Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#3121
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Ted Mittelstaedt" <tedm@toybox.placo.com> wrote in message news:<newscache$uvotnh$8a$1@news.ipinc.net>...
> "Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote in message
> news:bo6rhb0rvn@enews3.newsguy.com...
(snip)
> > Al Gore lost becuase he couldn't carry his own State, where he got creamed
His state also doesn't have a lot of electoral votes, and let's keep
in mind that this was a national election. Of course, if I were in his
shoes, I imkagine it would be nice to win my own state, but in a
national election I'd have to put my effort into winning states with
more electoral votes. To explain further, in 2000 TN had 11 votes,
while CA had 54 (and may gain more in the future as the population
grows, BTW). Gore won CA. I assume he put more effort into CA, and for
an obvious reason, that would be the smart thing to do.
Would winning TN have made the difference for Gore? Yes, because it
was such a tight election, with Dubya winning by only 4 electoral
votes. See:
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/results/index.ev.html
Actually, if Gore had carried Hawaii or Idaho or Rhode Island, he'd
have won the electoral vote. It doesn't really matter where the
electoral votes come from in a national election, although I agree it
seems kinda nice if a candidate carries his home state.
> > 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.
> >
>
> That's the real reason why. Republicans may be stupid but never this
> stupid.
> A vote in the general election for Nader was a vote for George Bush.
This is a fallacy. (BTW, I didn't vote Green, but might do so in the
future. If they're on the ballot, then it's my vote and my choice to
use my vote as I see fit.) When a party loses, such as the Democratic
Party, then they have to take responsibility. The votes were there for
to be earned by any party, and had the Democrats or Republicans earned
more votes, the election wouldn't have been such a squeaker.
As the following points out, "Greens have no power to steal votes from
Democratic candidates, because no candidate owns anyone's vote":
http://gpus.org/organize/spoiled.html
BTW, most Americans disagree with the idea of Green votes helping
Bush, according to USA Today. See:
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1022-11.htm
>set the entire
> Democratic
> party back 20 years. That is why nobody is taking them seriously now.
Both the Democrats and Republicans had the chance to win any of the
votes that were counted. Both failed to make much a strong showing
over the other. That's their problem and it's their responsibility to
run stronger Presidential candidates and better campaigns in 2004. If
one candidate can do that, then they'll earn enough votes to win
decisively.
If people vote Green, OK by me. If that's where the voters go, then
both the Democrats and Republicans, if they're smart, will head after
those voters and try to earn the votes of the Greens.
BTW, I found all of the above info and URLs just by spending a minute
or two searching. Anyone seeking more info could do the same.
It'll be interesting to see what happens in CA in 2004, now that
they've elected a moderate Republican as governor. Maybe Bush soften
rethink his positions to win the CA vote. It's also possble that
voting for Schwarzenegger is a thumbing-your-nose vote that won't mean
much in the long run for either party. CA's one of the 37
weak-governor states and he may have little effect on CA and its
politics.
> "Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote in message
> news:bo6rhb0rvn@enews3.newsguy.com...
(snip)
> > Al Gore lost becuase he couldn't carry his own State, where he got creamed
His state also doesn't have a lot of electoral votes, and let's keep
in mind that this was a national election. Of course, if I were in his
shoes, I imkagine it would be nice to win my own state, but in a
national election I'd have to put my effort into winning states with
more electoral votes. To explain further, in 2000 TN had 11 votes,
while CA had 54 (and may gain more in the future as the population
grows, BTW). Gore won CA. I assume he put more effort into CA, and for
an obvious reason, that would be the smart thing to do.
Would winning TN have made the difference for Gore? Yes, because it
was such a tight election, with Dubya winning by only 4 electoral
votes. See:
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/results/index.ev.html
Actually, if Gore had carried Hawaii or Idaho or Rhode Island, he'd
have won the electoral vote. It doesn't really matter where the
electoral votes come from in a national election, although I agree it
seems kinda nice if a candidate carries his home state.
> > 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.
> >
>
> That's the real reason why. Republicans may be stupid but never this
> stupid.
> A vote in the general election for Nader was a vote for George Bush.
This is a fallacy. (BTW, I didn't vote Green, but might do so in the
future. If they're on the ballot, then it's my vote and my choice to
use my vote as I see fit.) When a party loses, such as the Democratic
Party, then they have to take responsibility. The votes were there for
to be earned by any party, and had the Democrats or Republicans earned
more votes, the election wouldn't have been such a squeaker.
