Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#3131
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bo8k6d$3lv$7@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <bo8c6302h0i@enews4.newsguy.com>,
> "Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote:
> >
> >> No, that's not why...
> >
> >> > 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. > >
> >
> >> That's the real reason why. Republicans may be stupid but never this
> >stupid. <
> >
> >Well, a lot of them voted for Perot, which is why Clinton won in '92.
> >Clinton never received as many votes as Gore or Bush did in '00 for that
> >matter. That simple fact weas forgotten by the delusional leftists.
>
> Clinton received more votes than any of his opponents. Bush did not.
That's
> the fact, dumbass.
>
Bush did too! Of course, I'm talking about electoral votes.... the only
ones that mean anything constitutionally.
You're still clutching onto the old "popular vote" complaint Lloyd. We
didn't have a popular vote. There wasn't a popular election, so there's no
popular vote. Counting up the aggregate of individual state votes and
calling it a "popular vote" doesn't make it so. We've had this argument
before and you always ignore this pertinent fact.
#3132
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bo8k6d$3lv$7@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <bo8c6302h0i@enews4.newsguy.com>,
> "Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote:
> >
> >> No, that's not why...
> >
> >> > 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. > >
> >
> >> That's the real reason why. Republicans may be stupid but never this
> >stupid. <
> >
> >Well, a lot of them voted for Perot, which is why Clinton won in '92.
> >Clinton never received as many votes as Gore or Bush did in '00 for that
> >matter. That simple fact weas forgotten by the delusional leftists.
>
> Clinton received more votes than any of his opponents. Bush did not.
That's
> the fact, dumbass.
>
Bush did too! Of course, I'm talking about electoral votes.... the only
ones that mean anything constitutionally.
You're still clutching onto the old "popular vote" complaint Lloyd. We
didn't have a popular vote. There wasn't a popular election, so there's no
popular vote. Counting up the aggregate of individual state votes and
calling it a "popular vote" doesn't make it so. We've had this argument
before and you always ignore this pertinent fact.
#3133
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bo8k6d$3lv$7@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <bo8c6302h0i@enews4.newsguy.com>,
> "Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote:
> >
> >> No, that's not why...
> >
> >> > 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. > >
> >
> >> That's the real reason why. Republicans may be stupid but never this
> >stupid. <
> >
> >Well, a lot of them voted for Perot, which is why Clinton won in '92.
> >Clinton never received as many votes as Gore or Bush did in '00 for that
> >matter. That simple fact weas forgotten by the delusional leftists.
>
> Clinton received more votes than any of his opponents. Bush did not.
That's
> the fact, dumbass.
>
Bush did too! Of course, I'm talking about electoral votes.... the only
ones that mean anything constitutionally.
You're still clutching onto the old "popular vote" complaint Lloyd. We
didn't have a popular vote. There wasn't a popular election, so there's no
popular vote. Counting up the aggregate of individual state votes and
calling it a "popular vote" doesn't make it so. We've had this argument
before and you always ignore this pertinent fact.
#3134
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Clinton received more votes than any of his opponents. Bush did not.
That's the fact, dumbass."
Not electorial college votes DUMBASS... you live in the USA... this is not a
pure democracy it's a republic.
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bo8k6d$3lv$7@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <bo8c6302h0i@enews4.newsguy.com>,
> "Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote:
> >
> >> No, that's not why...
> >
> >> > 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. > >
> >
> >> That's the real reason why. Republicans may be stupid but never this
> >stupid. <
> >
> >Well, a lot of them voted for Perot, which is why Clinton won in '92.
> >Clinton never received as many votes as Gore or Bush did in '00 for that
> >matter. That simple fact weas forgotten by the delusional leftists.
>
> Clinton received more votes than any of his opponents. Bush did not.
That's
> the fact, dumbass.
>
> >
> >> 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. >
> >
> >Well, no, but I see your point. No one is taking them seriously because
> >they've done the typical political knee-jerk of turning to their radicals
> >for "leadership", appointing whiners like Daschle & Pelosi as leaders and
> >cranking on their old "tax & spend, cut & run" themes. Anyone with memory
> >remembers the mess they got us into when the liberals controlled the
govt.,
> >and anyone with a paycheck knows it's not the rich that get screwed on
> >taxes, it's the poor slobs who actually try to hold & job & raise a
family
> >that get to pay for every idiotic leftist patronage-centered program.
