Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#3341
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Thanks! Of course these are old arguments. Lloyd's arguments look like
cut/paste jobs from previous posts he's made. He always says the same thing
over and over. And he always degenerates to name calling....
"right-winger", "fascist", "hate-monger", etc. or self-agrandizement being
that he's such an intelligent guy....Phd and all.... "What are YOUR
credentials?" or "Take a science class!". What's good about that is it's a
chance for those of us on the other side of the idealogical divide to home
in on a fixed target.
Nonetheless, I believe he really enjoys it. He's been doing this for years
and he always gets beat-up and then comes back for more!
"Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote in message
news:bobrfh01a73@enews3.newsguy.com...
> Great post, David.
>
> > Fascism and Socialism have one thing in common... they view government
as
> > able to give and take away rights according to their respective value
> > systems. That puts both of them on the opposite side of conservatism
> where
> > government is limited precisely because of it's belief in God given,
> > individual, indivisible, inalienable rights that government as no
> > jurisdiction over. Fascism and Socialism both reject that notion as
> > government is the vehicle to compel their values on people.
> >
> > Democrats are in a constant dance on the edge of socialism. Their
values
> > include rejecting the unfairness of their being a large disparity
between
> > rich and poor, which isn't a bad value.... but their answer is to use
> > government to compel "charity" or the "transfer of wealth" through
taxes.
> > The effort includes finding "rights" to justify this, like rights to
> > employment, rights to minimum wages, rights of healthcare, rights to
> > shelter, right to education, ad infinitum, which rights have to be
"found"
> > in the constitution via "activist", "progressive" judges.
> >
> >
>
>
cut/paste jobs from previous posts he's made. He always says the same thing
over and over. And he always degenerates to name calling....
"right-winger", "fascist", "hate-monger", etc. or self-agrandizement being
that he's such an intelligent guy....Phd and all.... "What are YOUR
credentials?" or "Take a science class!". What's good about that is it's a
chance for those of us on the other side of the idealogical divide to home
in on a fixed target.
Nonetheless, I believe he really enjoys it. He's been doing this for years
and he always gets beat-up and then comes back for more!
"Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote in message
news:bobrfh01a73@enews3.newsguy.com...
> Great post, David.
>
> > Fascism and Socialism have one thing in common... they view government
as
> > able to give and take away rights according to their respective value
> > systems. That puts both of them on the opposite side of conservatism
> where
> > government is limited precisely because of it's belief in God given,
> > individual, indivisible, inalienable rights that government as no
> > jurisdiction over. Fascism and Socialism both reject that notion as
> > government is the vehicle to compel their values on people.
> >
> > Democrats are in a constant dance on the edge of socialism. Their
values
> > include rejecting the unfairness of their being a large disparity
between
> > rich and poor, which isn't a bad value.... but their answer is to use
> > government to compel "charity" or the "transfer of wealth" through
taxes.
> > The effort includes finding "rights" to justify this, like rights to
> > employment, rights to minimum wages, rights of healthcare, rights to
> > shelter, right to education, ad infinitum, which rights have to be
"found"
> > in the constitution via "activist", "progressive" judges.
> >
> >
>
>
#3342
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Thanks! Of course these are old arguments. Lloyd's arguments look like
cut/paste jobs from previous posts he's made. He always says the same thing
over and over. And he always degenerates to name calling....
"right-winger", "fascist", "hate-monger", etc. or self-agrandizement being
that he's such an intelligent guy....Phd and all.... "What are YOUR
credentials?" or "Take a science class!". What's good about that is it's a
chance for those of us on the other side of the idealogical divide to home
in on a fixed target.
Nonetheless, I believe he really enjoys it. He's been doing this for years
and he always gets beat-up and then comes back for more!
"Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote in message
news:bobrfh01a73@enews3.newsguy.com...
> Great post, David.
>
> > Fascism and Socialism have one thing in common... they view government
as
> > able to give and take away rights according to their respective value
> > systems. That puts both of them on the opposite side of conservatism
> where
> > government is limited precisely because of it's belief in God given,
> > individual, indivisible, inalienable rights that government as no
> > jurisdiction over. Fascism and Socialism both reject that notion as
> > government is the vehicle to compel their values on people.
> >
> > Democrats are in a constant dance on the edge of socialism. Their
values
> > include rejecting the unfairness of their being a large disparity
between
> > rich and poor, which isn't a bad value.... but their answer is to use
> > government to compel "charity" or the "transfer of wealth" through
taxes.
> > The effort includes finding "rights" to justify this, like rights to
> > employment, rights to minimum wages, rights of healthcare, rights to
> > shelter, right to education, ad infinitum, which rights have to be
"found"
> > in the constitution via "activist", "progressive" judges.
> >
> >
>
>
cut/paste jobs from previous posts he's made. He always says the same thing
over and over. And he always degenerates to name calling....
