Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#3351
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?
#3352
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?
#3353
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <Dkbqb.10643$9M3.8346@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink .net>,
"FDRanger92" <csu13081@nospammail.clayton.edu> wrote:
>
>"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote in message
>news:FV9qb.54150$Ub4.32412@twister.socal.rr.com.. .
>> > >> >
>> > >> >
>> > >> 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
>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.
>>
>>
>
>Bravo! Couldn't have put that better myself. Read and try to open your mind
>just a bit Lloyd maybe you'll learn something.
>
>
I thought you dittoheads were taking a rest with your idol in rehab.
"FDRanger92" <csu13081@nospammail.clayton.edu> wrote:
>
>"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote in message
>news:FV9qb.54150$Ub4.32412@twister.socal.rr.com.. .
>> > >> >
>> > >> >
>> > >> 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
>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.
>>
>>
>
>Bravo! Couldn't have put that better myself. Read and try to open your mind
>just a bit Lloyd maybe you'll learn something.
>
>
I thought you dittoheads were taking a rest with your idol in rehab.
#3354
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <Dkbqb.10643$9M3.8346@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink .net>,
"FDRanger92" <csu13081@nospammail.clayton.edu> wrote:
>
>"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote in message
>news:FV9qb.54150$Ub4.32412@twister.socal.rr.com.. .
>> > >> >
>> > >> >
>> > >> 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
>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.
>>
>>
>
>Bravo! Couldn't have put that better myself. Read and try to open your mind
>just a bit Lloyd maybe you'll learn something.
>
>
I thought you dittoheads were taking a rest with your idol in rehab.
"FDRanger92" <csu13081@nospammail.clayton.edu> wrote:
>
>"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote in message
>news:FV9qb.54150$Ub4.32412@twister.socal.rr.com.. .
>> > >> >
>> > >> >
>> > >> 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
>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.
>>
>>
>
>Bravo! Couldn't have put that better myself. Read and try to open your mind
>just a bit Lloyd maybe you'll learn something.
>
>
I thought you dittoheads were taking a rest with your idol in rehab.
#3355
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <Dkbqb.10643$9M3.8346@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink .net>,
"FDRanger92" <csu13081@nospammail.clayton.edu> wrote:
>
>"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote in message
>news:FV9qb.54150$Ub4.32412@twister.socal.rr.com.. .
>> > >> >
>> > >> >
>> > >> 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
>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.
>>
>>
>
>Bravo! Couldn't have put that better myself. Read and try to open your mind
>just a bit Lloyd maybe you'll learn something.
>
>
I thought you dittoheads were taking a rest with your idol in rehab.
"FDRanger92" <csu13081@nospammail.clayton.edu> wrote:
>
>"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote in message
>news:FV9qb.54150$Ub4.32412@twister.socal.rr.com.. .
>> > >> >
>> > >> >
>> > >> 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
>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.
>>
>>
>
>Bravo! Couldn't have put that better myself. Read and try to open your mind
>just a bit Lloyd maybe you'll learn something.
>
>
I thought you dittoheads were taking a rest with your idol in rehab.
#3356
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <NDbqb.10704$9M3.5530@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink .net>,
"FDRanger92" <csu13081@nospammail.clayton.edu> wrote:
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:bob0k1$s2a$1@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> 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?
>>
>
>Not as many as Democratic. The counties Gore tried to Cherry-pick in Florida
>were Democratic strongholds. Do you think that was an accident?
>
>
>> >
>> >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...
>>
>>
>I can't fault FMLA, in itself its a good thing. Workplace safety sometimes
>goes to far the way the laws are written. Whether you like it or not Lloyd
>there is such a thing as over regulation. I think abortion is wrong, but its
>not for me or anyone else to legislate it, hence I don't think it should be
>an issue.
>The Brady Bill and assault weapons ban are a joke, if you actually got out
>of that ivory tower you're holed up in you might realize it. If it were up
>to you I could think of three people off the top of my head who might be
>dead at the moment if they didn't have a firearm handy.
