Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#3081
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <AXzpb.98929$e01.335314@attbi_s02>,
tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>In article <5ac380ce.0311031151.38c36d1c@posting.google.com >, Dianelos
Georgoudis wrote:
>> Climatic change is a tremendously complicated matter, but the basic
>> tenets are given:
>>
>> CO2 is a greenhouse gas, i.e. it traps solar heat in the atmosphere.
>> The modern world is spewing huge amounts of CO2 in the air.
>> The atmospheric content of CO2 has risen some 30% in the last 50
>> years. This is a huge amount for such a short time.
>
>> Climate models predict a rise in average temperature if the
>> atmospheric content of CO2 is significantly raised. Also it predicts
>> that ice caps will start melting.
>
>Climate models are based on temp rising with CO2 content. Just because
>it comes out of a computer doesn't make it accurate or fact.
>
>> Average worldwide temperature has risen in the last 50 years. Also,
>> ice caps are thinning by 3% a decade since the 70s.
>
>> These are facts. They are not conclusive. Some scientists believe
>> that there may be other reasons for this temperature rise, or even
>> that we are only observing a natural temperature variation. They may
>> be right. Still, it is also a fact that the great majority of
>> scientists believe that there is already a clear increase in global
>> temperature and that human activity is responsible for it.
>
>Well, here's today's news:
>
>http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994321
>
>I am sure parker will just call it a 'right-wing' publication
>or something to dismiss it all.
Why not read something a real scientific group says? IPCC, or EPA, or
National Academy of Sciences? Afraid?
>
>> People keep asking environmentalists to "prove" that the emission of
>> CO2 has caused in the temperature rise, but this is not the
>> environmentalists' task. They only have to point to the potential
>> dangers. It is the industries that are responsible for the CO2
>> emissions that must prove that their products will not affect the
>> environment in a disastrous way. The onus of proof should be born by
>> the ones who may be destroying the environment not by the ones who try
>> to protect it. Most industries have to prove the safety of their
>> product, so why should some industries be exempt?
>
>Have you, as a breathing human, puting CO2 into the atmosphere been
>proven safe? CO2 is part of the carbon cycle on the planet, there's
>nothing unsafe about it in and of itself.
Arsenic is natural too; want to eat a pound of it?
>So the question becomes how much
>CO2 being produced is too much if any? That's the question. With
>regard to CO2 the products are safe, just as with regard to CO2
>humans are safe. The question is do all these sources combined pose
>a problem? Are the things that take CO2 from the air overwhelmed?
>Will there be a balance point? etc etc etc. Do higher levels pose
>a problem as well?
>
>And that's the rub. that's where the *CONTROL* comes in. Where central
>authority will control CO2 output and thusly practically everything.
>
>> Oil and automobile industries will not be able to prove the safety of
>> their product in the short term, which does not mean that we should
>> all go back to horse carriages.
>
>Then we'd have to regulate the CO2 output of the horses. (Because we'd
>want to make sure more CO2 was being taken from the air than put back
>in)
>
>> It means that while there is
>> reasonable suspicion that the emission of greenhouse gases can
>> destabilize the global climate, the prudent response of society would
>> be to limit such emissions until the repercussions are clearer.
>> Corrective actions will be expensive which only proves that we are now
>> not paying the full cost our life style - we are shifting this cost to
>> future generations and this is not right. There is a bill to be paid
>> and it is cheap to try to avoid paying it.
>
>What it really gets down to is too many people. Not having enough
>resources to go around will IMO constrain human activity earlier than
>anything else.
>
tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>In article <5ac380ce.0311031151.38c36d1c@posting.google.com >, Dianelos
Georgoudis wrote:
>> Climatic change is a tremendously complicated matter, but the basic
>> tenets are given:
>>
>> CO2 is a greenhouse gas, i.e. it traps solar heat in the atmosphere.
>> The modern world is spewing huge amounts of CO2 in the air.
>> The atmospheric content of CO2 has risen some 30% in the last 50
>> years. This is a huge amount for such a short time.
>
>> Climate models predict a rise in average temperature if the
>> atmospheric content of CO2 is significantly raised. Also it predicts
>> that ice caps will start melting.
>
>Climate models are based on temp rising with CO2 content. Just because
>it comes out of a computer doesn't make it accurate or fact.
>
>> Average worldwide temperature has risen in the last 50 years. Also,
>> ice caps are thinning by 3% a decade since the 70s.
>
>> These are facts. They are not conclusive. Some scientists believe
>> that there may be other reasons for this temperature rise, or even
>> that we are only observing a natural temperature variation. They may
>> be right. Still, it is also a fact that the great majority of
>> scientists believe that there is already a clear increase in global
>> temperature and that human activity is responsible for it.
>
>Well, here's today's news:
>
>http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994321
>
>I am sure parker will just call it a 'right-wing' publication
>or something to dismiss it all.
Why not read something a real scientific group says? IPCC, or EPA, or
National Academy of Sciences? Afraid?
>
>> People keep asking environmentalists to "prove" that the emission of
>> CO2 has caused in the temperature rise, but this is not the
>> environmentalists' task. They only have to point to the potential
>> dangers. It is the industries that are responsible for the CO2
>> emissions that must prove that their products will not affect the
>> environment in a disastrous way. The onus of proof should be born by
>> the ones who may be destroying the environment not by the ones who try
>> to protect it. Most industries have to prove the safety of their
>> product, so why should some industries be exempt?
