Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#3371
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <bobs8601b26@enews3.newsguy.com>,
"Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote:
>> 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.
Not proven.
> 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 @$$#01e Joan
>Claybrook.
And the NAS looked at it and said NHTSA's study was flawed -- they lumped
together cars of different weights, they lumped together model years with
different safety features, etc.
>
>>
>>
>
>
"Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote:
>> 1976. and the required MPG level didn't reach critical levels until the
>mid 1980s. <
>
>Right, and to achieve this result mfrs had to "downsize" all their cars.
>However this put drivers at much elevated risk of death & serious injury,
>even the Clinton-era NHTSA reported findings that concluded the forced
>downsizing resulted in the unnecessary deaths of nearly 20,000 people.
Not proven.
> They
>concluded the increases in milage achieved by weight reduction could have
>been easily achieved through powertrain management systems that by the time
>of thewir report, 2000, were already in production. You cn stick the entire
>fiasco on the backs of liberals like Hopward Metzenbaum of Ohio (who gave
>us the 55 mph speed limit... remember THAT fiasco?) and that @$$#01e Joan
>Claybrook.
And the NAS looked at it and said NHTSA's study was flawed -- they lumped
together cars of different weights, they lumped together model years with
different safety features, etc.
>
>>
>>
>
>
#3372
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <bobs8601b26@enews3.newsguy.com>,
"Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote:
>> 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.
Not proven.
> 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 @$$#01e Joan
>Claybrook.
And the NAS looked at it and said NHTSA's study was flawed -- they lumped
together cars of different weights, they lumped together model years with
different safety features, etc.
>
>>
>>
>
>
"Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote:
>> 1976. and the required MPG level didn't reach critical levels until the
>mid 1980s. <
>
>Right, and to achieve this result mfrs had to "downsize" all their cars.
>However this put drivers at much elevated risk of death & serious injury,
>even the Clinton-era NHTSA reported findings that concluded the forced
>downsizing resulted in the unnecessary deaths of nearly 20,000 people.
Not proven.
> They
>concluded the increases in milage achieved by weight reduction could have
>been easily achieved through powertrain management systems that by the time
>of thewir report, 2000, were already in production. You cn stick the entire
>fiasco on the backs of liberals like Hopward Metzenbaum of Ohio (who gave
>us the 55 mph speed limit... remember THAT fiasco?) and that @$$#01e Joan
>Claybrook.
And the NAS looked at it and said NHTSA's study was flawed -- they lumped
together cars of different weights, they lumped together model years with
different safety features, etc.
>
>>
>>
>
>
#3373
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <bobs8601b26@enews3.newsguy.com>,
"Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote:
>> 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.
Not proven.
> 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 @$$#01e Joan
>Claybrook.
And the NAS looked at it and said NHTSA's study was flawed -- they lumped
together cars of different weights, they lumped together model years with
different safety features, etc.
>
>>
>>
>
>
"Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote:
>> 1976. and the required MPG level didn't reach critical levels until the
>mid 1980s. <
>
>Right, and to achieve this result mfrs had to "downsize" all their cars.
>However this put drivers at much elevated risk of death & serious injury,
>even the Clinton-era NHTSA reported findings that concluded the forced
>downsizing resulted in the unnecessary deaths of nearly 20,000 people.
Not proven.
> They
>concluded the increases in milage achieved by weight reduction could have
>been easily achieved through powertrain management systems that by the time
>of thewir report, 2000, were already in production. You cn stick the entire
>fiasco on the backs of liberals like Hopward Metzenbaum of Ohio (who gave
>us the 55 mph speed limit... remember THAT fiasco?) and that @$$#01e Joan
>Claybrook.
And the NAS looked at it and said NHTSA's study was flawed -- they lumped
together cars of different weights, they lumped together model years with
different safety features, etc.
>
>>
>>
>
>
#3374
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <P3gqb.313110$9l5.188454@pd7tw2no>,
"Kingbarry2000" <kingbarrypublic@hotmail.com> wrote:
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:bo8ji1$3lv$1@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> In article <3FA6A6C2.670B2F9D@mindspring.com>,
>> "C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >Jonesy wrote:
>> >
>> >> "Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorge@frontier.net> wrote in message
>> news:<bnuuae0m7h@enews4.newsguy.com>...
>> >> > Or, an idealist who gets his first pay check and realizes he's just
>spent
>> >> > 50% of his time working for the Government.
>> >>
>> >> Yet another right-wing lie.