"right-winger", "fascist", "hate-monger", etc. or self-agrandizement being
that he's such an intelligent guy....Phd and all.... "What are YOUR
credentials?" or "Take a science class!". What's good about that is it's a
chance for those of us on the other side of the idealogical divide to home
in on a fixed target.
Nonetheless, I believe he really enjoys it. He's been doing this for years
and he always gets beat-up and then comes back for more!
"Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote in message
news:bobrfh01a73@enews3.newsguy.com...
> Great post, David.
>
> > Fascism and Socialism have one thing in common... they view government
as
> > able to give and take away rights according to their respective value
> > systems. That puts both of them on the opposite side of conservatism
> where
> > government is limited precisely because of it's belief in God given,
> > individual, indivisible, inalienable rights that government as no
> > jurisdiction over. Fascism and Socialism both reject that notion as
> > government is the vehicle to compel their values on people.
> >
> > Democrats are in a constant dance on the edge of socialism. Their
values
> > include rejecting the unfairness of their being a large disparity
between
> > rich and poor, which isn't a bad value.... but their answer is to use
> > government to compel "charity" or the "transfer of wealth" through
taxes.
> > The effort includes finding "rights" to justify this, like rights to
> > employment, rights to minimum wages, rights of healthcare, rights to
> > shelter, right to education, ad infinitum, which rights have to be
"found"
> > in the constitution via "activist", "progressive" judges.
> >
> >
>
>
#3343
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Thanks! Of course these are old arguments. Lloyd's arguments look like
cut/paste jobs from previous posts he's made. He always says the same thing
over and over. And he always degenerates to name calling....
"right-winger", "fascist", "hate-monger", etc. or self-agrandizement being
that he's such an intelligent guy....Phd and all.... "What are YOUR
credentials?" or "Take a science class!". What's good about that is it's a
chance for those of us on the other side of the idealogical divide to home
in on a fixed target.
Nonetheless, I believe he really enjoys it. He's been doing this for years
and he always gets beat-up and then comes back for more!
"Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote in message
news:bobrfh01a73@enews3.newsguy.com...
> Great post, David.
>
> > Fascism and Socialism have one thing in common... they view government
as
> > able to give and take away rights according to their respective value
> > systems. That puts both of them on the opposite side of conservatism
> where
> > government is limited precisely because of it's belief in God given,
> > individual, indivisible, inalienable rights that government as no
> > jurisdiction over. Fascism and Socialism both reject that notion as
> > government is the vehicle to compel their values on people.
> >
> > Democrats are in a constant dance on the edge of socialism. Their
values
> > include rejecting the unfairness of their being a large disparity
between
> > rich and poor, which isn't a bad value.... but their answer is to use
> > government to compel "charity" or the "transfer of wealth" through
taxes.
> > The effort includes finding "rights" to justify this, like rights to
> > employment, rights to minimum wages, rights of healthcare, rights to
> > shelter, right to education, ad infinitum, which rights have to be
"found"
> > in the constitution via "activist", "progressive" judges.
> >
> >
>
>
cut/paste jobs from previous posts he's made. He always says the same thing
over and over. And he always degenerates to name calling....
"right-winger", "fascist", "hate-monger", etc. or self-agrandizement being
that he's such an intelligent guy....Phd and all.... "What are YOUR
credentials?" or "Take a science class!". What's good about that is it's a
chance for those of us on the other side of the idealogical divide to home
in on a fixed target.
Nonetheless, I believe he really enjoys it. He's been doing this for years
and he always gets beat-up and then comes back for more!
"Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote in message
news:bobrfh01a73@enews3.newsguy.com...
> Great post, David.
>
> > Fascism and Socialism have one thing in common... they view government
as
> > able to give and take away rights according to their respective value
> > systems. That puts both of them on the opposite side of conservatism
> where
> > government is limited precisely because of it's belief in God given,
> > individual, indivisible, inalienable rights that government as no
> > jurisdiction over. Fascism and Socialism both reject that notion as
> > government is the vehicle to compel their values on people.
> >
> > Democrats are in a constant dance on the edge of socialism. Their
values
> > include rejecting the unfairness of their being a large disparity
between
> > rich and poor, which isn't a bad value.... but their answer is to use
> > government to compel "charity" or the "transfer of wealth" through
taxes.
> > The effort includes finding "rights" to justify this, like rights to
> > employment, rights to minimum wages, rights of healthcare, rights to
> > shelter, right to education, ad infinitum, which rights have to be
"found"
> > in the constitution via "activist", "progressive" judges.
> >
> >
>
>
#3344
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:bobs8601b26@enews3.newsguy.com...
> > 1976. and the required MPG level didn't reach critical levels until the
> mid 1980s. <
>
> Right, and to achieve this result mfrs had to "downsize" all their cars.
