Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#3191
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
FDRanger92 wrote:
> Do you even know what a fascist is Lloyd?
Fascist - 2 : a person who exhibits a tendency toward or actual exercise
of strong autocratic or dictatorial control
Hmmm, This seems to describe all those people who want to tell me what
to drive. Anyone here meet that description?
Ed
#3192
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
FDRanger92 wrote:
> Do you even know what a fascist is Lloyd?
Fascist - 2 : a person who exhibits a tendency toward or actual exercise
of strong autocratic or dictatorial control
Hmmm, This seems to describe all those people who want to tell me what
to drive. Anyone here meet that description?
Ed
#3193
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
FDRanger92 wrote:
> Do you even know what a fascist is Lloyd?
Fascist - 2 : a person who exhibits a tendency toward or actual exercise
of strong autocratic or dictatorial control
Hmmm, This seems to describe all those people who want to tell me what
to drive. Anyone here meet that description?
Ed
#3194
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <bo8tgh012ij@enews1.newsguy.com>,
"Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote:
>> 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. >
>
>Well, first, Llyod prefers indictrination to facts. ;-) If we add up the
>poopular vote Gore is ALLEGED to have won by around 500,000. I say alleged,
>because the 2000 Presidential vote total was never verified.
Each state certified its election returns.
>Had we NOT had
>an Elctoral College, as of course we do, that 500,000 represented about 1/2
>of 1 percent of the total vote, satistically insignificant and therefore it
>would have necessitated a National recount. Given the corrupt Democrat
>machines in the urban areas of the Country wher there political base is,
>it's doubtful those 500,000 votes would have survived.
And there're no corrupt Republican machines? Hello, Texas? Florida?
>
>Nontheless, with the exception of Clinton's re-election in '96 the Democrats
>have lost every major campaign since '94 and are now out of power and can
>mount no effective opposition other than obstruction.
Since there're been 2 "major campaigns" since 94, that makes both parties
batting .500.
>Their recent hero,
>Clinton, was a pragmatist and closet conservative, anything so long as it
>got him power. So, other than the biggest tax increase in history, name ONE
>major liberal adgenda item he either championed or got signed into law.
Family leave, environmental protection, workplace safety, kept abortion rights
from being taken away, Brady Bill, assault weapon ban...
>You
>can't, becuase he simply co-opted the conservatvive's popular agenda,
>repackaged it and called it "progressive". After his stupid cigar tricks
>even the women he gave wet panties to in '92 & '96 dropped his *** like a
>bad habit.
>>
>
>
"Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote:
>> 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. >
>
>Well, first, Llyod prefers indictrination to facts. ;-) If we add up the
>poopular vote Gore is ALLEGED to have won by around 500,000. I say alleged,
>because the 2000 Presidential vote total was never verified.
Each state certified its election returns.
>Had we NOT had
>an Elctoral College, as of course we do, that 500,000 represented about 1/2
>of 1 percent of the total vote, satistically insignificant and therefore it
>would have necessitated a National recount. Given the corrupt Democrat
>machines in the urban areas of the Country wher there political base is,
>it's doubtful those 500,000 votes would have survived.
And there're no corrupt Republican machines? Hello, Texas? Florida?
>
>Nontheless, with the exception of Clinton's re-election in '96 the Democrats
>have lost every major campaign since '94 and are now out of power and can
>mount no effective opposition other than obstruction.
Since there're been 2 "major campaigns" since 94, that makes both parties
batting .500.
>Their recent hero,
>Clinton, was a pragmatist and closet conservative, anything so long as it
>got him power. So, other than the biggest tax increase in history, name ONE
>major liberal adgenda item he either championed or got signed into law.
Family leave, environmental protection, workplace safety, kept abortion rights
from being taken away, Brady Bill, assault weapon ban...
>You
>can't, becuase he simply co-opted the conservatvive's popular agenda,
>repackaged it and called it "progressive". After his stupid cigar tricks
>even the women he gave wet panties to in '92 & '96 dropped his *** like a
>bad habit.
>>
>
>
#3195
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <bo8tgh012ij@enews1.newsguy.com>,
"Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote:
>> 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. >
>
>Well, first, Llyod prefers indictrination to facts. ;-) If we add up the
>poopular vote Gore is ALLEGED to have won by around 500,000. I say alleged,
>because the 2000 Presidential vote total was never verified.
Each state certified its election returns.
>Had we NOT had
>an Elctoral College, as of course we do, that 500,000 represented about 1/2
>of 1 percent of the total vote, satistically insignificant and therefore it
>would have necessitated a National recount. Given the corrupt Democrat
>machines in the urban areas of the Country wher there political base is,
>it's doubtful those 500,000 votes would have survived.
And there're no corrupt Republican machines? Hello, Texas? Florida?