>
>Have you, as a breathing human, puting CO2 into the atmosphere been
>proven safe? CO2 is part of the carbon cycle on the planet, there's
>nothing unsafe about it in and of itself.
Arsenic is natural too; want to eat a pound of it?
>So the question becomes how much
>CO2 being produced is too much if any? That's the question. With
>regard to CO2 the products are safe, just as with regard to CO2
>humans are safe. The question is do all these sources combined pose
>a problem? Are the things that take CO2 from the air overwhelmed?
>Will there be a balance point? etc etc etc. Do higher levels pose
>a problem as well?
>
>And that's the rub. that's where the *CONTROL* comes in. Where central
>authority will control CO2 output and thusly practically everything.
>
>> Oil and automobile industries will not be able to prove the safety of
>> their product in the short term, which does not mean that we should
>> all go back to horse carriages.
>
>Then we'd have to regulate the CO2 output of the horses. (Because we'd
>want to make sure more CO2 was being taken from the air than put back
>in)
>
>> It means that while there is
>> reasonable suspicion that the emission of greenhouse gases can
>> destabilize the global climate, the prudent response of society would
>> be to limit such emissions until the repercussions are clearer.
>> Corrective actions will be expensive which only proves that we are now
>> not paying the full cost our life style - we are shifting this cost to
>> future generations and this is not right. There is a bill to be paid
>> and it is cheap to try to avoid paying it.
>
>What it really gets down to is too many people. Not having enough
>resources to go around will IMO constrain human activity earlier than
>anything else.
>
#3082
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <AXzpb.98929$e01.335314@attbi_s02>,
tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>In article <5ac380ce.0311031151.38c36d1c@posting.google.com >, Dianelos
Georgoudis wrote:
>> Climatic change is a tremendously complicated matter, but the basic
>> tenets are given:
>>
>> CO2 is a greenhouse gas, i.e. it traps solar heat in the atmosphere.
>> The modern world is spewing huge amounts of CO2 in the air.
>> The atmospheric content of CO2 has risen some 30% in the last 50
>> years. This is a huge amount for such a short time.
>
>> Climate models predict a rise in average temperature if the
>> atmospheric content of CO2 is significantly raised. Also it predicts
>> that ice caps will start melting.
>
>Climate models are based on temp rising with CO2 content. Just because
>it comes out of a computer doesn't make it accurate or fact.
>
>> Average worldwide temperature has risen in the last 50 years. Also,
>> ice caps are thinning by 3% a decade since the 70s.
>
>> These are facts. They are not conclusive. Some scientists believe
>> that there may be other reasons for this temperature rise, or even
>> that we are only observing a natural temperature variation. They may
>> be right. Still, it is also a fact that the great majority of
>> scientists believe that there is already a clear increase in global
>> temperature and that human activity is responsible for it.
>
>Well, here's today's news:
>
>http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994321
>
>I am sure parker will just call it a 'right-wing' publication
>or something to dismiss it all.
Why not read something a real scientific group says? IPCC, or EPA, or
National Academy of Sciences? Afraid?
>
>> People keep asking environmentalists to "prove" that the emission of
>> CO2 has caused in the temperature rise, but this is not the
>> environmentalists' task. They only have to point to the potential
>> dangers. It is the industries that are responsible for the CO2
>> emissions that must prove that their products will not affect the
>> environment in a disastrous way. The onus of proof should be born by
>> the ones who may be destroying the environment not by the ones who try
>> to protect it. Most industries have to prove the safety of their
>> product, so why should some industries be exempt?
>
>Have you, as a breathing human, puting CO2 into the atmosphere been
>proven safe? CO2 is part of the carbon cycle on the planet, there's
>nothing unsafe about it in and of itself.
Arsenic is natural too; want to eat a pound of it?
>So the question becomes how much
>CO2 being produced is too much if any? That's the question. With
>regard to CO2 the products are safe, just as with regard to CO2
>humans are safe. The question is do all these sources combined pose
>a problem? Are the things that take CO2 from the air overwhelmed?
>Will there be a balance point? etc etc etc. Do higher levels pose
>a problem as well?
>
>And that's the rub. that's where the *CONTROL* comes in. Where central
>authority will control CO2 output and thusly practically everything.
>
>> Oil and automobile industries will not be able to prove the safety of
>> their product in the short term, which does not mean that we should
>> all go back to horse carriages.
>
>Then we'd have to regulate the CO2 output of the horses. (Because we'd
>want to make sure more CO2 was being taken from the air than put back
>in)
>
>> It means that while there is
>> reasonable suspicion that the emission of greenhouse gases can
>> destabilize the global climate, the prudent response of society would
>> be to limit such emissions until the repercussions are clearer.
>> Corrective actions will be expensive which only proves that we are now
>> not paying the full cost our life style - we are shifting this cost to
>> future generations and this is not right. There is a bill to be paid
>> and it is cheap to try to avoid paying it.
>
>What it really gets down to is too many people. Not having enough
>resources to go around will IMO constrain human activity earlier than
>anything else.
>
tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>In article <5ac380ce.0311031151.38c36d1c@posting.google.com >, Dianelos
Georgoudis wrote:
>> Climatic change is a tremendously complicated matter, but the basic
>> tenets are given:
>>
>> CO2 is a greenhouse gas, i.e. it traps solar heat in the atmosphere.
>> The modern world is spewing huge amounts of CO2 in the air.
>> The atmospheric content of CO2 has risen some 30% in the last 50
>> years. This is a huge amount for such a short time.
>
>> Climate models predict a rise in average temperature if the
>> atmospheric content of CO2 is significantly raised. Also it predicts
>> that ice caps will start melting.
