@texas.net>, Steve <no@spam.thanks> wrote:
>>Greg wrote:
>>
>>> Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>>>"new source" creation, which was contrary to the actual written law.
>>>>
>>>>Wrong. They started treating major modifications as new sources, which was
>>>>exactly what the law allowed (and required).
>>>
>>>
>>> MAJOR modifications. Not minor improvements which would INCREASE
>efficiency, such
>>> as a new version of wear items such as turbine blades.
>>>
>>
>>
>>EXACTLY. Clinton policy = NO MODIFICATIONS!! Not even improvements to an
>>old plant that would be better than doing nothing.
>
>Because the Clean Air Act only exempts _maintenance_ not _modifications_.
I see.
So making it BETTER brings on penalties, but keeping it dirty is OK?
How is this supposed to clean up the air?
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
wrote:
>In article <rdqdncPcUbqAYlGiRTvUqQ@texas.net>, Steve <no@spam.thanks> wrote:
>>Greg wrote:
>>
>>> Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>>>"new source" creation, which was contrary to the actual written law.
>>>>
>>>>Wrong. They started treating major modifications as new sources, which was
>>>>exactly what the law allowed (and required).
>>>
>>>
>>> MAJOR modifications. Not minor improvements which would INCREASE
>efficiency, such
>>> as a new version of wear items such as turbine blades.
>>>
>>
>>
>>EXACTLY. Clinton policy = NO MODIFICATIONS!! Not even improvements to an
>>old plant that would be better than doing nothing.
>
>Because the Clean Air Act only exempts _maintenance_ not _modifications_.
I see.
So making it BETTER brings on penalties, but keeping it dirty is OK?
How is this supposed to clean up the air?
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety canbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On Wed, 03 Dec 03 10:46:25 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:
>In article <rdqdncPcUbqAYlGiRTvUqQ@texas.net>, Steve <no@spam.thanks> wrote:
>>Greg wrote:
>>
>>> Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>>>"new source" creation, which was contrary to the actual written law.
>>>>
>>>>Wrong. They started treating major modifications as new sources, which was
>>>>exactly what the law allowed (and required).
>>>
>>>
>>> MAJOR modifications. Not minor improvements which would INCREASE
>efficiency, such
>>> as a new version of wear items such as turbine blades.
>>>
>>
>>
>>EXACTLY. Clinton policy = NO MODIFICATIONS!! Not even improvements to an
>>old plant that would be better than doing nothing.
>
>Because the Clean Air Act only exempts _maintenance_ not _modifications_.
I see.
So making it BETTER brings on penalties, but keeping it dirty is OK?
How is this supposed to clean up the air?
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
wrote:
>In article <rdqdncPcUbqAYlGiRTvUqQ@texas.net>, Steve <no@spam.thanks> wrote:
>>Greg wrote:
>>
>>> Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>>>"new source" creation, which was contrary to the actual written law.
>>>>
>>>>Wrong. They started treating major modifications as new sources, which was
>>>>exactly what the law allowed (and required).
>>>
>>>
>>> MAJOR modifications. Not minor improvements which would INCREASE
>efficiency, such
>>> as a new version of wear items such as turbine blades.
>>>
>>
>>
>>EXACTLY. Clinton policy = NO MODIFICATIONS!! Not even improvements to an
>>old plant that would be better than doing nothing.
>
>Because the Clean Air Act only exempts _maintenance_ not _modifications_.
I see.
So making it BETTER brings on penalties, but keeping it dirty is OK?
How is this supposed to clean up the air?
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety canbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On Wed, 03 Dec 03 10:46:25 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:
>In article <rdqdncPcUbqAYlGiRTvUqQ@texas.net>, Steve <no@spam.thanks> wrote:
>>Greg wrote:
>>
>>> Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>>>"new source" creation, which was contrary to the actual written law.
>>>>
>>>>Wrong. They started treating major modifications as new sources, which was
>>>>exactly what the law allowed (and required).
>>>
>>>
>>> MAJOR modifications. Not minor improvements which would INCREASE
>efficiency, such
>>> as a new version of wear items such as turbine blades.
>>>
>>
>>
>>EXACTLY. Clinton policy = NO MODIFICATIONS!! Not even improvements to an
>>old plant that would be better than doing nothing.
>
>Because the Clean Air Act only exempts _maintenance_ not _modifications_.
I see.
So making it BETTER brings on penalties, but keeping it dirty is OK?
How is this supposed to clean up the air?