>
>Nontheless, with the exception of Clinton's re-election in '96 the Democrats
>have lost every major campaign since '94 and are now out of power and can
>mount no effective opposition other than obstruction.
Since there're been 2 "major campaigns" since 94, that makes both parties
batting .500.
>Their recent hero,
>Clinton, was a pragmatist and closet conservative, anything so long as it
>got him power. So, other than the biggest tax increase in history, name ONE
>major liberal adgenda item he either championed or got signed into law.
Family leave, environmental protection, workplace safety, kept abortion rights
from being taken away, Brady Bill, assault weapon ban...
>You
>can't, becuase he simply co-opted the conservatvive's popular agenda,
>repackaged it and called it "progressive". After his stupid cigar tricks
>even the women he gave wet panties to in '92 & '96 dropped his *** like a
>bad habit.
>>
>
>
"Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote:
>> 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. >
>
>Well, first, Llyod prefers indictrination to facts. ;-) If we add up the
>poopular vote Gore is ALLEGED to have won by around 500,000. I say alleged,
>because the 2000 Presidential vote total was never verified.
Each state certified its election returns.
>Had we NOT had
>an Elctoral College, as of course we do, that 500,000 represented about 1/2
>of 1 percent of the total vote, satistically insignificant and therefore it
>would have necessitated a National recount. Given the corrupt Democrat
>machines in the urban areas of the Country wher there political base is,
>it's doubtful those 500,000 votes would have survived.
And there're no corrupt Republican machines? Hello, Texas? Florida?
>
>Nontheless, with the exception of Clinton's re-election in '96 the Democrats
>have lost every major campaign since '94 and are now out of power and can
>mount no effective opposition other than obstruction.
Since there're been 2 "major campaigns" since 94, that makes both parties
batting .500.
>Their recent hero,
>Clinton, was a pragmatist and closet conservative, anything so long as it
>got him power. So, other than the biggest tax increase in history, name ONE
>major liberal adgenda item he either championed or got signed into law.
Family leave, environmental protection, workplace safety, kept abortion rights
from being taken away, Brady Bill, assault weapon ban...
>You
>can't, becuase he simply co-opted the conservatvive's popular agenda,
>repackaged it and called it "progressive". After his stupid cigar tricks
>even the women he gave wet panties to in '92 & '96 dropped his *** like a
>bad habit.
>>
>
>
#3196
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <bo8tgh012ij@enews1.newsguy.com>,
"Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote:
>> 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. >
>
>Well, first, Llyod prefers indictrination to facts. ;-) If we add up the
>poopular vote Gore is ALLEGED to have won by around 500,000. I say alleged,
>because the 2000 Presidential vote total was never verified.
Each state certified its election returns.
>Had we NOT had
>an Elctoral College, as of course we do, that 500,000 represented about 1/2
>of 1 percent of the total vote, satistically insignificant and therefore it
>would have necessitated a National recount. Given the corrupt Democrat
>machines in the urban areas of the Country wher there political base is,
>it's doubtful those 500,000 votes would have survived.
And there're no corrupt Republican machines? Hello, Texas? Florida?
>
>Nontheless, with the exception of Clinton's re-election in '96 the Democrats
>have lost every major campaign since '94 and are now out of power and can
>mount no effective opposition other than obstruction.
Since there're been 2 "major campaigns" since 94, that makes both parties
batting .500.
>Their recent hero,
>Clinton, was a pragmatist and closet conservative, anything so long as it
>got him power. So, other than the biggest tax increase in history, name ONE
>major liberal adgenda item he either championed or got signed into law.
Family leave, environmental protection, workplace safety, kept abortion rights
from being taken away, Brady Bill, assault weapon ban...
>You
>can't, becuase he simply co-opted the conservatvive's popular agenda,
>repackaged it and called it "progressive". After his stupid cigar tricks
>even the women he gave wet panties to in '92 & '96 dropped his *** like a
>bad habit.
>>
>
>
"Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote:
>> 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. >
>
>Well, first, Llyod prefers indictrination to facts. ;-) If we add up the
>poopular vote Gore is ALLEGED to have won by around 500,000. I say alleged,
>because the 2000 Presidential vote total was never verified.
Each state certified its election returns.
>Had we NOT had
>an Elctoral College, as of course we do, that 500,000 represented about 1/2
>of 1 percent of the total vote, satistically insignificant and therefore it
>would have necessitated a National recount. Given the corrupt Democrat
>machines in the urban areas of the Country wher there political base is,
>it's doubtful those 500,000 votes would have survived.
And there're no corrupt Republican machines? Hello, Texas? Florida?
>
>Nontheless, with the exception of Clinton's re-election in '96 the Democrats
>have lost every major campaign since '94 and are now out of power and can
>mount no effective opposition other than obstruction.
Since there're been 2 "major campaigns" since 94, that makes both parties
batting .500.