> However this put drivers at much elevated risk of death & serious injury,
> even the Clinton-era NHTSA reported findings that concluded the forced
> downsizing resulted in the unnecessary deaths of nearly 20,000 people.
They
> concluded the increases in milage achieved by weight reduction could have
> been easily achieved through powertrain management systems that by the
time
> of thewir report, 2000, were already in production. You cn stick the
entire
> fiasco on the backs of liberals like Hopward Metzenbaum of Ohio (who gave
> us the 55 mph speed limit... remember THAT fiasco?) and that @$$#01e Joan
> Claybrook.
I can't count how many trips I've taken back then going up the California
central valley or across the Nevada desert with 55mph signs posted all the
way. Of course, no one ever really drove 55 on those roads. I think the
only effect that law had was to raise the blood pressure and stress level of
millions of drivers, not to mention a permanent crick in your neck due to
checking the rear view mirror so often.
#3345
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote in message
news:bobs8601b26@enews3.newsguy.com...
> > 1976. and the required MPG level didn't reach critical levels until the
> mid 1980s. <
>
> Right, and to achieve this result mfrs had to "downsize" all their cars.
> However this put drivers at much elevated risk of death & serious injury,
> even the Clinton-era NHTSA reported findings that concluded the forced
> downsizing resulted in the unnecessary deaths of nearly 20,000 people.
They
> concluded the increases in milage achieved by weight reduction could have
> been easily achieved through powertrain management systems that by the
time
> of thewir report, 2000, were already in production. You cn stick the
entire
> fiasco on the backs of liberals like Hopward Metzenbaum of Ohio (who gave
> us the 55 mph speed limit... remember THAT fiasco?) and that @$$#01e Joan
> Claybrook.
I can't count how many trips I've taken back then going up the California
central valley or across the Nevada desert with 55mph signs posted all the
way. Of course, no one ever really drove 55 on those roads. I think the
only effect that law had was to raise the blood pressure and stress level of
millions of drivers, not to mention a permanent crick in your neck due to
checking the rear view mirror so often.
#3346
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:bobs8601b26@enews3.newsguy.com...
> > 1976. and the required MPG level didn't reach critical levels until the
> mid 1980s. <
>
> Right, and to achieve this result mfrs had to "downsize" all their cars.
> However this put drivers at much elevated risk of death & serious injury,
> even the Clinton-era NHTSA reported findings that concluded the forced
> downsizing resulted in the unnecessary deaths of nearly 20,000 people.
They
> concluded the increases in milage achieved by weight reduction could have
> been easily achieved through powertrain management systems that by the
time
> of thewir report, 2000, were already in production. You cn stick the
entire
> fiasco on the backs of liberals like Hopward Metzenbaum of Ohio (who gave
> us the 55 mph speed limit... remember THAT fiasco?) and that @$$#01e Joan
> Claybrook.
I can't count how many trips I've taken back then going up the California
central valley or across the Nevada desert with 55mph signs posted all the
way. Of course, no one ever really drove 55 on those roads. I think the
only effect that law had was to raise the blood pressure and stress level of
millions of drivers, not to mention a permanent crick in your neck due to
checking the rear view mirror so often.
#3347
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Brent P" <tetraethyllead@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Avfqb.86555$9E1.433801@attbi_s52...
> In article <vqiu9b3fm82i1e@corp.supernews.com>, The Ancient One wrote:
> >
> > "Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote in message
> > news:bobrok01aff@enews3.newsguy.com...
> >> > You forget, it's the source and location of the CO2 that matters in
the
> >> political arguement. Not that it simply takes from a carbon sink and
> >> releases CO2 to the atmosphere. A forest fire produces good CO2. An
> >> automobile in the USA produces bad CO2. A factory in China produces
good
> >> CO2. A factory in the USA produces bad CO2. A tractor on a farm in the
USA
> >> > produces bad CO2. A coal fired electric plant in china produces good
> > CO2.
> >> And on and on.
> >>
> >> BrentP nails the issue once again!
> >
> > He seems to have a knack for it, glad I'm not arguing against him. :-)
>
> Thanks :)
>
> But I have to admit, this is the product of experience. First,
> Dr. Parker has been around the auto groups longer than I can
> remember so that's old hat. Secondly, I spent a trial by fire in
> politics er sci.environment where I learned the hard way how
> left-wingers masquading as environmentalists work. I had been
> naive and thought it was science group.
You've learned from experience, Lloyd never has. ;-)
#3348
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Brent P" <tetraethyllead@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Avfqb.86555$9E1.433801@attbi_s52...
> In article <vqiu9b3fm82i1e@corp.supernews.com>, The Ancient One wrote:
> >
> > "Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote in message
> > news:bobrok01aff@enews3.newsguy.com...