> >
> >
That's the fact, dumbass."
Not electorial college votes DUMBASS... you live in the USA... this is not a
pure democracy it's a republic.
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bo8k6d$3lv$7@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <bo8c6302h0i@enews4.newsguy.com>,
> "Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote:
> >
> >> No, that's not why...
> >
> >> > 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. > >
> >
> >> That's the real reason why. Republicans may be stupid but never this
> >stupid. <
> >
> >Well, a lot of them voted for Perot, which is why Clinton won in '92.
> >Clinton never received as many votes as Gore or Bush did in '00 for that
> >matter. That simple fact weas forgotten by the delusional leftists.
>
> Clinton received more votes than any of his opponents. Bush did not.
That's
> the fact, dumbass.
>
> >
> >> 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. >
> >
> >Well, no, but I see your point. No one is taking them seriously because
> >they've done the typical political knee-jerk of turning to their radicals
> >for "leadership", appointing whiners like Daschle & Pelosi as leaders and
> >cranking on their old "tax & spend, cut & run" themes. Anyone with memory
> >remembers the mess they got us into when the liberals controlled the
govt.,
> >and anyone with a paycheck knows it's not the rich that get screwed on
> >taxes, it's the poor slobs who actually try to hold & job & raise a
family
> >that get to pay for every idiotic leftist patronage-centered program.
> >
> >
#3135
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Clinton received more votes than any of his opponents. Bush did not.
That's the fact, dumbass."
Not electorial college votes DUMBASS... you live in the USA... this is not a
pure democracy it's a republic.
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bo8k6d$3lv$7@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <bo8c6302h0i@enews4.newsguy.com>,
> "Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote:
> >
> >> No, that's not why...
> >
> >> > 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. > >
> >
> >> That's the real reason why. Republicans may be stupid but never this
> >stupid. <
> >
> >Well, a lot of them voted for Perot, which is why Clinton won in '92.
> >Clinton never received as many votes as Gore or Bush did in '00 for that
> >matter. That simple fact weas forgotten by the delusional leftists.
>
> Clinton received more votes than any of his opponents. Bush did not.
That's
> the fact, dumbass.
>
> >
> >> 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. >
> >
> >Well, no, but I see your point. No one is taking them seriously because
> >they've done the typical political knee-jerk of turning to their radicals
> >for "leadership", appointing whiners like Daschle & Pelosi as leaders and
> >cranking on their old "tax & spend, cut & run" themes. Anyone with memory
> >remembers the mess they got us into when the liberals controlled the
govt.,
> >and anyone with a paycheck knows it's not the rich that get screwed on
> >taxes, it's the poor slobs who actually try to hold & job & raise a
family
> >that get to pay for every idiotic leftist patronage-centered program.
> >
> >
That's the fact, dumbass."
Not electorial college votes DUMBASS... you live in the USA... this is not a
pure democracy it's a republic.
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bo8k6d$3lv$7@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <bo8c6302h0i@enews4.newsguy.com>,
> "Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote:
> >
> >> No, that's not why...
> >
> >> > 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. > >
> >
> >> That's the real reason why. Republicans may be stupid but never this
> >stupid. <
> >
> >Well, a lot of them voted for Perot, which is why Clinton won in '92.
> >Clinton never received as many votes as Gore or Bush did in '00 for that
> >matter. That simple fact weas forgotten by the delusional leftists.
>
> Clinton received more votes than any of his opponents. Bush did not.
That's
> the fact, dumbass.
>
> >
> >> 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. >
> >
> >Well, no, but I see your point. No one is taking them seriously because
> >they've done the typical political knee-jerk of turning to their radicals
> >for "leadership", appointing whiners like Daschle & Pelosi as leaders and
> >cranking on their old "tax & spend, cut & run" themes. Anyone with memory
> >remembers the mess they got us into when the liberals controlled the
govt.,
> >and anyone with a paycheck knows it's not the rich that get screwed on
> >taxes, it's the poor slobs who actually try to hold & job & raise a
family
> >that get to pay for every idiotic leftist patronage-centered program.