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
wrote:
>In article <rdqdncPcUbqAYlGiRTvUqQ@texas.net>, Steve <no@spam.thanks> wrote:
>>Greg wrote:
>>
>>> Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>>>"new source" creation, which was contrary to the actual written law.
>>>>
>>>>Wrong. They started treating major modifications as new sources, which was
>>>>exactly what the law allowed (and required).
>>>
>>>
>>> MAJOR modifications. Not minor improvements which would INCREASE
>efficiency, such
>>> as a new version of wear items such as turbine blades.
>>>
>>
>>
>>EXACTLY. Clinton policy = NO MODIFICATIONS!! Not even improvements to an
>>old plant that would be better than doing nothing.
>
>Because the Clean Air Act only exempts _maintenance_ not _modifications_.
I see.
So making it BETTER brings on penalties, but keeping it dirty is OK?
How is this supposed to clean up the air?
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On Wed, 03 Dec 03 10:45:58 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:
>In article <goudnWexTPwLYFGiRTvUqA@texas.net>, Steve <no@spam.thanks> wrote:
>>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>The problem is that the Clinton administration started treating routine
>>>
>>> maintenance on plants as
>>>
>>>>"new source" creation, which was contrary to the actual written law.
>>>
>>>
>>> Wrong. They started treating major modifications as new sources, which was
>>> exactly what the law allowed (and required). If during 10 years of routine
>>> maintenance you replace each part, you've got a new source, yet under your
>and
>>> Bush's plan, it'd never trigger the latest pollution controls because you
>>> replaced it one piece at a time, as part of each year's maintenance.
>>>
>>
>>Thats an incorrect interpretation. If I have a 1973 Plymouth (which I
>>do) and I replace many components in the course of its 450,000 mile
>>lifespan (which I have) it is STILL a 1973 Plymouth. It may have some
>>improvements (modern tires, high-tech brake pads, modern shocks,
>>aftermarket fuel injection) but it still costs me more to operate daily
>>than a 2003 Intrepid would, and is still subject to 1973 emissions
>>standards not 2003 standards. But my maintenance and improvements mean
>>that it is cleaner and costs less to run than if I had a time machine
>>and brought an UN-improved 1973 Plymouth to 2003 instead.
>
>But if you replace the carb, then the pistons, then the exhaust, you've got
>enough of a new engine that you ought to not still have the exemption that old
>engines get from emissions standards.
Why not?
It's the same block, but better (lower emissions).
Why do you want to encourage the owner from making it better by adding
more regulations and costs?
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
wrote:
>In article <goudnWexTPwLYFGiRTvUqA@texas.net>, Steve <no@spam.thanks> wrote:
>>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>The problem is that the Clinton administration started treating routine
>>>
>>> maintenance on plants as
>>>
>>>>"new source" creation, which was contrary to the actual written law.
>>>
>>>
>>> Wrong. They started treating major modifications as new sources, which was
>>> exactly what the law allowed (and required). If during 10 years of routine
>>> maintenance you replace each part, you've got a new source, yet under your
>and
>>> Bush's plan, it'd never trigger the latest pollution controls because you
>>> replaced it one piece at a time, as part of each year's maintenance.
>>>
>>
>>Thats an incorrect interpretation. If I have a 1973 Plymouth (which I
>>do) and I replace many components in the course of its 450,000 mile
>>lifespan (which I have) it is STILL a 1973 Plymouth. It may have some
>>improvements (modern tires, high-tech brake pads, modern shocks,
>>aftermarket fuel injection) but it still costs me more to operate daily
>>than a 2003 Intrepid would, and is still subject to 1973 emissions
>>standards not 2003 standards. But my maintenance and improvements mean
>>that it is cleaner and costs less to run than if I had a time machine
>>and brought an UN-improved 1973 Plymouth to 2003 instead.
>
>But if you replace the carb, then the pistons, then the exhaust, you've got
>enough of a new engine that you ought to not still have the exemption that old
>engines get from emissions standards.
Why not?
It's the same block, but better (lower emissions).
Why do you want to encourage the owner from making it better by adding
more regulations and costs?
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On Wed, 03 Dec 03 10:45:58 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:
>In article <goudnWexTPwLYFGiRTvUqA@texas.net>, Steve <no@spam.thanks> wrote:
>>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>The problem is that the Clinton administration started treating routine
>>>
>>> maintenance on plants as
>>>
>>>>"new source" creation, which was contrary to the actual written law.