>
>Climate models are based on temp rising with CO2 content. Just because
>it comes out of a computer doesn't make it accurate or fact.
>
>> Average worldwide temperature has risen in the last 50 years. Also,
>> ice caps are thinning by 3% a decade since the 70s.
>
>> These are facts. They are not conclusive. Some scientists believe
>> that there may be other reasons for this temperature rise, or even
>> that we are only observing a natural temperature variation. They may
>> be right. Still, it is also a fact that the great majority of
>> scientists believe that there is already a clear increase in global
>> temperature and that human activity is responsible for it.
>
>Well, here's today's news:
>
>http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994321
>
>I am sure parker will just call it a 'right-wing' publication
>or something to dismiss it all.
Why not read something a real scientific group says? IPCC, or EPA, or
National Academy of Sciences? Afraid?
>
>> People keep asking environmentalists to "prove" that the emission of
>> CO2 has caused in the temperature rise, but this is not the
>> environmentalists' task. They only have to point to the potential
>> dangers. It is the industries that are responsible for the CO2
>> emissions that must prove that their products will not affect the
>> environment in a disastrous way. The onus of proof should be born by
>> the ones who may be destroying the environment not by the ones who try
>> to protect it. Most industries have to prove the safety of their
>> product, so why should some industries be exempt?
>
>Have you, as a breathing human, puting CO2 into the atmosphere been
>proven safe? CO2 is part of the carbon cycle on the planet, there's
>nothing unsafe about it in and of itself.
Arsenic is natural too; want to eat a pound of it?
>So the question becomes how much
>CO2 being produced is too much if any? That's the question. With
>regard to CO2 the products are safe, just as with regard to CO2
>humans are safe. The question is do all these sources combined pose
>a problem? Are the things that take CO2 from the air overwhelmed?
>Will there be a balance point? etc etc etc. Do higher levels pose
>a problem as well?
>
>And that's the rub. that's where the *CONTROL* comes in. Where central
>authority will control CO2 output and thusly practically everything.
>
>> Oil and automobile industries will not be able to prove the safety of
>> their product in the short term, which does not mean that we should
>> all go back to horse carriages.
>
>Then we'd have to regulate the CO2 output of the horses. (Because we'd
>want to make sure more CO2 was being taken from the air than put back
>in)
>
>> It means that while there is
>> reasonable suspicion that the emission of greenhouse gases can
>> destabilize the global climate, the prudent response of society would
>> be to limit such emissions until the repercussions are clearer.
>> Corrective actions will be expensive which only proves that we are now
>> not paying the full cost our life style - we are shifting this cost to
>> future generations and this is not right. There is a bill to be paid
>> and it is cheap to try to avoid paying it.
>
>What it really gets down to is too many people. Not having enough
>resources to go around will IMO constrain human activity earlier than
>anything else.
>
#3083
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <bo6q9l0qb2@enews3.newsguy.com>,
"Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote:
>> But nobody is actually taxed at that rate from The Government. Especially
>just starting out - even an engineer. <
>
>You are an idiot! Of course you have to add ALL the taxes together, what,
>the non-Fed taxes isn't money taken away from you? Sheezus, do you :Liberals
>think everyone's stupid!??
So "the" government doesn't mean "one" like it logically should?
>
>Living in an urban area of this Country a moderate income family will pay
>28-31% Federal,
Wrong. You're confusing marginal tax rate with effective rate. Your first X
dollars aren't taxed, your next Y dollars at 15%, etc.
>6.5-8% State,
Again, you're confusing marginal and effective rates.
> 3 - 7% City, 6.2% FICA amd 1.4% Medicare
Up to a maximum.
>(and
>that does not include the other 7.5% FICA/Medicare paid by their employer on
>their behalf...that's not a tax on the employer, it's booked income to the
>employee, paid to the government as a TAX, stupid).
It's no more income to me than sales tax or property tax my employer may pay.
>Then lets add in
>property tax (if you're lucky enough to have anything left with which to pay
>a mortgage) which in the East can run more than the mortgage payment each
>month. Taxes thus run 55% or higher EASILY on a moderate income.
Let's add in insurance and price of groceries then.
>
>Wanna have a shock, my bushy-tailed, idealistic young College grad? Plug
>some numbers into Turbo Tax sometimes and see whats going to happen to you
>as your career advances and you get some raises! Easily 50% of every dollar
>you make will be gone to taxes somewhere.
>
>Where do you think all your liberal lies & schemes fall apart? At the ballot
>box, dummy, after everyone realizes "the rich" the Democrats (and some of
>their Republican buddies) talk about are really the middle class, trying to
>buy a house (or, even save the down payment while they pay $2k a month for a
>little aprtment somewhere), save for their kids college and their own
>retirement.
>
>Screw You and your liberal smoke & mirror "taxes on the rich" --------,
>pal!!! Everyone has seen through this scam.
>
>
Most people view paying taxes in return for government sources as something
necessary. That's why they live in a society and not an anarchy.
"Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote:
>> But nobody is actually taxed at that rate from The Government. Especially
>just starting out - even an engineer. <
>
>You are an idiot! Of course you have to add ALL the taxes together, what,
>the non-Fed taxes isn't money taken away from you? Sheezus, do you :Liberals
>think everyone's stupid!??
So "the" government doesn't mean "one" like it logically should?
>
>Living in an urban area of this Country a moderate income family will pay
>28-31% Federal,
Wrong. You're confusing marginal tax rate with effective rate. Your first X
dollars aren't taxed, your next Y dollars at 15%, etc.