>An Atlanta police officer's wife who killed her would be rapist.
>A man who shot a would be carjacker on the northside of Atlanta somewhere in
>a Wal-Fart parking lot.
>A wal-Fart employee in Florida somewhere IIRC who was being stabbed by some
>nutcase who was foiled by an old lady w/ a pistol.
>
>
>
And for each of those, there are family members shot in anger or accidentally,
suicides with a handy gun, children shooting children with a gun found in the
house, shooting of a neighbor the homeowner thought was a burglar, etc.
"FDRanger92" <csu13081@nospammail.clayton.edu> wrote:
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:bob0k1$s2a$1@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> 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?
>>
>
>Not as many as Democratic. The counties Gore tried to Cherry-pick in Florida
>were Democratic strongholds. Do you think that was an accident?
>
>
>> >
>> >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...
>>
>>
>I can't fault FMLA, in itself its a good thing. Workplace safety sometimes
>goes to far the way the laws are written. Whether you like it or not Lloyd
>there is such a thing as over regulation. I think abortion is wrong, but its
>not for me or anyone else to legislate it, hence I don't think it should be
>an issue.
>The Brady Bill and assault weapons ban are a joke, if you actually got out
>of that ivory tower you're holed up in you might realize it. If it were up
>to you I could think of three people off the top of my head who might be
>dead at the moment if they didn't have a firearm handy.
>An Atlanta police officer's wife who killed her would be rapist.
>A man who shot a would be carjacker on the northside of Atlanta somewhere in
>a Wal-Fart parking lot.
>A wal-Fart employee in Florida somewhere IIRC who was being stabbed by some
>nutcase who was foiled by an old lady w/ a pistol.
>
>
>
And for each of those, there are family members shot in anger or accidentally,
suicides with a handy gun, children shooting children with a gun found in the
house, shooting of a neighbor the homeowner thought was a burglar, etc.
#3357
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <NDbqb.10704$9M3.5530@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink .net>,
"FDRanger92" <csu13081@nospammail.clayton.edu> wrote:
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:bob0k1$s2a$1@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> 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?
>>
>
>Not as many as Democratic. The counties Gore tried to Cherry-pick in Florida
>were Democratic strongholds. Do you think that was an accident?
>
>
>> >
>> >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...
>>
>>
>I can't fault FMLA, in itself its a good thing. Workplace safety sometimes
>goes to far the way the laws are written. Whether you like it or not Lloyd
>there is such a thing as over regulation. I think abortion is wrong, but its
>not for me or anyone else to legislate it, hence I don't think it should be
>an issue.
>The Brady Bill and assault weapons ban are a joke, if you actually got out
>of that ivory tower you're holed up in you might realize it. If it were up
>to you I could think of three people off the top of my head who might be
>dead at the moment if they didn't have a firearm handy.
>An Atlanta police officer's wife who killed her would be rapist.
>A man who shot a would be carjacker on the northside of Atlanta somewhere in
>a Wal-Fart parking lot.
>A wal-Fart employee in Florida somewhere IIRC who was being stabbed by some
>nutcase who was foiled by an old lady w/ a pistol.
>
>
>
And for each of those, there are family members shot in anger or accidentally,
suicides with a handy gun, children shooting children with a gun found in the
house, shooting of a neighbor the homeowner thought was a burglar, etc.
"FDRanger92" <csu13081@nospammail.clayton.edu> wrote:
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:bob0k1$s2a$1@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> 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?
>>
>
>Not as many as Democratic. The counties Gore tried to Cherry-pick in Florida
>were Democratic strongholds. Do you think that was an accident?
>
>
>> >
>> >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...
>>
>>
>I can't fault FMLA, in itself its a good thing. Workplace safety sometimes
>goes to far the way the laws are written. Whether you like it or not Lloyd
>there is such a thing as over regulation. I think abortion is wrong, but its
>not for me or anyone else to legislate it, hence I don't think it should be
>an issue.
