In article <bql0dl$c29$2@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:

>>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.

Parker once again shows that he has no concept of the inner workings of
an automobile. Old engines do not get exemptions either. They are held
to the standards of era they came from. A new carb and new pistons, hell
an entire rebuild won't make a 1973 auto pass 2003 new car emissions.
I doubt a 1973 could even pass IM240 for a 2003. (idle test is a
different story since at least for IL, before they went to IM240, the
requirements were the same for 1982 on up)

 
Jerry McG wrote:

> "C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:3F7CE3E2.B772E342@mindspring.com...
>
>>
>>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>
>>
>>>So are conservatives -- telling people what kind of sex to have, what
>
> genders
>
>>>can marry, what a woman can do with her body, etc.
>>
>>It is not just conservatives who oppose the redefinition of "marriage."
>>Any reasonable person should oppose this sort of reckless redefinition
>>of a long established legal / social / religious institution. If same
>>sex couples want to form a long term commitment to each other, I think
>>that is fine. If they feel they need a governmental sanction to this
>>commitment, then pass a law that creates a new class of civil union. But
>>trying to call this a "marriage" is an insult to millions of American
>>and serves no useful purpose.
>>
>>Ed
>
>
> Oh, sure it does, Ed, if recognized as "marriage" they then get huge tax
> and benefits advantages, all of which are denied singles.

The "new class of civil union" would cover that just fine.





 
In article <bql0eg$c29$3@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
> Because the Clean Air Act only exempts _maintenance_ not _modifications_.

So this is not about the environment, it's about government power and
buracratic nonsense if you are correct. If this were about the
environment the regulations would not be all-or-nothing. Because quite
clearly modifications that improve the performance of the power plant
and reduce emissions are good for the environment and should be allowed
even if the whole plant isn't redone to meet the standards of new equipment.
Part-way is better for the environment than doing nothing.


 
In article <WPhzb.2620$rE3.1688@twister.socal.rr.com>,
"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:bqitii$of5$5@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> In article <JX5zb.48$rE3.36@twister.socal.rr.com>,
>> "David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> >
>> >> >I think a National Health Care system sounds very scary. If we want
>an
>> >> >abundant supply of medical care in this country you can't take the
>supply
>> >> >and demand components out of the system. The minute you do, there
>won't be
>> >> >enough care and it will be substandard. There will be a constant
>struggle
>> >> >to keep the system from bankrupting the national treasury. I think it
>will
>> >> >just become a giant sized version of an HMO run by the government with
>no
>> >> >competitors.
>> >>
>> >> Yeah, it'd be terrible if everybody were covered and we spent less on
>health
>> >> care, as Europe, Canada, and Japan do, wouldn't it? Terrible for
>insurance
>> >> companies, drug companies, HMOs, etc, that is.
>> >>
>> >> But why not a single-payer, like Canada then? You wouldn't have
>national
>> >> health care, just national health insurance.
>> >>
>> >
>> >That's the point. A national HMO.
>>
>> No, a national insurance. Like Medicare, which runs with less overhead
>than
>> any private insurance company, and which seniors love.
>>
>
>Doctors who accept Medicare patients lose money. Many doctors won't accept
>Medicare patients for that reason. Those that do accept them do it because
>they feel an obligation. Medicare is also headed for bankruptcy unless
>drastic action is taken. Reduced coverage, reduced reimbursement to
>doctors, increased Medicare tax withholding.
>
>
Lots of doctors won't accept certain HMOs either, because of low payments or
endless delays. Here in GA, a number recently have dropped Aetna, for
example.
 
In article <3F7CE3E2.B772E342@mindspring.com>,
"C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>> So are conservatives -- telling people what kind of sex to have, what
genders
>> can marry, what a woman can do with her body, etc.
>
>It is not just conservatives who oppose the redefinition of "marriage."
>Any reasonable person should oppose this sort of reckless redefinition
>of a long established legal / social / religious institution. If same
>sex couples want to form a long term commitment to each other, I think
>that is fine. If they feel they need a governmental sanction to this
>commitment, then pass a law that creates a new class of civil union. But
>trying to call this a "marriage" is an insult to millions of American
>and serves no useful purpose.
>

But why should government institutionalize discrimination? OK, no religion
should be required to perform or recognize a marriage not in keeping with its
creed (doesn't the catholic church not recognize marriages by divorced
people?), but why should government discriminate?

>Ed
 
In article <Nabzb.285099$275.1004261@attbi_s53>,
tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>In article <bqitam$of5$3@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> Need dialysis? No hospital is required to do that for free, for example.
>
>Government health care programs already cover dialysis.