>6.5-8% State,
Again, you're confusing marginal and effective rates.
> 3 - 7% City, 6.2% FICA amd 1.4% Medicare
Up to a maximum.
>(and
>that does not include the other 7.5% FICA/Medicare paid by their employer on
>their behalf...that's not a tax on the employer, it's booked income to the
>employee, paid to the government as a TAX, stupid).
It's no more income to me than sales tax or property tax my employer may pay.
>Then lets add in
>property tax (if you're lucky enough to have anything left with which to pay
>a mortgage) which in the East can run more than the mortgage payment each
>month. Taxes thus run 55% or higher EASILY on a moderate income.
Let's add in insurance and price of groceries then.
>
>Wanna have a shock, my bushy-tailed, idealistic young College grad? Plug
>some numbers into Turbo Tax sometimes and see whats going to happen to you
>as your career advances and you get some raises! Easily 50% of every dollar
>you make will be gone to taxes somewhere.
>
>Where do you think all your liberal lies & schemes fall apart? At the ballot
>box, dummy, after everyone realizes "the rich" the Democrats (and some of
>their Republican buddies) talk about are really the middle class, trying to
>buy a house (or, even save the down payment while they pay $2k a month for a
>little aprtment somewhere), save for their kids college and their own
>retirement.
>
>Screw You and your liberal smoke & mirror "taxes on the rich" --------,
>pal!!! Everyone has seen through this scam.
>
>
Most people view paying taxes in return for government sources as something
necessary. That's why they live in a society and not an anarchy.
#3084
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <bo6q9l0qb2@enews3.newsguy.com>,
"Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote:
>> But nobody is actually taxed at that rate from The Government. Especially
>just starting out - even an engineer. <
>
>You are an idiot! Of course you have to add ALL the taxes together, what,
>the non-Fed taxes isn't money taken away from you? Sheezus, do you :Liberals
>think everyone's stupid!??
So "the" government doesn't mean "one" like it logically should?
>
>Living in an urban area of this Country a moderate income family will pay
>28-31% Federal,
Wrong. You're confusing marginal tax rate with effective rate. Your first X
dollars aren't taxed, your next Y dollars at 15%, etc.
>6.5-8% State,
Again, you're confusing marginal and effective rates.
> 3 - 7% City, 6.2% FICA amd 1.4% Medicare
Up to a maximum.
>(and
>that does not include the other 7.5% FICA/Medicare paid by their employer on
>their behalf...that's not a tax on the employer, it's booked income to the
>employee, paid to the government as a TAX, stupid).
It's no more income to me than sales tax or property tax my employer may pay.
>Then lets add in
>property tax (if you're lucky enough to have anything left with which to pay
>a mortgage) which in the East can run more than the mortgage payment each
>month. Taxes thus run 55% or higher EASILY on a moderate income.
Let's add in insurance and price of groceries then.
>
>Wanna have a shock, my bushy-tailed, idealistic young College grad? Plug
>some numbers into Turbo Tax sometimes and see whats going to happen to you
>as your career advances and you get some raises! Easily 50% of every dollar
>you make will be gone to taxes somewhere.
>
>Where do you think all your liberal lies & schemes fall apart? At the ballot
>box, dummy, after everyone realizes "the rich" the Democrats (and some of
>their Republican buddies) talk about are really the middle class, trying to
>buy a house (or, even save the down payment while they pay $2k a month for a
>little aprtment somewhere), save for their kids college and their own
>retirement.
>
>Screw You and your liberal smoke & mirror "taxes on the rich" --------,
>pal!!! Everyone has seen through this scam.
>
>
Most people view paying taxes in return for government sources as something
necessary. That's why they live in a society and not an anarchy.
"Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote:
>> But nobody is actually taxed at that rate from The Government. Especially
>just starting out - even an engineer. <
>
>You are an idiot! Of course you have to add ALL the taxes together, what,
>the non-Fed taxes isn't money taken away from you? Sheezus, do you :Liberals
>think everyone's stupid!??
So "the" government doesn't mean "one" like it logically should?
>
>Living in an urban area of this Country a moderate income family will pay
>28-31% Federal,
Wrong. You're confusing marginal tax rate with effective rate. Your first X
dollars aren't taxed, your next Y dollars at 15%, etc.
>6.5-8% State,
Again, you're confusing marginal and effective rates.
> 3 - 7% City, 6.2% FICA amd 1.4% Medicare
Up to a maximum.
>(and
>that does not include the other 7.5% FICA/Medicare paid by their employer on
>their behalf...that's not a tax on the employer, it's booked income to the
>employee, paid to the government as a TAX, stupid).
It's no more income to me than sales tax or property tax my employer may pay.
>Then lets add in
>property tax (if you're lucky enough to have anything left with which to pay
>a mortgage) which in the East can run more than the mortgage payment each
>month. Taxes thus run 55% or higher EASILY on a moderate income.
Let's add in insurance and price of groceries then.
>
>Wanna have a shock, my bushy-tailed, idealistic young College grad? Plug
>some numbers into Turbo Tax sometimes and see whats going to happen to you
>as your career advances and you get some raises! Easily 50% of every dollar
>you make will be gone to taxes somewhere.
>
>Where do you think all your liberal lies & schemes fall apart? At the ballot
>box, dummy, after everyone realizes "the rich" the Democrats (and some of
>their Republican buddies) talk about are really the middle class, trying to
>buy a house (or, even save the down payment while they pay $2k a month for a
>little aprtment somewhere), save for their kids college and their own
>retirement.