As the following points out, "Greens have no power to steal votes from
Democratic candidates, because no candidate owns anyone's vote":
http://gpus.org/organize/spoiled.html
BTW, most Americans disagree with the idea of Green votes helping
Bush, according to USA Today. See:
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1022-11.htm
>set the entire
> Democratic
> party back 20 years. That is why nobody is taking them seriously now.
Both the Democrats and Republicans had the chance to win any of the
votes that were counted. Both failed to make much a strong showing
over the other. That's their problem and it's their responsibility to
run stronger Presidential candidates and better campaigns in 2004. If
one candidate can do that, then they'll earn enough votes to win
decisively.
If people vote Green, OK by me. If that's where the voters go, then
both the Democrats and Republicans, if they're smart, will head after
those voters and try to earn the votes of the Greens.
BTW, I found all of the above info and URLs just by spending a minute
or two searching. Anyone seeking more info could do the same.
It'll be interesting to see what happens in CA in 2004, now that
they've elected a moderate Republican as governor. Maybe Bush soften
rethink his positions to win the CA vote. It's also possble that
voting for Schwarzenegger is a thumbing-your-nose vote that won't mean
much in the long run for either party. CA's one of the 37
weak-governor states and he may have little effect on CA and its
politics.
#3122
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
>beelzebubba
LOL!
>@hotmail.com (Jonesy) wrote in message news:<73da2590.0311031021.27035dc1@posting.google. com>...
> "Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorge@frontier.net> wrote in message news:<bnumob02jak@enews1.newsguy.com>...
(snip)
> > 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...
No matter what anyone's opinions are now, I think all can see that
Bush didn't run a strong-enough campaign in 2000 and he'll have his
work cut out for him when the election is held (almost exactly, BTW)
in only a year from now. Assuming the Democrats run a strong campaign,
Bush could easily have a rough time next year. Assuming he wins, I
don't expect a big win.
LOL!
>@hotmail.com (Jonesy) wrote in message news:<73da2590.0311031021.27035dc1@posting.google. com>...
> "Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorge@frontier.net> wrote in message news:<bnumob02jak@enews1.newsguy.com>...
(snip)
> > 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...
No matter what anyone's opinions are now, I think all can see that
Bush didn't run a strong-enough campaign in 2000 and he'll have his
work cut out for him when the election is held (almost exactly, BTW)
in only a year from now. Assuming the Democrats run a strong campaign,
Bush could easily have a rough time next year. Assuming he wins, I
don't expect a big win.
#3123
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
>beelzebubba
LOL!
>@hotmail.com (Jonesy) wrote in message news:<73da2590.0311031021.27035dc1@posting.google. com>...
> "Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorge@frontier.net> wrote in message news:<bnumob02jak@enews1.newsguy.com>...
(snip)
> > 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...
No matter what anyone's opinions are now, I think all can see that
Bush didn't run a strong-enough campaign in 2000 and he'll have his
work cut out for him when the election is held (almost exactly, BTW)
in only a year from now. Assuming the Democrats run a strong campaign,
Bush could easily have a rough time next year. Assuming he wins, I
don't expect a big win.
LOL!
>@hotmail.com (Jonesy) wrote in message news:<73da2590.0311031021.27035dc1@posting.google. com>...
> "Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorge@frontier.net> wrote in message news:<bnumob02jak@enews1.newsguy.com>...
(snip)
> > 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...
No matter what anyone's opinions are now, I think all can see that
Bush didn't run a strong-enough campaign in 2000 and he'll have his
work cut out for him when the election is held (almost exactly, BTW)
in only a year from now. Assuming the Democrats run a strong campaign,
Bush could easily have a rough time next year. Assuming he wins, I
don't expect a big win.
#3124
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
>beelzebubba
LOL!
>@hotmail.com (Jonesy) wrote in message news:<73da2590.0311031021.27035dc1@posting.google. com>...
> "Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorge@frontier.net> wrote in message news:<bnumob02jak@enews1.newsguy.com>...
(snip)
> > 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...
No matter what anyone's opinions are now, I think all can see that
Bush didn't run a strong-enough campaign in 2000 and he'll have his
work cut out for him when the election is held (almost exactly, BTW)
in only a year from now. Assuming the Democrats run a strong campaign,
Bush could easily have a rough time next year. Assuming he wins, I
don't expect a big win.
LOL!
>@hotmail.com (Jonesy) wrote in message news:<73da2590.0311031021.27035dc1@posting.google. com>...
> "Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorge@frontier.net> wrote in message news:<bnumob02jak@enews1.newsguy.com>...
(snip)
> > 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...