Most people aren't in such a program.


> In fact the price
>(LOW) the government pays is a if not the driving factor in care in this
>area. The government payment scheme for 3-times-a-week dialysis is
>a major obstacle to improving the quality of care, the quality of
>people's lives, and their surviviability.
>
>I am really glad you made a point of dialysis parker, because it is one
>treatment that is required to keep people with renal failure alive but one
>where government price controls dominate what people get with regards
>to care. It is a great example of the arrogant way government does things
>that has a negative effect on people. Want better care than 3 times a
>week? Government says you can't have it, they'll only pay for that. If
>you want something better, you better pay for it yourself or hope it can
>work within the government 3-times-a-week cost model. You've stuck your
>foot in your mouth once again Parker.
>
>
>
>
>
 
In article <3FCD3C1D.BE56D712@greg.greg>, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>> In article <3FCCF1D1.ACBB3171@greg.greg>, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
>> >Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> >
>> >> In article <3FCCD887.D942F3A9@greg.greg>, John S <john_s@no.spam> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >z wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote in message
>> >> news:<O0Lyb.274685$ao4.944751@attbi_s51>...
>> >> >> > In article <b5b4685f.0312010918.6e702dc5@posting.google.com>, z
wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > > They are going to move production of CO2 to China? All those
>> >> >> > > inefficient old coal-fired power plants are going to China?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > What is better? An old inefficient regulated to be as clean as
>> feasiable
>> >> >> > coal power plant in the USA feeding a factory with electricity or a
>> >> >> > quick-and-dirty-old-tech-soviet-style coal plant in china feeding a
>> >> >> > factory? Which is better for the environment?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > And why do we have old coal plants in the USA? Because any new
plants
>> >> >> > are opposed on environmental grounds. And new and better means of
>> >> >> > generation are opposed on environmental grounds. So what we get
>> >> >> > is the status quo. The status quo remains because change is not
>> >> >> > possible.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Yeah, the old rightwing fantasy factory rides again. Do you recall
the
>> >> >> Clean Air Act? Do you recall that the power companies piteously pled
>> >> >> for and were granted an exemption for their old coal and oil fuelled
>> >> >> plants, since the power companies promised that they were going to be
>> >> >> all mothballed soon anyway and it would be purely wasteful to upgrade
>> >> >> them for the short time they will be in operation? Well, it's thirty
>> >> >> years later now, and here in CT, half the electricity is still being
>> >> >> produced by those old 'soon to be mothballed' plants, known locally
as
>> >> >> the Filthy Five. This is not because the utility companies are just
>> >> >> dying to build some expensive clean new plants and the
>> >> >> environmentalists just won't let them. It's purely because it's much
>> >> >> cheaper to run these monstrosities unmodified than it is to build new
>> >> >> plants, despite the environmentalists screaming to trade them for
>> >> >> clean new plants or else update them. The Reagan and Bush I
>> >> >> administrations refused to enforce the part of the Clean Air Act that
>> >> >> requires the companies to install upgraded pollution controls if they
>> >> >> were doing significant expansions to the plants, in contrast to
>> >> >> routine maintenance, allowing the Filthy Five to actually expand
their
>> >> >> filthy emissions. The Clinton administration finally starts to
enforce
>> >> >> this provision, and what happens? The Bush junta reverses the
>> >> >> enforcement decision. And in response to this boondoggle, the
>> >> >> utilities raise their rates 10%.
>> >> >
>> >> >That's not true at all. First of all, the Bush I administration SIGNED
>> the
>> >> Clean Air Act
>> >> >amendments in 1990 into law, which strenghthened, not weakened the
Clean
>> Air
>> >> Act. Secondly, the
>> >> >act was and is being enforced. The act was designed to require NEW
PLANTS
>> >> (new sources) to have
>> >> >much more stringent controls with updated technology. Older plants
would
>> be
>> >> initially exempted
>> >> >because of common sense economics. However pollution from these older
>> palnts
>> >> would then be capped
>> >> >and traded, so plants pay for their negative externalities (pollution)
and
>> >> production is shifted to
>> >> >the most efficient (by this I mean less polluting) plants because they
are
>> >> cheaper to operate due
>> >> >to the cost of pollution credits. In this way all plants use the most
>> >> advanced pollution controls
>> >> >available to them. Eventually the older plants are shut down or
upgraded
>> >> (when they WOULD be
>> >> >subject to New Source controls) because they are too expensive to
operate
>> or
>> >> they get too old to
>> >> >operate anyway.
>> >> >
>> >> >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).
>> >
>> >MAJOR modifications. Not minor improvements which would INCREASE
efficiency,
>> such
>> >as a new version of wear items such as turbine blades.
>> >
>> >> 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.
>> >
>> >No. The law clearly states that merely replacing parts is NOT new source.
>> Try
>> >becoming familiar with what you talk about.
>> >
>>
>> Replacing may not be, but changing one part for a DIFFERENT one is, and
should
>> be. Otherwise, you'd have the scenario I mentioned.
>
>In your alternate reality, not in the actual US statue. Routine maintenance
and
>part upgrades are specifically permitted under the new source review. This
was
>done for good reason, otherwise it would be bad policy that creates perverse
>incentives to remain most polluting status quo.
>
>>
>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Treating it this way
>> >> >subjected the plants specifically exempted from the statue to the
>> >> requirements of new plants.
>> >>
>> >> But if the plants get modified instead of just "serviced and cleaned",
>> that's
>> >> precisely what the law intended. That's why the EPA sued a number of
>> utility
>> >> companies, why a number of them settled, and why the suits continued
until
>> >> Bush decided to "reinterpet" the law just this year.;
>> >
>> >Actually all Bush did was interpret the law exactly as it was WRITTEN in
the
>> >statue, and had been enforced pre Browner and friends.
>>
>> Not true. I refer you to the suits the EPA filed.
>
>You mean the Clinton EPA filed, the same EPA file that destroyed its records
in
>its last day, despite specific US District Court orders not to. Yep, the
Clinton
>EPA was sure proud of its record.