>
>Screw You and your liberal smoke & mirror "taxes on the rich" --------,
>pal!!! Everyone has seen through this scam.
>
>
Most people view paying taxes in return for government sources as something
necessary. That's why they live in a society and not an anarchy.
#3085
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <bo6q9l0qb2@enews3.newsguy.com>,
"Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote:
>> But nobody is actually taxed at that rate from The Government. Especially
>just starting out - even an engineer. <
>
>You are an idiot! Of course you have to add ALL the taxes together, what,
>the non-Fed taxes isn't money taken away from you? Sheezus, do you :Liberals
>think everyone's stupid!??
So "the" government doesn't mean "one" like it logically should?
>
>Living in an urban area of this Country a moderate income family will pay
>28-31% Federal,
Wrong. You're confusing marginal tax rate with effective rate. Your first X
dollars aren't taxed, your next Y dollars at 15%, etc.
>6.5-8% State,
Again, you're confusing marginal and effective rates.
> 3 - 7% City, 6.2% FICA amd 1.4% Medicare
Up to a maximum.
>(and
>that does not include the other 7.5% FICA/Medicare paid by their employer on
>their behalf...that's not a tax on the employer, it's booked income to the
>employee, paid to the government as a TAX, stupid).
It's no more income to me than sales tax or property tax my employer may pay.
>Then lets add in
>property tax (if you're lucky enough to have anything left with which to pay
>a mortgage) which in the East can run more than the mortgage payment each
>month. Taxes thus run 55% or higher EASILY on a moderate income.
Let's add in insurance and price of groceries then.
>
>Wanna have a shock, my bushy-tailed, idealistic young College grad? Plug
>some numbers into Turbo Tax sometimes and see whats going to happen to you
>as your career advances and you get some raises! Easily 50% of every dollar
>you make will be gone to taxes somewhere.
>
>Where do you think all your liberal lies & schemes fall apart? At the ballot
>box, dummy, after everyone realizes "the rich" the Democrats (and some of
>their Republican buddies) talk about are really the middle class, trying to
>buy a house (or, even save the down payment while they pay $2k a month for a
>little aprtment somewhere), save for their kids college and their own
>retirement.
>
>Screw You and your liberal smoke & mirror "taxes on the rich" --------,
>pal!!! Everyone has seen through this scam.
>
>
Most people view paying taxes in return for government sources as something
necessary. That's why they live in a society and not an anarchy.
"Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote:
>> But nobody is actually taxed at that rate from The Government. Especially
>just starting out - even an engineer. <
>
>You are an idiot! Of course you have to add ALL the taxes together, what,
>the non-Fed taxes isn't money taken away from you? Sheezus, do you :Liberals
>think everyone's stupid!??
So "the" government doesn't mean "one" like it logically should?
>
>Living in an urban area of this Country a moderate income family will pay
>28-31% Federal,
Wrong. You're confusing marginal tax rate with effective rate. Your first X
dollars aren't taxed, your next Y dollars at 15%, etc.
>6.5-8% State,
Again, you're confusing marginal and effective rates.
> 3 - 7% City, 6.2% FICA amd 1.4% Medicare
Up to a maximum.
>(and
>that does not include the other 7.5% FICA/Medicare paid by their employer on
>their behalf...that's not a tax on the employer, it's booked income to the
>employee, paid to the government as a TAX, stupid).
It's no more income to me than sales tax or property tax my employer may pay.
>Then lets add in
>property tax (if you're lucky enough to have anything left with which to pay
>a mortgage) which in the East can run more than the mortgage payment each
>month. Taxes thus run 55% or higher EASILY on a moderate income.
Let's add in insurance and price of groceries then.
>
>Wanna have a shock, my bushy-tailed, idealistic young College grad? Plug
>some numbers into Turbo Tax sometimes and see whats going to happen to you
>as your career advances and you get some raises! Easily 50% of every dollar
>you make will be gone to taxes somewhere.
>
>Where do you think all your liberal lies & schemes fall apart? At the ballot
>box, dummy, after everyone realizes "the rich" the Democrats (and some of
>their Republican buddies) talk about are really the middle class, trying to
>buy a house (or, even save the down payment while they pay $2k a month for a
>little aprtment somewhere), save for their kids college and their own
>retirement.
>
>Screw You and your liberal smoke & mirror "taxes on the rich" --------,
>pal!!! Everyone has seen through this scam.
>
>
Most people view paying taxes in return for government sources as something
necessary. That's why they live in a society and not an anarchy.
#3086
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <bo6rhb0rvn@enews3.newsguy.com>,
"Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote:
>> Just like I said - when you have nothing to say, you right-wingers resort
>to name-calling. <
>
>Why is it you leftist ******** always think anyone who disagreees with you
>is a "right-winger"? No wonder no one takes you seriously any longer.
>
>> > I register as an independent and in '00 I voted for Nader.
>
>> B.S. Nader was well to the left of Gore, and you sound just like a
>commercial for Rush or Hannity. <
>
>But, Nader is not part of the Republicrat establishment, is he? Neither was
>Perot, who I voted for the previous two elections.
>
>By the way, if you can purge your shallow little leftist mind of all the
>Socialist indoctrination
If you're going to call people names, it hardly behooves you to **** and moan
when they call you names.
>you've been fed you'll find that people in the
>middle and on the right often have quite well formed positions on matters
>that the left has managed to dominate, and ---- UP, for over 50 years.