>Their recent hero,
>Clinton, was a pragmatist and closet conservative, anything so long as it
>got him power. So, other than the biggest tax increase in history, name ONE
>major liberal adgenda item he either championed or got signed into law.
Family leave, environmental protection, workplace safety, kept abortion rights
from being taken away, Brady Bill, assault weapon ban...
>You
>can't, becuase he simply co-opted the conservatvive's popular agenda,
>repackaged it and called it "progressive". After his stupid cigar tricks
>even the women he gave wet panties to in '92 & '96 dropped his *** like a
>bad habit.
>>
>
>
#3197
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <iSTpb.107445$e01.369342@attbi_s02>,
tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>In article <bo8tr4$dku$11@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>>>You didn't comment on the journal article URL I posted earlier.
>
>> Because it's not a peer-reviewed scientific journal. You know, the kind
real
>> scientists publish in.
>
>Please provide proof that "Energy and Environment" is not a peer-reviewed
>journal.
Go to their web site and read about it.
>But of course instead of addressing the actual paper,
>http://www.multi-science.co.uk/mcintyre_02.pdf, you decide to attack
>where it's published. In other words, you once again put your politics
>before science. A real scienist would find arguement with the work itself.
>
>
tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>In article <bo8tr4$dku$11@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>>>You didn't comment on the journal article URL I posted earlier.
>
>> Because it's not a peer-reviewed scientific journal. You know, the kind
real
>> scientists publish in.
>
>Please provide proof that "Energy and Environment" is not a peer-reviewed
>journal.
Go to their web site and read about it.
>But of course instead of addressing the actual paper,
>http://www.multi-science.co.uk/mcintyre_02.pdf, you decide to attack
>where it's published. In other words, you once again put your politics
>before science. A real scienist would find arguement with the work itself.
>
>
#3198
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <iSTpb.107445$e01.369342@attbi_s02>,
tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>In article <bo8tr4$dku$11@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>>>You didn't comment on the journal article URL I posted earlier.
>
>> Because it's not a peer-reviewed scientific journal. You know, the kind
real
>> scientists publish in.
>
>Please provide proof that "Energy and Environment" is not a peer-reviewed
>journal.
Go to their web site and read about it.
>But of course instead of addressing the actual paper,
>http://www.multi-science.co.uk/mcintyre_02.pdf, you decide to attack
>where it's published. In other words, you once again put your politics
>before science. A real scienist would find arguement with the work itself.
>
>
tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>In article <bo8tr4$dku$11@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>>>You didn't comment on the journal article URL I posted earlier.
>
>> Because it's not a peer-reviewed scientific journal. You know, the kind
real
>> scientists publish in.
>
>Please provide proof that "Energy and Environment" is not a peer-reviewed
>journal.
Go to their web site and read about it.
>But of course instead of addressing the actual paper,
>http://www.multi-science.co.uk/mcintyre_02.pdf, you decide to attack
>where it's published. In other words, you once again put your politics
>before science. A real scienist would find arguement with the work itself.
>
>
#3199
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <iSTpb.107445$e01.369342@attbi_s02>,
tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>In article <bo8tr4$dku$11@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>>>You didn't comment on the journal article URL I posted earlier.
>
>> Because it's not a peer-reviewed scientific journal. You know, the kind
real
>> scientists publish in.
>
>Please provide proof that "Energy and Environment" is not a peer-reviewed
>journal.
Go to their web site and read about it.
>But of course instead of addressing the actual paper,
>http://www.multi-science.co.uk/mcintyre_02.pdf, you decide to attack
>where it's published. In other words, you once again put your politics
>before science. A real scienist would find arguement with the work itself.
>
>
tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>In article <bo8tr4$dku$11@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>>>You didn't comment on the journal article URL I posted earlier.
>
>> Because it's not a peer-reviewed scientific journal. You know, the kind
real
>> scientists publish in.
>
>Please provide proof that "Energy and Environment" is not a peer-reviewed
>journal.
Go to their web site and read about it.
>But of course instead of addressing the actual paper,
>http://www.multi-science.co.uk/mcintyre_02.pdf, you decide to attack
>where it's published. In other words, you once again put your politics
>before science. A real scienist would find arguement with the work itself.
>
>
#3200
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <7wVpb.9500$Oo4.4594@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink. net>,
"FDRanger92" <csu13081@nospammail.clayton.edu> wrote:
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:bo8k18$3lv$5@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> 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.
>
>Do you even know what a fascist is Lloyd?
>
>
Yes, but you right-wingers obviously do not know what a socialist is.
"FDRanger92" <csu13081@nospammail.clayton.edu> wrote:
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:bo8k18$3lv$5@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> 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.
>
>Do you even know what a fascist is Lloyd?
>
>
Yes, but you right-wingers obviously do not know what a socialist is.