No matter what anyone's opinions are now, I think all can see that
Bush didn't run a strong-enough campaign in 2000 and he'll have his
work cut out for him when the election is held (almost exactly, BTW)
in only a year from now. Assuming the Democrats run a strong campaign,
Bush could easily have a rough time next year. Assuming he wins, I
don't expect a big win.
#3125
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
> In article <3FA7C895.22B3547F@kinez.net>,
> Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net> wrote:
> >
> >Dianelos Georgoudis wrote:
> >>
> >> ...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.
> >
> >Oh - you mean like in California where they are protecting the
> >environment by not allowing the forests to be maintained properly
>
> Nature maintains forests very nicely, as she has done for a very long time.
That's fine in an uninhabited environment. But if you're building
housing developments in a freakin' desert, you'd better do some human
intervention on nature's natural tendencies so as not to lose lives and
houses. Fact is the enviro-regulations would not let them even clear
out the pine trees that died from an infestation of beatles - and that
contributed greatly to these latest fires. Nor would they allow
clearing of trees from around at-risk houses. Use some common sense!
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! =-----
#3126
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
> In article <3FA7C895.22B3547F@kinez.net>,
> Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net> wrote:
> >
> >Dianelos Georgoudis wrote:
> >>
> >> ...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.
> >
> >Oh - you mean like in California where they are protecting the
> >environment by not allowing the forests to be maintained properly
>
> Nature maintains forests very nicely, as she has done for a very long time.
That's fine in an uninhabited environment. But if you're building
housing developments in a freakin' desert, you'd better do some human
intervention on nature's natural tendencies so as not to lose lives and
houses. Fact is the enviro-regulations would not let them even clear
out the pine trees that died from an infestation of beatles - and that
contributed greatly to these latest fires. Nor would they allow
clearing of trees from around at-risk houses. Use some common sense!
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! =-----
#3127
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
> In article <3FA7C895.22B3547F@kinez.net>,
> Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net> wrote:
> >
> >Dianelos Georgoudis wrote:
> >>
> >> ...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.
> >
> >Oh - you mean like in California where they are protecting the
> >environment by not allowing the forests to be maintained properly
>
> Nature maintains forests very nicely, as she has done for a very long time.
That's fine in an uninhabited environment. But if you're building
housing developments in a freakin' desert, you'd better do some human
intervention on nature's natural tendencies so as not to lose lives and
houses. Fact is the enviro-regulations would not let them even clear
out the pine trees that died from an infestation of beatles - and that
contributed greatly to these latest fires. Nor would they allow
clearing of trees from around at-risk houses. Use some common sense!
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! =-----
#3128
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
> A vote in the general election for Nader was a vote for George Bush. What
> happened was all the liberals out there talked themselves into believing
> that
> "it's only I that is voting for Nader, everyone else is voting for Gore so
> I'm
> free to vote my conscience without helping Bush" Then when the results of
> the
> general election came in all the liberal ----ups that voted for Nader
> realized
> they outsmarted themselves and realized they had just set the entire
> Democratic
> party back 20 years. That is why nobody is taking them seriously now.
>
> Ted
>
It's true that had Nader dropped out that Gore may have won. However, you
can't ignore the fact that the most significant impact of Nader running was
getting people out to vote that wouldn't otherwise have voted. The Greens
may be leftists, but they don't love the Democrats.
#3129
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
> A vote in the general election for Nader was a vote for George Bush. What
> happened was all the liberals out there talked themselves into believing
> that
> "it's only I that is voting for Nader, everyone else is voting for Gore so
> I'm
> free to vote my conscience without helping Bush" Then when the results of
> the
> general election came in all the liberal ----ups that voted for Nader
> realized
> they outsmarted themselves and realized they had just set the entire
> Democratic
> party back 20 years. That is why nobody is taking them seriously now.
>
> Ted
>
It's true that had Nader dropped out that Gore may have won. However, you
can't ignore the fact that the most significant impact of Nader running was
getting people out to vote that wouldn't otherwise have voted. The Greens
may be leftists, but they don't love the Democrats.
#3130
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
> A vote in the general election for Nader was a vote for George Bush. What
> happened was all the liberals out there talked themselves into believing
> that
> "it's only I that is voting for Nader, everyone else is voting for Gore so
> I'm
> free to vote my conscience without helping Bush" Then when the results of
> the
> general election came in all the liberal ----ups that voted for Nader
> realized
> they outsmarted themselves and realized they had just set the entire
> Democratic
> party back 20 years. That is why nobody is taking them seriously now.
>
> Ted
>
It's true that had Nader dropped out that Gore may have won. However, you
can't ignore the fact that the most significant impact of Nader running was
getting people out to vote that wouldn't otherwise have voted. The Greens
may be leftists, but they don't love the Democrats.