Back when we had an EPA that really cared about the environment?

>
>>
>>
>> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> ?This
>> >> >had the perverse incentive of indicating to plant owners that routine
>> >> maintenance is a BAD IDEA to
>> >> >do, because the Government will come after you for doing it. Better to
>> defer
>> >> maintenance and not
>> >> >keep plants in the most effiicent manner they can be reasonably
operated
>> in.
>> >> But the effect of
>> >> >this is that when routine maintenance and minor upgrades become to
>> expensive
>> >> because of overzealous
>> >> >regulation, the effect is that nothing is done and instead the most
>> polluting
>> >> plants are left in
>> >> >operation as is, with no improvements all. The WSJ has reported
>> extensively
>> >> on this, and
>> >>
>> >> The WSJ never met an environmental reg it liked, because it never met a
>> >> corporate profit it didn't want increased.
>> >
>> >What on earth are you babbling about? You can't make your argument with
>> actual
>> >facts, so you attack/smear the messenger.
>>
>> I suggest you cite some source other than one rabidly pro-business to have
any
>> credibility.
>
>The only sources that appears to have credibility with you is the Sierra Club
and
>Consumer Reports. Furthermore your slam against WSJ is false and you cannot
>substantiate it.

As I said, a newspaper that is avowedly pro-business cannot be considered an
objective source.

>
>>
>>
>> > Try actually reading the WSJ for once
>> >in your life and you would know that you are wrong as when you said that
>> Daimler
>> >Chrysler was the only foreign company listed on the New York Stock
Exchange,
>> as if
>> >Sony of Japan (NYSE:SNE) or Deutsch Bank AG (NYSE: DB) and others
didn't
>> even
>> >exist!
>> >
>>
>> You're confusing ADRs with actual shares of stock.
>
>Many non companies (inclding American Depostitary Receipt) are LISTED on the
New
>York Stock Exchange and trade like any other stock, contrary to your phony
claim
>that only DCX is listed on NYSE. Global Shares are no less listed on the
NYSE
>than ADPs.

OK, DB is now on the NYSE, but:

"Deutsche Bank started trading it's Global Registered Shares on the New York
Stock Exchange on Wednesday, 3 October 2001." (from the DB web site)

So at the time of the merger, DC was the only such company listed there.

"DaimlerChrysler (NYSE: DCX), the first company to trade as a global share in
18 countries simultaneously..." --
http://www.nyse.com/content/articles/1043269646436.html