>The Brady Bill and assault weapons ban are a joke, if you actually got out
>of that ivory tower you're holed up in you might realize it. If it were up
>to you I could think of three people off the top of my head who might be
>dead at the moment if they didn't have a firearm handy.
>An Atlanta police officer's wife who killed her would be rapist.
>A man who shot a would be carjacker on the northside of Atlanta somewhere in
>a Wal-Fart parking lot.
>A wal-Fart employee in Florida somewhere IIRC who was being stabbed by some
>nutcase who was foiled by an old lady w/ a pistol.
>
>
>
And for each of those, there are family members shot in anger or accidentally,
suicides with a handy gun, children shooting children with a gun found in the
house, shooting of a neighbor the homeowner thought was a burglar, etc.
#3358
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <NDbqb.10704$9M3.5530@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink .net>,
"FDRanger92" <csu13081@nospammail.clayton.edu> wrote:
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:bob0k1$s2a$1@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> 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?
>>
>
>Not as many as Democratic. The counties Gore tried to Cherry-pick in Florida
>were Democratic strongholds. Do you think that was an accident?
>
>
>> >
>> >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...
>>
>>
>I can't fault FMLA, in itself its a good thing. Workplace safety sometimes
>goes to far the way the laws are written. Whether you like it or not Lloyd
>there is such a thing as over regulation. I think abortion is wrong, but its
>not for me or anyone else to legislate it, hence I don't think it should be
>an issue.
>The Brady Bill and assault weapons ban are a joke, if you actually got out
>of that ivory tower you're holed up in you might realize it. If it were up
>to you I could think of three people off the top of my head who might be
>dead at the moment if they didn't have a firearm handy.
>An Atlanta police officer's wife who killed her would be rapist.
>A man who shot a would be carjacker on the northside of Atlanta somewhere in
>a Wal-Fart parking lot.
>A wal-Fart employee in Florida somewhere IIRC who was being stabbed by some
>nutcase who was foiled by an old lady w/ a pistol.
>
>
>
And for each of those, there are family members shot in anger or accidentally,
suicides with a handy gun, children shooting children with a gun found in the
house, shooting of a neighbor the homeowner thought was a burglar, etc.
"FDRanger92" <csu13081@nospammail.clayton.edu> wrote:
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:bob0k1$s2a$1@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> 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?
>>
>
>Not as many as Democratic. The counties Gore tried to Cherry-pick in Florida
>were Democratic strongholds. Do you think that was an accident?
>
>
>> >
>> >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...
>>
>>
>I can't fault FMLA, in itself its a good thing. Workplace safety sometimes
>goes to far the way the laws are written. Whether you like it or not Lloyd
>there is such a thing as over regulation. I think abortion is wrong, but its
>not for me or anyone else to legislate it, hence I don't think it should be
>an issue.
>The Brady Bill and assault weapons ban are a joke, if you actually got out
>of that ivory tower you're holed up in you might realize it. If it were up
>to you I could think of three people off the top of my head who might be
>dead at the moment if they didn't have a firearm handy.
>An Atlanta police officer's wife who killed her would be rapist.
>A man who shot a would be carjacker on the northside of Atlanta somewhere in
>a Wal-Fart parking lot.
>A wal-Fart employee in Florida somewhere IIRC who was being stabbed by some
>nutcase who was foiled by an old lady w/ a pistol.
>
>
>
And for each of those, there are family members shot in anger or accidentally,
suicides with a handy gun, children shooting children with a gun found in the
house, shooting of a neighbor the homeowner thought was a burglar, etc.
#3359
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <hNbqb.10739$9M3.9268@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink .net>,
"FDRanger92" <csu13081@nospammail.clayton.edu> wrote:
>
>"C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>news:3FA900DF.A19031A2@mindspring.com...
>>
>>
>> Joe wrote:
>>
>> > "Nature doesn't extinguish fires started by lightening "
>> > if this were true, there would be no vegitation on the planet. It would
>> > have burned off long before humans showed up.