>
>I hate to challenge your little leftist sensibilities, but Bill Clinton was
>not a liberal, he was just a politician wanting more & more power. He was a
>HYPOCRITE of the first order.
And gee, wasn't the country doing great under him?
>Al Gore lost becuase he couldn't carry his own State, where he got creamed
>because he no longer represented the values of the people who sent him to
>Washington in the first place, and because Nader sucked off the Green vote
>which he'd not convinced.
>
>> Given the crap the Democrats are putting up as leaders, I'll vote for Bush
>this time for sure.
>
>> Uhh-huh. As if there was a chance you'd vote any other way... <
>
>And that's the problem, isn't it Jonesey, too many people, indeed a MAJORITY
>of us, don't agree with you and your Socialist buddies! (Get used to being
>irrelevant....)
>
>
I doubt many agree with you and your fascist buddies either.
"Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote:
>> Just like I said - when you have nothing to say, you right-wingers resort
>to name-calling. <
>
>Why is it you leftist ******** always think anyone who disagreees with you
>is a "right-winger"? No wonder no one takes you seriously any longer.
>
>> > I register as an independent and in '00 I voted for Nader.
>
>> B.S. Nader was well to the left of Gore, and you sound just like a
>commercial for Rush or Hannity. <
>
>But, Nader is not part of the Republicrat establishment, is he? Neither was
>Perot, who I voted for the previous two elections.
>
>By the way, if you can purge your shallow little leftist mind of all the
>Socialist indoctrination
If you're going to call people names, it hardly behooves you to **** and moan
when they call you names.
>you've been fed you'll find that people in the
>middle and on the right often have quite well formed positions on matters
>that the left has managed to dominate, and ---- UP, for over 50 years.
>
>I hate to challenge your little leftist sensibilities, but Bill Clinton was
>not a liberal, he was just a politician wanting more & more power. He was a
>HYPOCRITE of the first order.
And gee, wasn't the country doing great under him?
>Al Gore lost becuase he couldn't carry his own State, where he got creamed
>because he no longer represented the values of the people who sent him to
>Washington in the first place, and because Nader sucked off the Green vote
>which he'd not convinced.
>
>> Given the crap the Democrats are putting up as leaders, I'll vote for Bush
>this time for sure.
>
>> Uhh-huh. As if there was a chance you'd vote any other way... <
>
>And that's the problem, isn't it Jonesey, too many people, indeed a MAJORITY
>of us, don't agree with you and your Socialist buddies! (Get used to being
>irrelevant....)
>
>
I doubt many agree with you and your fascist buddies either.
#3087
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <bo6rhb0rvn@enews3.newsguy.com>,
"Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote:
>> Just like I said - when you have nothing to say, you right-wingers resort
>to name-calling. <
>
>Why is it you leftist ******** always think anyone who disagreees with you
>is a "right-winger"? No wonder no one takes you seriously any longer.
>
>> > I register as an independent and in '00 I voted for Nader.
>
>> B.S. Nader was well to the left of Gore, and you sound just like a
>commercial for Rush or Hannity. <
>
>But, Nader is not part of the Republicrat establishment, is he? Neither was
>Perot, who I voted for the previous two elections.
>
>By the way, if you can purge your shallow little leftist mind of all the
>Socialist indoctrination
If you're going to call people names, it hardly behooves you to **** and moan
when they call you names.
>you've been fed you'll find that people in the
>middle and on the right often have quite well formed positions on matters
>that the left has managed to dominate, and ---- UP, for over 50 years.
>
>I hate to challenge your little leftist sensibilities, but Bill Clinton was
>not a liberal, he was just a politician wanting more & more power. He was a
>HYPOCRITE of the first order.
And gee, wasn't the country doing great under him?
>Al Gore lost becuase he couldn't carry his own State, where he got creamed
>because he no longer represented the values of the people who sent him to
>Washington in the first place, and because Nader sucked off the Green vote
>which he'd not convinced.
>
>> Given the crap the Democrats are putting up as leaders, I'll vote for Bush
>this time for sure.
>
>> Uhh-huh. As if there was a chance you'd vote any other way... <
>
>And that's the problem, isn't it Jonesey, too many people, indeed a MAJORITY
>of us, don't agree with you and your Socialist buddies! (Get used to being
>irrelevant....)
>
>
I doubt many agree with you and your fascist buddies either.
"Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote:
>> Just like I said - when you have nothing to say, you right-wingers resort
>to name-calling. <
>
>Why is it you leftist ******** always think anyone who disagreees with you
>is a "right-winger"? No wonder no one takes you seriously any longer.
>
>> > I register as an independent and in '00 I voted for Nader.
>
>> B.S. Nader was well to the left of Gore, and you sound just like a
>commercial for Rush or Hannity. <
>
>But, Nader is not part of the Republicrat establishment, is he? Neither was
>Perot, who I voted for the previous two elections.
>
>By the way, if you can purge your shallow little leftist mind of all the
>Socialist indoctrination
If you're going to call people names, it hardly behooves you to **** and moan
when they call you names.
>you've been fed you'll find that people in the
>middle and on the right often have quite well formed positions on matters
>that the left has managed to dominate, and ---- UP, for over 50 years.
>
>I hate to challenge your little leftist sensibilities, but Bill Clinton was
>not a liberal, he was just a politician wanting more & more power. He was a
>HYPOCRITE of the first order.
And gee, wasn't the country doing great under him?