>
>>
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >specifically about how the Clinton EPA chief was upset that plants were
>> TOO
>> >> CLEAN because they
>> >> >needed something to rail against to publicity. This was all recorded
in
>> >> memos.
>> >>
>> >> It was not.
>> >
>> > Wrong, the Wall Street Journal printed some of these memos not too long
>> ago. And
>> >those were the ones that did not get quietly destroyed by Browner on the
last
>> full
>> >day of the Clinton adminstration. ABC News reported on April 30 2001 that
>> Clinton
>> >EPA Administrator Browner had ordered her records and hard drives
destroyed,
>> >against US District Court Judge Royce Lamberth's order. I guess the
>> Clinton
>> >Administration is good in your eyes for Enron style shredding. The
>> philosophy of
>> >the Clinton EPA was to do grandstanding rulemaking, without required
>> legislation
>> >or even sound policies. Let me guess, now you're going to start saying
how
>> ABC
>> >News is really just a shill. too. Ha!
>> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >The Bush plan restores the EPA's mandated New Source Review. But it's
>> easier
>> >> for people to make
>> >> >silly attacks on Bush, because they cannot comprehend the actual laws,
the
>> >> reason why they were
>> >> >written, the actual effects that they have, the effect of enforcing
>> non-laws,
>> >> or what is going on
>> >> >in general.
>> >>
>> >> Next you'll be telling us how good Bush is for the environment! LOL!
>> >
>> >A lot better than his predecessor, who created perverse incentives for
plants
>> NOT
>> >to get cleaner, and HALTED dead brush cleanup in forests so that they
could
>> become
>> >tinderboxes for massive fires. Bush is giving us low sulfur diesel fuel,
>> the low
>> >arsenic water standard which Clinton denied drinkers in 1996, and Bush's
EPA
>> is
>> >forcing General Electric to clean up PCBs for the entire Hudson River.
>> Thanks for
>> >all those fires, Mr. Clinton. Thanks for conveniently destroying the
>> government
>> >records on the way out too. Glad you were so proud of your record that
you
>> needed
>> >to erase it.
>> >
>> >I'll repost that story that was posted before, because you conveniently
>> forgot to
>> >comment on it!
>> >
>> > "In one famous case, DTE Energy Corp., parent of Detroit Edison Co.,
tried
>> to
>> >replace older, less efficient propeller blades in several steam turbines
at
>> its
>> >biggest coal-fired plant. The new blades were 15% more efficient than the
>> old,
>> >meaning they could generate 15% more power using the same amount of
>> energy--more
>> >power, less pollution. But the Clinton EPA threatened to invoke New Source
>> Review
>> >anyway, so the plan was scrapped.
>> >
>> > Not that Detroit Edison and others are avoiding heavy pollution-fighting
>> >expenses. At the very same plant, Detroit Edison is spending $650 million
to
>> meet
>> >new nitrogen oxide standards--an expense that won't generate a single new
>> kilowatt
>> >of electricity.
>> >
>> > Bureaucrats, of course, interpret such a rational response to perverse
rules
>> as a
>> >sign of corporate greed. So when the Clinton administration found that at
>> least
>> >80% of the nation's utilities were violating its New Source Review
>> guidelines, it
>> >didn't bother to ask whether something might be wrong with its policies.
It
>> simply
>> >filed an avalanche of lawsuits demanding huge fines.
>> >
>> >Yet EPA data clearly show that emissions of nitrogen oxide and sulfur
>> dioxide, the
>> >two main industrial pollutants, have declined substantially despite a
>> tripling of
>> >coal usage. Future Clean Air targets will reduce emissions a further 50%."
>> -WSJ
>> >11/26/02
>
>I notice that you have nothing to say to that. By the way, your computer's
clock
>is wrong too.
>
 
In article <Uaizb.2907$rE3.2726@twister.socal.rr.com>,
"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:bqit92$of5$2@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> In article <MK5zb.46$rE3.8@twister.socal.rr.com>,
>> "David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>> >> >> Yeah, that's a requirement for a grant, like your predecessors here
>> >> >> say. You have to say 'and if funded, this project will destroy
>> >> >> capitalism and further the crypto-communist agenda, destroying the
>> >> >> middle class life style of myself and others like me and my family'.
>> >> >> Bravo, you've figured it out. Down with science!!!
>> >> >
>> >> >This is the strategy of the left. When they find them on the wrong
>side
>> >of
>> >> >morality, they redefine morality. Now it's science. If you disagree
>> >with
>> >> >the "science" of global warming (and the global disaster it leads to)
>> >then
>> >> >you reject science. Likewise, morality is no longer fidelity,
>honesty,
>> >> >personal responsibility. It's now support for the policies of the
>left,
>> >> >like gay marriage and adopting the Kyoto protocol.
>> >>
>> >> Spoken like a good little creationist.
>> >>
>> >
>> >Who? Me? I don't buy into "Creation Science". But the lefts
>redefinition
>> >of "morality" and "science" is no different than what Creationists do to
>> >force fit science into Genesis. Only it's force fit of science (and
>> >religion) into anti-capitalism.
>>
>> No, you reject facts that don't fit your dogma. That's creationism.
>>
>> >
>> >> >
>> >> >The groups standing behind extreme environmentalists are Socialists
>and
>> >> >Communists. They are idealogical siblings to protect people from
>"evil
>> >> >corporations".
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> And the folks standing behind you and your ilk are Fascists and Nazis.
>> >Want
>> >> to call names? OK.
>> >
>> >Not at all. When you see who shows up to those anti-globalist
>> >(anti-corporate) demonstrations you see Socialist signs and booths all
>over
>> >the place. No "name" calling was intended. And if you're looking for
>nasty
>> >names to fit conservatives, you're really missing the mark with Fascist
>and
>> >Nazi. Those are on the opposite side of the political spectrum, away
>from
>> >limited government.
>>
>> So are conservatives -- telling people what kind of sex to have, what
>genders
>> can marry, what a woman can do with her body, etc.
>>
>
>This one again? Ok, I'll repeat myself. Conservatives believe some rights
>are reserved to states and individuals to decide how they want to govern
>themselves. That includes the rights of states and communities, through
>their legislatures, to rule on sexual behaviors, abortion, and marriage.
>It's the Dems who want to nationalize these things and force all communities
>nationwide to accept their new age definitions of morality and religion.