>>
>> OK, you got me. I should have said something like "nature lets fires burn
>until
>> rain storms put them out and doesn't fight them just becasue they are in
>> national forests or near populated areas or becasue they dump lots of
>pollution
>> into the environment." But I bet you understood what I menat in the first
>> place....didn't you?
>>
>> Ed
>>
>
>What about all those greenhouse gasses that the fires have spewed into the
>air? Does that mean that the environmental groups that blocked any thinning
>of the forests are responsible for releasing all that CO2 and contributing
>to global warming. Its certainly put more CO2 into the air than my little
>truck ever will or has in the 11 years I've owned it.
>
>
CO2 put into the air by nature has been in balance for millions of years.
It's man changing this equilibrium that's the problem.
"FDRanger92" <csu13081@nospammail.clayton.edu> wrote:
>
>"C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>news:3FA900DF.A19031A2@mindspring.com...
>>
>>
>> Joe wrote:
>>
>> > "Nature doesn't extinguish fires started by lightening "
>> > if this were true, there would be no vegitation on the planet. It would
>> > have burned off long before humans showed up.
>>
>> OK, you got me. I should have said something like "nature lets fires burn
>until
>> rain storms put them out and doesn't fight them just becasue they are in
>> national forests or near populated areas or becasue they dump lots of
>pollution
>> into the environment." But I bet you understood what I menat in the first
>> place....didn't you?
>>
>> Ed
>>
>
>What about all those greenhouse gasses that the fires have spewed into the
>air? Does that mean that the environmental groups that blocked any thinning
>of the forests are responsible for releasing all that CO2 and contributing
>to global warming. Its certainly put more CO2 into the air than my little
>truck ever will or has in the 11 years I've owned it.
>
>
CO2 put into the air by nature has been in balance for millions of years.
It's man changing this equilibrium that's the problem.
#3360
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <hNbqb.10739$9M3.9268@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink .net>,
"FDRanger92" <csu13081@nospammail.clayton.edu> wrote:
>
>"C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>news:3FA900DF.A19031A2@mindspring.com...
>>
>>
>> Joe wrote:
>>
>> > "Nature doesn't extinguish fires started by lightening "
>> > if this were true, there would be no vegitation on the planet. It would
>> > have burned off long before humans showed up.
>>
>> OK, you got me. I should have said something like "nature lets fires burn
>until
>> rain storms put them out and doesn't fight them just becasue they are in
>> national forests or near populated areas or becasue they dump lots of
>pollution
>> into the environment." But I bet you understood what I menat in the first
>> place....didn't you?
>>
>> Ed
>>
>
>What about all those greenhouse gasses that the fires have spewed into the
>air? Does that mean that the environmental groups that blocked any thinning
>of the forests are responsible for releasing all that CO2 and contributing
>to global warming. Its certainly put more CO2 into the air than my little
>truck ever will or has in the 11 years I've owned it.
>
>
CO2 put into the air by nature has been in balance for millions of years.
It's man changing this equilibrium that's the problem.
"FDRanger92" <csu13081@nospammail.clayton.edu> wrote:
>
>"C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>news:3FA900DF.A19031A2@mindspring.com...
>>
>>
>> Joe wrote:
>>
>> > "Nature doesn't extinguish fires started by lightening "
>> > if this were true, there would be no vegitation on the planet. It would
>> > have burned off long before humans showed up.
>>
>> OK, you got me. I should have said something like "nature lets fires burn
>until
>> rain storms put them out and doesn't fight them just becasue they are in
>> national forests or near populated areas or becasue they dump lots of
>pollution
>> into the environment." But I bet you understood what I menat in the first
>> place....didn't you?
>>
>> Ed
>>
>
>What about all those greenhouse gasses that the fires have spewed into the
>air? Does that mean that the environmental groups that blocked any thinning
>of the forests are responsible for releasing all that CO2 and contributing
>to global warming. Its certainly put more CO2 into the air than my little
>truck ever will or has in the 11 years I've owned it.
>
>
CO2 put into the air by nature has been in balance for millions of years.
It's man changing this equilibrium that's the problem.