> >
> >
#3136
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Clinton received more votes than any of his opponents. Bush did not.
That's the fact, dumbass."
Not electorial college votes DUMBASS... you live in the USA... this is not a
pure democracy it's a republic.
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bo8k6d$3lv$7@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <bo8c6302h0i@enews4.newsguy.com>,
> "Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote:
> >
> >> No, that's not why...
> >
> >> > 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. > >
> >
> >> That's the real reason why. Republicans may be stupid but never this
> >stupid. <
> >
> >Well, a lot of them voted for Perot, which is why Clinton won in '92.
> >Clinton never received as many votes as Gore or Bush did in '00 for that
> >matter. That simple fact weas forgotten by the delusional leftists.
>
> Clinton received more votes than any of his opponents. Bush did not.
That's
> the fact, dumbass.
>
> >
> >> 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. >
> >
> >Well, no, but I see your point. No one is taking them seriously because
> >they've done the typical political knee-jerk of turning to their radicals
> >for "leadership", appointing whiners like Daschle & Pelosi as leaders and
> >cranking on their old "tax & spend, cut & run" themes. Anyone with memory
> >remembers the mess they got us into when the liberals controlled the
govt.,
> >and anyone with a paycheck knows it's not the rich that get screwed on
> >taxes, it's the poor slobs who actually try to hold & job & raise a
family
> >that get to pay for every idiotic leftist patronage-centered program.
> >
> >
That's the fact, dumbass."
Not electorial college votes DUMBASS... you live in the USA... this is not a
pure democracy it's a republic.
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bo8k6d$3lv$7@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <bo8c6302h0i@enews4.newsguy.com>,
> "Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote:
> >
> >> No, that's not why...
> >
> >> > 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. > >
> >
> >> That's the real reason why. Republicans may be stupid but never this
> >stupid. <
> >
> >Well, a lot of them voted for Perot, which is why Clinton won in '92.
> >Clinton never received as many votes as Gore or Bush did in '00 for that
> >matter. That simple fact weas forgotten by the delusional leftists.
>
> Clinton received more votes than any of his opponents. Bush did not.
That's
> the fact, dumbass.
>
> >
> >> 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. >
> >
> >Well, no, but I see your point. No one is taking them seriously because
> >they've done the typical political knee-jerk of turning to their radicals
> >for "leadership", appointing whiners like Daschle & Pelosi as leaders and
> >cranking on their old "tax & spend, cut & run" themes. Anyone with memory
> >remembers the mess they got us into when the liberals controlled the
govt.,
> >and anyone with a paycheck knows it's not the rich that get screwed on
> >taxes, it's the poor slobs who actually try to hold & job & raise a
family
> >that get to pay for every idiotic leftist patronage-centered program.
> >
> >
#3137
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote in message news:<bo6q9l0qb2@enews3.newsguy.com>...
> > But nobody is actually taxed at that rate from The Government. Especially
> just starting out - even an engineer. <
>
> You are an idiot!
The right-winger's response to everything is to call names. No wonder
they always look foolish in debates.
> Of course you have to add ALL the taxes together, what,
> the non-Fed taxes isn't money taken away from you?
Then you have to add all the taxes paid on all the goods and services
you buy as well. Anybody can engineer any figure that suits their
argument. Which means you're just another right-wing sheep who has
swallowed the rightist propaganda hook, line and sinker.
> Sheezus, do you :Liberals
> think everyone's stupid!??
Everyone who is "liberal" with the facts. So, if the shoe fits...
[lying with statistics and namecalling snipped]
No amount of sophistry makes your argument valid. Try again with
someone who actually believes that Hannity or Limbaugh are anything
more than entertainers.
--
Jonesy
> > But nobody is actually taxed at that rate from The Government. Especially
> just starting out - even an engineer. <
>
> You are an idiot!
The right-winger's response to everything is to call names. No wonder
they always look foolish in debates.
> Of course you have to add ALL the taxes together, what,
> the non-Fed taxes isn't money taken away from you?
Then you have to add all the taxes paid on all the goods and services
you buy as well. Anybody can engineer any figure that suits their
argument. Which means you're just another right-wing sheep who has
swallowed the rightist propaganda hook, line and sinker.
> Sheezus, do you :Liberals
> think everyone's stupid!??