Why wouldn't the most intimate relationships between people be a right
reserved to the people themselves (9th amendment)? Surely if there are any
"inherent" or "God-given" rights, it would be those that have to do with
intimate relationships and behaviors. Aren't you arguing the 9th amendment is
meaningless, that any rights not enumerated are reserved just to the states?

>
>The conservative position has never been to nationalize any of these issues,
>but to allow local jurisdictions to choose for themselves. The only time
>conservatives do want to nationalize such issues is when the Libs find a
>liberal federal judge to overturn local law based and make it a national
>issue, i.e., unlimited federal government.
>
>Why can't you see the conservative vs. liberal debate as one based on role
>of federal government instead of merely accusing conservatives of being
>"rascist", "homophobe", "sexist", "bigoted". All those labels are debate
>enders. The issue of the role of government is a legitimate thing to debate
>with honorable arguments on both sides. Yet people like you never engage in
>it. You resort to this name calling instead.
>
>> >
>> >
>
>
 
In article <nLjzb.86$uE6.60@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>,
"OrygunGuy" <orygun.guy@verizon.net> wrote:
>A technical paper that appeared in July, 2003 in GSA Today, a journal of the
>Geological Society of America, gave evidence that the periodic cooling and
>warming of the planet over the past millions of years is cyclical and is
>caused by a complex interplay between solar activity and cosmic rays. It
>concluded that carbon dioxide emissions are not the main "driver" of climate
>change.
>
>Dr. Nir Shaviv, an astrophysicist from the Racah Institute of Physics of the
>Hebrew University of Jerusalem, and Prof. Jan Veiser a geochemist at the
>University of Ottawa in Canada, say that temperature variations are due more
>to cosmic forces than to the actions of man.
>
>In the article, Shaviv and Veiser tell of their studies illustrating a
>correlation between past cosmic ray flux - the high-energy particles
>reaching us from stellar explosions - and long-term climate variability, as
>recorded by oxygen isotopes trapped in rocks formed by ancient marine
>fossils. The level of cosmic ray activity reaching the earth and its
>atmosphere was reconstructed using another isotopic record in meteorites.
>
>The study showed that peak periods of cosmic rays reaching the earth over
>the past 550 million years coincided with lower global temperatures,
>apparently due to the way that the cosmic rays promote low-level cloud
>formation, hence blocking out the sun. No correlation was obtained,
>however, with the changing amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide.
>
>The conclusion of the two scientists is that celestial processes seem to be
>the dominant influence on climate change, and that increased carbon dioxide
>release, while certainly not beneficial, is only secondary to those forces
>which are beyond our control.

But we know that the warming TODAY is due to CO2. It doesn't matter that
warmings in the past may have had other causes. That's like arguing that
since exercise raised your body temp. yesterday, a virus cannot be the cause
of your fever today.