>Al Gore lost becuase he couldn't carry his own State, where he got creamed
>because he no longer represented the values of the people who sent him to
>Washington in the first place, and because Nader sucked off the Green vote
>which he'd not convinced.
>
>> Given the crap the Democrats are putting up as leaders, I'll vote for Bush
>this time for sure.
>
>> Uhh-huh. As if there was a chance you'd vote any other way... <
>
>And that's the problem, isn't it Jonesey, too many people, indeed a MAJORITY
>of us, don't agree with you and your Socialist buddies! (Get used to being
>irrelevant....)
>
>
I doubt many agree with you and your fascist buddies either.
#3088
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <bo6rhb0rvn@enews3.newsguy.com>,
"Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote:
>> Just like I said - when you have nothing to say, you right-wingers resort
>to name-calling. <
>
>Why is it you leftist ******** always think anyone who disagreees with you
>is a "right-winger"? No wonder no one takes you seriously any longer.
>
>> > I register as an independent and in '00 I voted for Nader.
>
>> B.S. Nader was well to the left of Gore, and you sound just like a
>commercial for Rush or Hannity. <
>
>But, Nader is not part of the Republicrat establishment, is he? Neither was
>Perot, who I voted for the previous two elections.
>
>By the way, if you can purge your shallow little leftist mind of all the
>Socialist indoctrination
If you're going to call people names, it hardly behooves you to **** and moan
when they call you names.
>you've been fed you'll find that people in the
>middle and on the right often have quite well formed positions on matters
>that the left has managed to dominate, and ---- UP, for over 50 years.
>
>I hate to challenge your little leftist sensibilities, but Bill Clinton was
>not a liberal, he was just a politician wanting more & more power. He was a
>HYPOCRITE of the first order.
And gee, wasn't the country doing great under him?
>Al Gore lost becuase he couldn't carry his own State, where he got creamed
>because he no longer represented the values of the people who sent him to
>Washington in the first place, and because Nader sucked off the Green vote
>which he'd not convinced.
>
>> Given the crap the Democrats are putting up as leaders, I'll vote for Bush
>this time for sure.
>
>> Uhh-huh. As if there was a chance you'd vote any other way... <
>
>And that's the problem, isn't it Jonesey, too many people, indeed a MAJORITY
>of us, don't agree with you and your Socialist buddies! (Get used to being
>irrelevant....)
>
>
I doubt many agree with you and your fascist buddies either.
"Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote:
>> Just like I said - when you have nothing to say, you right-wingers resort
>to name-calling. <
>
>Why is it you leftist ******** always think anyone who disagreees with you
>is a "right-winger"? No wonder no one takes you seriously any longer.
>
>> > I register as an independent and in '00 I voted for Nader.
>
>> B.S. Nader was well to the left of Gore, and you sound just like a
>commercial for Rush or Hannity. <
>
>But, Nader is not part of the Republicrat establishment, is he? Neither was
>Perot, who I voted for the previous two elections.
>
>By the way, if you can purge your shallow little leftist mind of all the
>Socialist indoctrination
If you're going to call people names, it hardly behooves you to **** and moan
when they call you names.
>you've been fed you'll find that people in the
>middle and on the right often have quite well formed positions on matters
>that the left has managed to dominate, and ---- UP, for over 50 years.
>
>I hate to challenge your little leftist sensibilities, but Bill Clinton was
>not a liberal, he was just a politician wanting more & more power. He was a
>HYPOCRITE of the first order.
And gee, wasn't the country doing great under him?
>Al Gore lost becuase he couldn't carry his own State, where he got creamed
>because he no longer represented the values of the people who sent him to
>Washington in the first place, and because Nader sucked off the Green vote
>which he'd not convinced.
>
>> Given the crap the Democrats are putting up as leaders, I'll vote for Bush
>this time for sure.
>
>> Uhh-huh. As if there was a chance you'd vote any other way... <
>
>And that's the problem, isn't it Jonesey, too many people, indeed a MAJORITY
>of us, don't agree with you and your Socialist buddies! (Get used to being
>irrelevant....)
>
>
I doubt many agree with you and your fascist buddies either.
#3089
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <newscache$xyntnh$u9$1@news.ipinc.net>,
"Ted Mittelstaedt" <tedm@toybox.placo.com> wrote:
>
>"Bill Putney" <bputney@kinez.net> wrote in message
>news:3FA46FF3.F7AB01D3@kinez.net...
>>
>>
>> The Ancient One wrote:
>> > ...until they are proven destroyed, which even the UN said they had NOT
>been,.
>> > (You need to read the news once in awhile Lloyd) then it must be assumed
>> > they still exist and are an imminent threat to US and World security.
>>
>> Lloyd was absent the day they taught the law of the conservation of
>> mass/matter.
>>
>
>Notice of course with Lloyd that he continues harping on the one solid
>lie in the mess - that Bush was lying about WMD - and uses the fact that
>Bush lied to make the claim that we should not have gone to war in Iraq.
>
>And notice how he completely ignores the moral reasons we had to go
>into Iraq,
Bush never gave those as reasons -- it was the threat against us.
>because those are not lies, and thus he cannot argue against
>them. Thus, since they prove that his conclusion - we shouldn't have gone
>to war in Iraq - is wrong, he ignores them.
>
So when are we going to overthrow the saudis? The Chinese? Does your
morality extend to all nasty regimes?
>This is how Lloyd argues, and it is very tiresome. He finds some verifyable
>facts out there, then builds an entire conclusion based on them and runs
>around
>spouting that his conclusion must be right because it's based on fact. Then
>when someone comes along and points out some other facts that are in
>conflict with his conclusion, he ignores this and just goes back to his
>first
>set of facts.