>>>
>>>
>>> Wrong. They started treating major modifications as new sources, which was
>>> exactly what the law allowed (and required). If during 10 years of routine
>>> maintenance you replace each part, you've got a new source, yet under your
>and
>>> Bush's plan, it'd never trigger the latest pollution controls because you
>>> replaced it one piece at a time, as part of each year's maintenance.
>>>
>>
>>Thats an incorrect interpretation. If I have a 1973 Plymouth (which I
>>do) and I replace many components in the course of its 450,000 mile
>>lifespan (which I have) it is STILL a 1973 Plymouth. It may have some
>>improvements (modern tires, high-tech brake pads, modern shocks,
>>aftermarket fuel injection) but it still costs me more to operate daily
>>than a 2003 Intrepid would, and is still subject to 1973 emissions
>>standards not 2003 standards. But my maintenance and improvements mean
>>that it is cleaner and costs less to run than if I had a time machine
>>and brought an UN-improved 1973 Plymouth to 2003 instead.
>
>But if you replace the carb, then the pistons, then the exhaust, you've got
>enough of a new engine that you ought to not still have the exemption that old
>engines get from emissions standards.
Why not?
It's the same block, but better (lower emissions).
Why do you want to encourage the owner from making it better by adding
more regulations and costs?
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
wrote:
>In article <goudnWexTPwLYFGiRTvUqA@texas.net>, Steve <no@spam.thanks> wrote:
>>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>The problem is that the Clinton administration started treating routine
>>>
>>> maintenance on plants as
>>>
>>>>"new source" creation, which was contrary to the actual written law.
>>>
>>>
>>> Wrong. They started treating major modifications as new sources, which was
>>> exactly what the law allowed (and required). If during 10 years of routine
>>> maintenance you replace each part, you've got a new source, yet under your
>and
>>> Bush's plan, it'd never trigger the latest pollution controls because you
>>> replaced it one piece at a time, as part of each year's maintenance.
>>>
>>
>>Thats an incorrect interpretation. If I have a 1973 Plymouth (which I
>>do) and I replace many components in the course of its 450,000 mile
>>lifespan (which I have) it is STILL a 1973 Plymouth. It may have some
>>improvements (modern tires, high-tech brake pads, modern shocks,
>>aftermarket fuel injection) but it still costs me more to operate daily
>>than a 2003 Intrepid would, and is still subject to 1973 emissions
>>standards not 2003 standards. But my maintenance and improvements mean
>>that it is cleaner and costs less to run than if I had a time machine
>>and brought an UN-improved 1973 Plymouth to 2003 instead.
>
>But if you replace the carb, then the pistons, then the exhaust, you've got
>enough of a new engine that you ought to not still have the exemption that old
>engines get from emissions standards.
Why not?
It's the same block, but better (lower emissions).
Why do you want to encourage the owner from making it better by adding
more regulations and costs?
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On Wed, 03 Dec 03 10:45:58 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:
>In article <goudnWexTPwLYFGiRTvUqA@texas.net>, Steve <no@spam.thanks> wrote:
>>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>The problem is that the Clinton administration started treating routine
>>>
>>> maintenance on plants as
>>>
>>>>"new source" creation, which was contrary to the actual written law.
>>>
>>>
>>> Wrong. They started treating major modifications as new sources, which was
>>> exactly what the law allowed (and required). If during 10 years of routine
>>> maintenance you replace each part, you've got a new source, yet under your
>and
>>> Bush's plan, it'd never trigger the latest pollution controls because you
>>> replaced it one piece at a time, as part of each year's maintenance.
>>>
>>
>>Thats an incorrect interpretation. If I have a 1973 Plymouth (which I
>>do) and I replace many components in the course of its 450,000 mile
>>lifespan (which I have) it is STILL a 1973 Plymouth. It may have some
>>improvements (modern tires, high-tech brake pads, modern shocks,
>>aftermarket fuel injection) but it still costs me more to operate daily
>>than a 2003 Intrepid would, and is still subject to 1973 emissions
>>standards not 2003 standards. But my maintenance and improvements mean
>>that it is cleaner and costs less to run than if I had a time machine
>>and brought an UN-improved 1973 Plymouth to 2003 instead.
>
>But if you replace the carb, then the pistons, then the exhaust, you've got
>enough of a new engine that you ought to not still have the exemption that old
>engines get from emissions standards.
Why not?
It's the same block, but better (lower emissions).
Why do you want to encourage the owner from making it better by adding
more regulations and costs?