>
>For me I think I'll do what I see Frank say all of the time...
>
>
>yeah see if you can find out some thing about the trails
>
>
>Frank. Sling some mud for me!!!!!!!
>Braille trail 4 wheelers
>we wheel by feel
>79 chev 3/4 bb
>
>
>
>
>
>"z" <gzuckier@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:b5b4685f.0312020814.750e4869@posting.google.com...
>> "Douglas A. Shrader" <dshrader@nospam.com> wrote in message
>news:<vrvbrp3s87ief3@corp.supernews.com>...
>> > "z" <gzuckier@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> > news:b5b4685f.0311220808.37daf112@posting.google.com...
>> > > "C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>> > news:<3FBD08A4.14331320@mindspring.com>...
>> > > > Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > > >Fact: we don't *know* why there were warming periods in the past.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Irrelevant. We know why there's one now.
>> > > >
>> > > > No we don't!
>> > > >
>> > > > Some scientist believe the reason is an increase in the atmospheric
>> > concentration
>> > > > of CO2. They may be right or not. Your agreement with their belief
>does
>> > not prove
>> > > > it. Citing papers, even peer reviewed papers, still doesn't prove
>> > anything. The
>> > > > global climate is a very complicated system with lots of inputs.
>Looking
>> > at one
>> > > > input and one change and declaring they are cause and effect is BS.
>As a
>> > > > scientist you should know this. The scientist doing climate research
>> > don't even
>> > > > have really good data on the solar constant for more than the last
>few
>> > years.
>> > > > They are estimating historic temperatures from sketchy data or
>trying to
>> > infere
>> > > > it from effects that they believe are related to the temperature.
>The
>> > errors
>> > > > associated with these measurement are much greater than the changes
>they
>> > are
>> > > > claiming. It is junk science. They decided on the conclusion and
>then
>> > groomed the
>> > > > data to fit it. Anyone that doesn't agree with the establishment is
>> > treated as a
>> > > > loon.
>> > >
>> > > The IPCC model of climate change is hardly "Looking at one input and
>> > > one change and declaring they are cause and effect". In fact, all
>> > > inputs we currently know of as affecting climate are considered, and
>> > > the best estimate of their effects are calculated, complete with
>> > > confidence limits. What makes you think otherwise? What are you
>> > > reading that says it was "Looking at one input and one change and
>> > > declaring they are cause and effect"? What makes you say they "decided
>> > > on the conclusion and then groomed the data to fit it"? Was there some
>> > > kind of big meeting where environmentalists or liberals or the
>> > > climatology establishment or somebody decided that we should screw the
>> > > economy and the best way to do so was to pretend there was global
>> > > warming? Isn't it a bit more likely that the energy industries et al
>> > > have an axe to grind regarding preventing any restrictions on their
>> > > operation?
>> > > And there are plenty of scientists who disagree with the establishment
>> > > who are no treated as loons, in addition to the actual loons.
>> >
>> > I believe they are wrong. They discount solar influence when IMHO it is
>a
>> > far more likely cause. WE know solar output is variable, we know how
>great a
>> > temperature change can result from moderate changes in solar heating
>(think
>> > seasons), and anyone who dismisses Solar influence as a major force
>behind
>> > global warming (Hi LP) is, IMHO, in denial.
>>
>> Well, here are the estimated magnitudes of the components in the IPCC
>> model, with confidence limits <pws.prserv.net/gzuckier/warming.jpg>.
>> Compare the magnitude of the solar component, though large, with the
>> magnitude of the CO2 component, even with the max end of the solar
>> confidence limit and the min end of the CO2 confidence limit. The
>> thing being, that the reasons for the IPCC adopting these estimates
>> are given in the report along with references to the published
>> studies, etc. A far cry from just saying they 'discount' solar
>> warming. So do you have any such evidence for your more solar
>> position? (This wan't meant to be as hostile a challenge as it sounds
>> on reading it, just a conversational inquiry tone).
>
>
 


Lloyd Parker wrote:

> >Since when to conservatives as an aggregate tell people what kind of sex to
> >have??? You're posting from an alternate reality again.
> >
> Sodomy laws?

Have any new ones been enacted recently? I thought almost all such laws were
enacted many years ago and were definitely middle of the road sort of laws at the
time.

Ed

 


Lloyd Parker wrote:

> 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. If you
> don't want to live in a society, you can leave. Nobody's keeping you here.

Doesn't the same apply when "society" makes rules about sex, abortion, marriage,
etc., etc., etc.?

Ed

 
In article <uXnzb.211214$Dw6.768125@attbi_s02>,
tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>In article <bql0h3$c29$4@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>>In article <bqit3e$of5$1@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>>> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>>>>In article <bqinb6$him$8@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>>>>>> Yeah, it'd be terrible if everybody were covered and we spent less on
health
>>>>>> care, as Europe, Canada, and Japan do, wouldn't it? Terrible for
insurance
>>>>>> companies, drug companies, HMOs, etc, that is.
>
>>>>>How would we spend "less on health care" ? Instead of paying for health
>>>>>insurance we would pay *AT LEAST* that much in additional taxes.
>
>>>> Why is it, then, that every western European nation, plus Canada and
Japan,
>>>> spend less per capita on health care than the US yet still cover
everybody?
>
>>>Answer a question with a question. How does your state run health care
>>>system cost less than the current private one?
>
>> Because all the examples we have of state-run health care say it would.
>> Economy of scale, negotiation for lower prices, preventative care instead
of
>> waiting until the person becomes sick -- all these and other factors.
>
>So your answer is we would save money through the reduced quality of care.
>I suggest you gain some experience with how government price controls
>have a negative impact on care, at least with regards to how it works
>in the USA.
>
>
Again, I refer you to all the data which shows people in Canada and western
Europe are healthier and live longer.
 