Everyone who is "liberal" with the facts. So, if the shoe fits...
[lying with statistics and namecalling snipped]
No amount of sophistry makes your argument valid. Try again with
someone who actually believes that Hannity or Limbaugh are anything
more than entertainers.
--
Jonesy
#3138
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote in message news:<bo6q9l0qb2@enews3.newsguy.com>...
> > But nobody is actually taxed at that rate from The Government. Especially
> just starting out - even an engineer. <
>
> You are an idiot!
The right-winger's response to everything is to call names. No wonder
they always look foolish in debates.
> Of course you have to add ALL the taxes together, what,
> the non-Fed taxes isn't money taken away from you?
Then you have to add all the taxes paid on all the goods and services
you buy as well. Anybody can engineer any figure that suits their
argument. Which means you're just another right-wing sheep who has
swallowed the rightist propaganda hook, line and sinker.
> Sheezus, do you :Liberals
> think everyone's stupid!??
Everyone who is "liberal" with the facts. So, if the shoe fits...
[lying with statistics and namecalling snipped]
No amount of sophistry makes your argument valid. Try again with
someone who actually believes that Hannity or Limbaugh are anything
more than entertainers.
--
Jonesy
> > But nobody is actually taxed at that rate from The Government. Especially
> just starting out - even an engineer. <
>
> You are an idiot!
The right-winger's response to everything is to call names. No wonder
they always look foolish in debates.
> Of course you have to add ALL the taxes together, what,
> the non-Fed taxes isn't money taken away from you?
Then you have to add all the taxes paid on all the goods and services
you buy as well. Anybody can engineer any figure that suits their
argument. Which means you're just another right-wing sheep who has
swallowed the rightist propaganda hook, line and sinker.
> Sheezus, do you :Liberals
> think everyone's stupid!??
Everyone who is "liberal" with the facts. So, if the shoe fits...
[lying with statistics and namecalling snipped]
No amount of sophistry makes your argument valid. Try again with
someone who actually believes that Hannity or Limbaugh are anything
more than entertainers.
--
Jonesy
#3139
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote in message news:<bo6q9l0qb2@enews3.newsguy.com>...
> > But nobody is actually taxed at that rate from The Government. Especially
> just starting out - even an engineer. <
>
> You are an idiot!
The right-winger's response to everything is to call names. No wonder
they always look foolish in debates.
> Of course you have to add ALL the taxes together, what,
> the non-Fed taxes isn't money taken away from you?
Then you have to add all the taxes paid on all the goods and services
you buy as well. Anybody can engineer any figure that suits their
argument. Which means you're just another right-wing sheep who has
swallowed the rightist propaganda hook, line and sinker.
> Sheezus, do you :Liberals
> think everyone's stupid!??
Everyone who is "liberal" with the facts. So, if the shoe fits...
[lying with statistics and namecalling snipped]
No amount of sophistry makes your argument valid. Try again with
someone who actually believes that Hannity or Limbaugh are anything
more than entertainers.
--
Jonesy
> > But nobody is actually taxed at that rate from The Government. Especially
> just starting out - even an engineer. <
>
> You are an idiot!
The right-winger's response to everything is to call names. No wonder
they always look foolish in debates.
> Of course you have to add ALL the taxes together, what,
> the non-Fed taxes isn't money taken away from you?
Then you have to add all the taxes paid on all the goods and services
you buy as well. Anybody can engineer any figure that suits their
argument. Which means you're just another right-wing sheep who has
swallowed the rightist propaganda hook, line and sinker.
> Sheezus, do you :Liberals
> think everyone's stupid!??
Everyone who is "liberal" with the facts. So, if the shoe fits...
[lying with statistics and namecalling snipped]
No amount of sophistry makes your argument valid. Try again with
someone who actually believes that Hannity or Limbaugh are anything
more than entertainers.
--
Jonesy
#3140
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote in message news:<bo6rhb0rvn@enews3.newsguy.com>...
> > 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.
Since you spout the GOP party line, you are a right-winger. Q.E.D.
But thanks for proving my point.
--
Jonesy
> > 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.
Since you spout the GOP party line, you are a right-winger. Q.E.D.
But thanks for proving my point.
--
Jonesy