> >> > You forget, it's the source and location of the CO2 that matters in
the
> >> political arguement. Not that it simply takes from a carbon sink and
> >> releases CO2 to the atmosphere. A forest fire produces good CO2. An
> >> automobile in the USA produces bad CO2. A factory in China produces
good
> >> CO2. A factory in the USA produces bad CO2. A tractor on a farm in the
USA
> >> > produces bad CO2. A coal fired electric plant in china produces good
> > CO2.
> >> And on and on.
> >>
> >> BrentP nails the issue once again!
> >
> > He seems to have a knack for it, glad I'm not arguing against him. :-)
>
> Thanks :)
>
> But I have to admit, this is the product of experience. First,
> Dr. Parker has been around the auto groups longer than I can
> remember so that's old hat. Secondly, I spent a trial by fire in
> politics er sci.environment where I learned the hard way how
> left-wingers masquading as environmentalists work. I had been
> naive and thought it was science group.
You've learned from experience, Lloyd never has. ;-)
#3349
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Brent P" <tetraethyllead@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Avfqb.86555$9E1.433801@attbi_s52...
> In article <vqiu9b3fm82i1e@corp.supernews.com>, The Ancient One wrote:
> >
> > "Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote in message
> > news:bobrok01aff@enews3.newsguy.com...
> >> > You forget, it's the source and location of the CO2 that matters in
the
> >> political arguement. Not that it simply takes from a carbon sink and
> >> releases CO2 to the atmosphere. A forest fire produces good CO2. An
> >> automobile in the USA produces bad CO2. A factory in China produces
good
> >> CO2. A factory in the USA produces bad CO2. A tractor on a farm in the
USA
> >> > produces bad CO2. A coal fired electric plant in china produces good
> > CO2.
> >> And on and on.
> >>
> >> BrentP nails the issue once again!
> >
> > He seems to have a knack for it, glad I'm not arguing against him. :-)
>
> Thanks :)
>
> But I have to admit, this is the product of experience. First,
> Dr. Parker has been around the auto groups longer than I can
> remember so that's old hat. Secondly, I spent a trial by fire in
> politics er sci.environment where I learned the hard way how
> left-wingers masquading as environmentalists work. I had been
> naive and thought it was science group.
You've learned from experience, Lloyd never has. ;-)
#3350
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <FV9qb.54150$Ub4.32412@twister.socal.rr.com>,
"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> 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.
>
>Fascism and Socialism have one thing in common... they view government as
>able to give and take away rights according to their respective value
>systems. That puts both of them on the opposite side of conservatism
Cute, but zealots have claimed to be on the side of God throughout history.
The fact is, the political spectrum runs from communism and socialism on the
left, to fascism and Nazism on the right.
>where
>government is limited precisely because of it's belief in God given,
>individual, indivisible, inalienable rights that government as no
>jurisdiction over. Fascism and Socialism both reject that notion as
>government is the vehicle to compel their values on people.
>
>Democrats are in a constant dance on the edge of socialism. Their values
>include rejecting the unfairness of their being a large disparity between
>rich and poor, which isn't a bad value.... but their answer is to use
>government to compel "charity" or the "transfer of wealth" through taxes.
>The effort includes finding "rights" to justify this, like rights to
>employment, rights to minimum wages, rights of healthcare, rights to
>shelter, right to education, ad infinitum, which rights have to be "found"
>in the constitution via "activist", "progressive" judges.
>
>
And Republicans wanting to force Christian prayer in schools, displays of the
10 Commandments in public buildings, telling a woman what to do with her body,
telling people which kind of --- to have -- none of these are trying to compel
people to act a certain way?
"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> 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.
>
>Fascism and Socialism have one thing in common... they view government as
>able to give and take away rights according to their respective value
>systems. That puts both of them on the opposite side of conservatism
Cute, but zealots have claimed to be on the side of God throughout history.
The fact is, the political spectrum runs from communism and socialism on the
left, to fascism and Nazism on the right.
>where
>government is limited precisely because of it's belief in God given,
>individual, indivisible, inalienable rights that government as no
>jurisdiction over. Fascism and Socialism both reject that notion as
>government is the vehicle to compel their values on people.
>
>Democrats are in a constant dance on the edge of socialism. Their values
>include rejecting the unfairness of their being a large disparity between
>rich and poor, which isn't a bad value.... but their answer is to use
>government to compel "charity" or the "transfer of wealth" through taxes.
>The effort includes finding "rights" to justify this, like rights to
>employment, rights to minimum wages, rights of healthcare, rights to
>shelter, right to education, ad infinitum, which rights have to be "found"
>in the constitution via "activist", "progressive" judges.
>
>
And Republicans wanting to force Christian prayer in schools, displays of the
10 Commandments in public buildings, telling a woman what to do with her body,
telling people which kind of --- to have -- none of these are trying to compel
people to act a certain way?