In article <_6ydncNzQME2kVOiRTvUqQ@texas.net>, Steve <no@spam.thanks> wrote:
>Jerry McG wrote:
>
>> "C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>> news:3F7CE3E2.B772E342@mindspring.com...
>>
>>>
>>>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>So are conservatives -- telling people what kind of sex to have, what
>>
>> genders
>>
>>>>can marry, what a woman can do with her body, etc.
>>>
>>>It is not just conservatives who oppose the redefinition of "marriage."
>>>Any reasonable person should oppose this sort of reckless redefinition
>>>of a long established legal / social / religious institution. If same
>>>sex couples want to form a long term commitment to each other, I think
>>>that is fine. If they feel they need a governmental sanction to this
>>>commitment, then pass a law that creates a new class of civil union. But
>>>trying to call this a "marriage" is an insult to millions of American
>>>and serves no useful purpose.
>>>
>>>Ed
>>
>>
>> Oh, sure it does, Ed, if recognized as "marriage" they then get huge tax
>> and benefits advantages, all of which are denied singles.
>
>The "new class of civil union" would cover that just fine.
>
>
>
>
>
Didn't "separate but equal" get discredited in the 1950s?
 
In article <3FCE0F53.10617B9D@mindspring.com>,
"C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>> >Since when to conservatives as an aggregate tell people what kind of sex
to
>> >have??? You're posting from an alternate reality again.
>> >
>> Sodomy laws?
>
>Have any new ones been enacted recently? I thought almost all such laws were
>enacted many years ago and were definitely middle of the road sort of laws at
the
>time.
>
>Ed
>
Which states kept them until just recently, and fought for them in the
courts? Texas, Georgia, conservative states. Which USSC justices wanted to
uphold them? Thomas, Scalia, the conservative justices.
 

"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bql146$c29$12@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <3FCD281D.ED699881@kinez.net>,
> Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >>
> >> So are conservatives -- telling people what kind of sex to have...
> >
> >Huh!?
> >
>
> Sodomy laws. Liberals didn't pass them.
>
> >> , what genders
> >> can marry,
> >
> >Well, yeah - the word "marriage" has a meaning.
>
> Why does a government decide who can get married though?
>
>
> >But of course you want
> >to re-define it. Why not redefine "murder" as meaning "whitewashing a
> >fence", or "talking" as "combing your hair" - that would make just as
> >much sense.
> >
> >> what a woman can do with her body, etc.
> >
> >When I and others are forced to pay for the consequences, yes.
>
> Actually, you want to force a woman to have the baby and then refuse to
pay
> for any expense of raising the child.
>
>

No, that's called rape. That's not what we're talking about. Unless you
mean I should be able to "dispense" with my children and demand the
government pay for their upbringing... or unless you want to ban adoption
(wouldn't want to stop an abortion, now).


> >Don't
> >make me and others pay for the consequences for her behavior, and I'll
> >quit telling her what she can and can't do that I and others will have
> >to pay for later.
> >
> >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! =-----


 

"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bql33p$c29$30@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <3FCE0F53.10617B9D@mindspring.com>,
> "C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >
> >> >Since when to conservatives as an aggregate tell people what kind of
sex
> to
> >> >have??? You're posting from an alternate reality again.
> >> >
> >> Sodomy laws?
> >
> >Have any new ones been enacted recently? I thought almost all such laws
were
> >enacted many years ago and were definitely middle of the road sort of
laws at
> the
> >time.
> >
> >Ed
> >
> Which states kept them until just recently, and fought for them in the
> courts? Texas, Georgia, conservative states. Which USSC justices wanted
to
> uphold them? Thomas, Scalia, the conservative justices.

Once again, this should be a limited government issue. Heaven forbid we
should trust local jurisdictions to govern themselves. Heaven forbid Thomas
and Scalia should read the constitution *as written* and judge accordingly
notwithstanding leftist activism that can't win legislatively.