>
>Basically he gerrymanders the argument to prove his point. I really don't
>believe
>that he knows how to argue against any point that conflicts with his world
>view,
>I have never once seen him do so.
>
>Ted
>
>
"Ted Mittelstaedt" <tedm@toybox.placo.com> wrote:
>
>"Bill Putney" <bputney@kinez.net> wrote in message
>news:3FA46FF3.F7AB01D3@kinez.net...
>>
>>
>> The Ancient One wrote:
>> > ...until they are proven destroyed, which even the UN said they had NOT
>been,.
>> > (You need to read the news once in awhile Lloyd) then it must be assumed
>> > they still exist and are an imminent threat to US and World security.
>>
>> Lloyd was absent the day they taught the law of the conservation of
>> mass/matter.
>>
>
>Notice of course with Lloyd that he continues harping on the one solid
>lie in the mess - that Bush was lying about WMD - and uses the fact that
>Bush lied to make the claim that we should not have gone to war in Iraq.
>
>And notice how he completely ignores the moral reasons we had to go
>into Iraq,
Bush never gave those as reasons -- it was the threat against us.
>because those are not lies, and thus he cannot argue against
>them. Thus, since they prove that his conclusion - we shouldn't have gone
>to war in Iraq - is wrong, he ignores them.
>
So when are we going to overthrow the saudis? The Chinese? Does your
morality extend to all nasty regimes?
>This is how Lloyd argues, and it is very tiresome. He finds some verifyable
>facts out there, then builds an entire conclusion based on them and runs
>around
>spouting that his conclusion must be right because it's based on fact. Then
>when someone comes along and points out some other facts that are in
>conflict with his conclusion, he ignores this and just goes back to his
>first
>set of facts.
>
>Basically he gerrymanders the argument to prove his point. I really don't
>believe
>that he knows how to argue against any point that conflicts with his world
>view,
>I have never once seen him do so.
>
>Ted
>
>
#3090
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <newscache$xyntnh$u9$1@news.ipinc.net>,
"Ted Mittelstaedt" <tedm@toybox.placo.com> wrote:
>
>"Bill Putney" <bputney@kinez.net> wrote in message
>news:3FA46FF3.F7AB01D3@kinez.net...
>>
>>
>> The Ancient One wrote:
>> > ...until they are proven destroyed, which even the UN said they had NOT
>been,.
>> > (You need to read the news once in awhile Lloyd) then it must be assumed
>> > they still exist and are an imminent threat to US and World security.
>>
>> Lloyd was absent the day they taught the law of the conservation of
>> mass/matter.
>>
>
>Notice of course with Lloyd that he continues harping on the one solid
>lie in the mess - that Bush was lying about WMD - and uses the fact that
>Bush lied to make the claim that we should not have gone to war in Iraq.
>
>And notice how he completely ignores the moral reasons we had to go
>into Iraq,
Bush never gave those as reasons -- it was the threat against us.
>because those are not lies, and thus he cannot argue against
>them. Thus, since they prove that his conclusion - we shouldn't have gone
>to war in Iraq - is wrong, he ignores them.
>
So when are we going to overthrow the saudis? The Chinese? Does your
morality extend to all nasty regimes?
>This is how Lloyd argues, and it is very tiresome. He finds some verifyable
>facts out there, then builds an entire conclusion based on them and runs
>around
>spouting that his conclusion must be right because it's based on fact. Then
>when someone comes along and points out some other facts that are in
>conflict with his conclusion, he ignores this and just goes back to his
>first
>set of facts.
>
>Basically he gerrymanders the argument to prove his point. I really don't
>believe
>that he knows how to argue against any point that conflicts with his world
>view,
>I have never once seen him do so.
>
>Ted
>
>
"Ted Mittelstaedt" <tedm@toybox.placo.com> wrote:
>
>"Bill Putney" <bputney@kinez.net> wrote in message
>news:3FA46FF3.F7AB01D3@kinez.net...
>>
>>
>> The Ancient One wrote:
>> > ...until they are proven destroyed, which even the UN said they had NOT
>been,.
>> > (You need to read the news once in awhile Lloyd) then it must be assumed
>> > they still exist and are an imminent threat to US and World security.
>>
>> Lloyd was absent the day they taught the law of the conservation of
>> mass/matter.
>>
>
>Notice of course with Lloyd that he continues harping on the one solid
>lie in the mess - that Bush was lying about WMD - and uses the fact that
>Bush lied to make the claim that we should not have gone to war in Iraq.
>
>And notice how he completely ignores the moral reasons we had to go
>into Iraq,
Bush never gave those as reasons -- it was the threat against us.
>because those are not lies, and thus he cannot argue against
>them. Thus, since they prove that his conclusion - we shouldn't have gone
>to war in Iraq - is wrong, he ignores them.
>
So when are we going to overthrow the saudis? The Chinese? Does your
morality extend to all nasty regimes?
>This is how Lloyd argues, and it is very tiresome. He finds some verifyable
>facts out there, then builds an entire conclusion based on them and runs
>around
>spouting that his conclusion must be right because it's based on fact. Then
>when someone comes along and points out some other facts that are in
>conflict with his conclusion, he ignores this and just goes back to his
>first
>set of facts.
>
>Basically he gerrymanders the argument to prove his point. I really don't
>believe
>that he knows how to argue against any point that conflicts with his world
>view,
>I have never once seen him do so.
>
>Ted
>
>