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
wrote:
>In article <goudnWexTPwLYFGiRTvUqA@texas.net>, Steve <no@spam.thanks> wrote:
>>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>The problem is that the Clinton administration started treating routine
>>>
>>> maintenance on plants as
>>>
>>>>"new source" creation, which was contrary to the actual written law.
>>>
>>>
>>> Wrong. They started treating major modifications as new sources, which was
>>> exactly what the law allowed (and required). If during 10 years of routine
>>> maintenance you replace each part, you've got a new source, yet under your
>and
>>> Bush's plan, it'd never trigger the latest pollution controls because you
>>> replaced it one piece at a time, as part of each year's maintenance.
>>>
>>
>>Thats an incorrect interpretation. If I have a 1973 Plymouth (which I
>>do) and I replace many components in the course of its 450,000 mile
>>lifespan (which I have) it is STILL a 1973 Plymouth. It may have some
>>improvements (modern tires, high-tech brake pads, modern shocks,
>>aftermarket fuel injection) but it still costs me more to operate daily
>>than a 2003 Intrepid would, and is still subject to 1973 emissions
>>standards not 2003 standards. But my maintenance and improvements mean
>>that it is cleaner and costs less to run than if I had a time machine
>>and brought an UN-improved 1973 Plymouth to 2003 instead.
>
>But if you replace the carb, then the pistons, then the exhaust, you've got
>enough of a new engine that you ought to not still have the exemption that old
>engines get from emissions standards.
Why not?
It's the same block, but better (lower emissions).
Why do you want to encourage the owner from making it better by adding
more regulations and costs?
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycanbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Brent P wrote:
> In article <TpOdneyta5tZ8VOiRTvUqA@texas.net>, Steve wrote:
>
>>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>>EXACTLY. Clinton policy = NO MODIFICATIONS!! Not even improvements to an
>>>>old plant that would be better than doing nothing.
>>>
>>>
>>>Because the Clean Air Act only exempts _maintenance_ not _modifications_.
>>
>>
>>NORMAL maintenance practice always includes minimal upgrades. You never
>>replace a worn part with an identical part, if a better part is
>>available (and it always is). Classifying such maintenance as a
>>"modification" is asinine.
>
>
> Parker has never turned a wrench and rents his cars these days.
>
> That said, there is one condition where you replace it with an identical
> part. If your car is one of those show car as-it-left-the-factory perfect
> trailer queens ;)
Right. And you have to go WAY out of your way to find "NOS" (new old
stock) parts that have year-of-manufacture date codes and therefore
still have all the shortcomings of the original part. I've got a show
car, but it aint no trailer queen! In fact, I drove it to work today :-)
> In article <TpOdneyta5tZ8VOiRTvUqA@texas.net>, Steve wrote:
>
>>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>>EXACTLY. Clinton policy = NO MODIFICATIONS!! Not even improvements to an
>>>>old plant that would be better than doing nothing.
>>>
>>>
>>>Because the Clean Air Act only exempts _maintenance_ not _modifications_.
>>
>>
>>NORMAL maintenance practice always includes minimal upgrades. You never
>>replace a worn part with an identical part, if a better part is
>>available (and it always is). Classifying such maintenance as a
>>"modification" is asinine.
>
>
> Parker has never turned a wrench and rents his cars these days.
>
> That said, there is one condition where you replace it with an identical
> part. If your car is one of those show car as-it-left-the-factory perfect
> trailer queens ;)
Right. And you have to go WAY out of your way to find "NOS" (new old
stock) parts that have year-of-manufacture date codes and therefore
still have all the shortcomings of the original part. I've got a show
car, but it aint no trailer queen! In fact, I drove it to work today :-)
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycanbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Brent P wrote:
> In article <TpOdneyta5tZ8VOiRTvUqA@texas.net>, Steve wrote:
>
>>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>>EXACTLY. Clinton policy = NO MODIFICATIONS!! Not even improvements to an
>>>>old plant that would be better than doing nothing.
>>>
>>>
>>>Because the Clean Air Act only exempts _maintenance_ not _modifications_.
>>
>>
>>NORMAL maintenance practice always includes minimal upgrades. You never
>>replace a worn part with an identical part, if a better part is
>>available (and it always is). Classifying such maintenance as a
>>"modification" is asinine.
>
>
> Parker has never turned a wrench and rents his cars these days.