 
In article <bql30g$c29$28@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
> In article <uXnzb.211214$Dw6.768125@attbi_s02>,
> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>In article <bql0h3$c29$4@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>>>In article <bqit3e$of5$1@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>>>> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>>>>>In article <bqinb6$him$8@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> Yeah, it'd be terrible if everybody were covered and we spent less on
> health
>>>>>>> care, as Europe, Canada, and Japan do, wouldn't it? Terrible for
> insurance
>>>>>>> companies, drug companies, HMOs, etc, that is.
>>
>>>>>>How would we spend "less on health care" ? Instead of paying for health
>>>>>>insurance we would pay *AT LEAST* that much in additional taxes.
>>
>>>>> Why is it, then, that every western European nation, plus Canada and
> Japan,
>>>>> spend less per capita on health care than the US yet still cover
> everybody?
>>
>>>>Answer a question with a question. How does your state run health care
>>>>system cost less than the current private one?
>>
>>> Because all the examples we have of state-run health care say it would.
>>> Economy of scale, negotiation for lower prices, preventative care instead
> of
>>> waiting until the person becomes sick -- all these and other factors.
>>
>>So your answer is we would save money through the reduced quality of care.
>>I suggest you gain some experience with how government price controls
>>have a negative impact on care, at least with regards to how it works
>>in the USA.
>>
>>
> Again, I refer you to all the data which shows people in Canada and western
> Europe are healthier and live longer.

I would be healthier and live longer if I had a continous month of vacation
each year.


 

"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bql123$c29$11@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> 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. If you
> don't want to live in a society, you can leave. Nobody's keeping you
here.
>

That's the problem with liberals. They don't view the taxing and spending
of people's income as a sacred trust done with great reluctance and limited
to necessary functions. The sacred trust for liberals is with the
recipients of tax dollars, not the givers. So, the more the merrier.






> >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! =-----


 
In article <bql1me$c29$18@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
> In article <Nabzb.285099$275.1004261@attbi_s53>,
> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>In article <bqitam$of5$3@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>> Need dialysis? No hospital is required to do that for free, for example.
>>
>>Government health care programs already cover dialysis.

> Most people aren't in such a program.

Most people aren't, but most people who are on dialysis will end up on one.

>> In fact the price
>>(LOW) the government pays is a if not the driving factor in care in this
>>area. The government payment scheme for 3-times-a-week dialysis is
>>a major obstacle to improving the quality of care, the quality of
>>people's lives, and their surviviability.
>>
>>I am really glad you made a point of dialysis parker, because it is one
>>treatment that is required to keep people with renal failure alive but one
>>where government price controls dominate what people get with regards
>>to care. It is a great example of the arrogant way government does things
>>that has a negative effect on people. Want better care than 3 times a
>>week? Government says you can't have it, they'll only pay for that. If
>>you want something better, you better pay for it yourself or hope it can
>>work within the government 3-times-a-week cost model. You've stuck your
>>foot in your mouth once again Parker.


No response from parker, just one misleading sentance.
 


Lloyd Parker wrote:

> In article <3FCE0F53.10617B9D@mindspring.com>,
> "C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >
> >> >Since when to conservatives as an aggregate tell people what kind of sex
> to
> >> >have??? You're posting from an alternate reality again.
> >> >
> >> Sodomy laws?
> >
> >Have any new ones been enacted recently? I thought almost all such laws were
> >enacted many years ago and were definitely middle of the road sort of laws at
> the
> >time.
> >
> >Ed
> >
> Which states kept them until just recently, and fought for them in the
> courts? Texas, Georgia, conservative states. Which USSC justices wanted to
> uphold them? Thomas, Scalia, the conservative justices.

And? Why is it that some groups (psudeo-liberals is my term for them) always what
to create laws they like out of thin air through judicial action and ignore
legitimate ,if distasteful, laws because they don't like them. There is a process
for adding and removing laws. If insisting that these procedures be followed
makes me a conservative, then I guess I am guilty. Unfortunately, most of the
people I know who claim to be conservatives don't agree with many of my ideas, so
I guess I am lost in the wilderness.

Ed

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

S
Defenders Vs Insurers tomfoolery
Replies
1
Views
4K
lightning
lightning
300bhp/ton
Driven: New Defender - On & Off Road. Is it a Pretender?
2 3
Replies
50
Views
9K
Squonker
S
P
Range Rover P38 EKA and BeCM Lockout
Replies
6
Views
5K
Doolinjames
D
natas
Hurricane Dorian survivor.
Replies
8
Views
2K
ProjectX
ProjectX
Alibro
How to recondition a VCU yourself.
15 16 17
Replies
325
Views
55K
Alibro
Alibro