>
> That said, there is one condition where you replace it with an identical
> part. If your car is one of those show car as-it-left-the-factory perfect
> trailer queens ;)
Right. And you have to go WAY out of your way to find "NOS" (new old
stock) parts that have year-of-manufacture date codes and therefore
still have all the shortcomings of the original part. I've got a show
car, but it aint no trailer queen! In fact, I drove it to work today :-)
> In article <TpOdneyta5tZ8VOiRTvUqA@texas.net>, Steve wrote:
>
>>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>>EXACTLY. Clinton policy = NO MODIFICATIONS!! Not even improvements to an
>>>>old plant that would be better than doing nothing.
>>>
>>>
>>>Because the Clean Air Act only exempts _maintenance_ not _modifications_.
>>
>>
>>NORMAL maintenance practice always includes minimal upgrades. You never
>>replace a worn part with an identical part, if a better part is
>>available (and it always is). Classifying such maintenance as a
>>"modification" is asinine.
>
>
> Parker has never turned a wrench and rents his cars these days.
>
> That said, there is one condition where you replace it with an identical
> part. If your car is one of those show car as-it-left-the-factory perfect
> trailer queens ;)
Right. And you have to go WAY out of your way to find "NOS" (new old
stock) parts that have year-of-manufacture date codes and therefore
still have all the shortcomings of the original part. I've got a show
car, but it aint no trailer queen! In fact, I drove it to work today :-)
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycanbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Brent P wrote:
> In article <TpOdneyta5tZ8VOiRTvUqA@texas.net>, Steve wrote:
>
>>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>>EXACTLY. Clinton policy = NO MODIFICATIONS!! Not even improvements to an
>>>>old plant that would be better than doing nothing.
>>>
>>>
>>>Because the Clean Air Act only exempts _maintenance_ not _modifications_.
>>
>>
>>NORMAL maintenance practice always includes minimal upgrades. You never
>>replace a worn part with an identical part, if a better part is
>>available (and it always is). Classifying such maintenance as a
>>"modification" is asinine.
>
>
> Parker has never turned a wrench and rents his cars these days.
>
> That said, there is one condition where you replace it with an identical
> part. If your car is one of those show car as-it-left-the-factory perfect
> trailer queens ;)
Right. And you have to go WAY out of your way to find "NOS" (new old
stock) parts that have year-of-manufacture date codes and therefore
still have all the shortcomings of the original part. I've got a show
car, but it aint no trailer queen! In fact, I drove it to work today :-)
> In article <TpOdneyta5tZ8VOiRTvUqA@texas.net>, Steve wrote:
>
>>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>>EXACTLY. Clinton policy = NO MODIFICATIONS!! Not even improvements to an
>>>>old plant that would be better than doing nothing.
>>>
>>>
>>>Because the Clean Air Act only exempts _maintenance_ not _modifications_.
>>
>>
>>NORMAL maintenance practice always includes minimal upgrades. You never
>>replace a worn part with an identical part, if a better part is
>>available (and it always is). Classifying such maintenance as a
>>"modification" is asinine.
>
>
> Parker has never turned a wrench and rents his cars these days.
>
> That said, there is one condition where you replace it with an identical
> part. If your car is one of those show car as-it-left-the-factory perfect
> trailer queens ;)
Right. And you have to go WAY out of your way to find "NOS" (new old
stock) parts that have year-of-manufacture date codes and therefore
still have all the shortcomings of the original part. I've got a show
car, but it aint no trailer queen! In fact, I drove it to work today :-)
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycanbemisinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
> In article <3FCD2603.3BC69F50@kinez.net>,
> Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net> wrote:
> >You're free to pay for their healthcare any time you want. But what
> >idiot believes that they have the right to reach into my pocket and take
> >what is mine (it's called stealing). So - really - who is preventing
> >you and anyone who feels that way from paying for the treatment of these
> >people? You have that right, as do I - but by freedom of will - not by
> >confiscation.
> >
>
> It's called living in a society. Society has the right to compel you to pay
> taxes, and it's the height of idiocy to call it stealing or theft...
You're thinking of a pure democracy without any Consitutional
protections, wherein if 50.0000000001% of the people vote to confiscate
your property, then it's legal for them to do so. Society, under a
constituional republic, can only tax to the degree that their
constitution allows them to. Going beyond that is stealing regardless
of liberals euphemistically calling the unauthorized confiscation
"taxes".
I always knew that your brand of liberal believed that the state had an
unlimited right to my property, but I never thought any were so totally
blind to basic principles as to openly admit that they believed that.
Guess I was wrong.
Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