>> >>
>> >> No beginning worker spends even half that amount to The Government.
>> >
>> >In defense of Gerald, it dpends on your loaction and the starting pay.
>I'd
>> guess some engineers in high
>> >tax staes could be approaching 50% when you include Social Security (both
>> sides, not just "your half") and
>>
>> Then let's include the employer's property taxes and utility bills.
>>
>> >state and city taxes. And if you include all the taxes you pay, both
>direct
>> annd indirect, I'd guess a lot
>> >of people pay more than 50% of their income to various governments.
>>
>> Gee, if you right-wingers include everything anybody pays as YOUR taxes, I
>bet
>> you could get up over 100%!
>>
>> >
>> >Ed
>> >
>
>Its actually 101% when you include the death taxes.
>
Do you have any idea how few estates are subject to the estate tax?
"Kingbarry2000" <kingbarrypublic@hotmail.com> wrote:
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:bo8ji1$3lv$1@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> In article <3FA6A6C2.670B2F9D@mindspring.com>,
>> "C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >Jonesy wrote:
>> >
>> >> "Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorge@frontier.net> wrote in message
>> news:<bnuuae0m7h@enews4.newsguy.com>...
>> >> > Or, an idealist who gets his first pay check and realizes he's just
>spent
>> >> > 50% of his time working for the Government.
>> >>
>> >> Yet another right-wing lie.
>> >>
>> >> No beginning worker spends even half that amount to The Government.
>> >
>> >In defense of Gerald, it dpends on your loaction and the starting pay.
>I'd
>> guess some engineers in high
>> >tax staes could be approaching 50% when you include Social Security (both
>> sides, not just "your half") and
>>
>> Then let's include the employer's property taxes and utility bills.
>>
>> >state and city taxes. And if you include all the taxes you pay, both
>direct
>> annd indirect, I'd guess a lot
>> >of people pay more than 50% of their income to various governments.
>>
>> Gee, if you right-wingers include everything anybody pays as YOUR taxes, I
>bet
>> you could get up over 100%!
>>
>> >
>> >Ed
>> >
>
>Its actually 101% when you include the death taxes.
>
Do you have any idea how few estates are subject to the estate tax?
#3375
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <P3gqb.313110$9l5.188454@pd7tw2no>,
"Kingbarry2000" <kingbarrypublic@hotmail.com> wrote:
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:bo8ji1$3lv$1@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> In article <3FA6A6C2.670B2F9D@mindspring.com>,
>> "C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >Jonesy wrote:
>> >
>> >> "Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorge@frontier.net> wrote in message
>> news:<bnuuae0m7h@enews4.newsguy.com>...
>> >> > Or, an idealist who gets his first pay check and realizes he's just
>spent
>> >> > 50% of his time working for the Government.
>> >>
>> >> Yet another right-wing lie.
>> >>
>> >> No beginning worker spends even half that amount to The Government.
>> >
>> >In defense of Gerald, it dpends on your loaction and the starting pay.
>I'd
>> guess some engineers in high
>> >tax staes could be approaching 50% when you include Social Security (both
>> sides, not just "your half") and
>>
>> Then let's include the employer's property taxes and utility bills.
>>
>> >state and city taxes. And if you include all the taxes you pay, both
>direct
>> annd indirect, I'd guess a lot
>> >of people pay more than 50% of their income to various governments.
>>
>> Gee, if you right-wingers include everything anybody pays as YOUR taxes, I
>bet
>> you could get up over 100%!
>>
>> >
>> >Ed
>> >
>
>Its actually 101% when you include the death taxes.
>
Do you have any idea how few estates are subject to the estate tax?
"Kingbarry2000" <kingbarrypublic@hotmail.com> wrote:
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:bo8ji1$3lv$1@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> In article <3FA6A6C2.670B2F9D@mindspring.com>,
>> "C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >Jonesy wrote:
>> >
>> >> "Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorge@frontier.net> wrote in message
>> news:<bnuuae0m7h@enews4.newsguy.com>...
>> >> > Or, an idealist who gets his first pay check and realizes he's just
>spent
>> >> > 50% of his time working for the Government.
>> >>
>> >> Yet another right-wing lie.
>> >>
>> >> No beginning worker spends even half that amount to The Government.
>> >
>> >In defense of Gerald, it dpends on your loaction and the starting pay.
>I'd
>> guess some engineers in high
>> >tax staes could be approaching 50% when you include Social Security (both
>> sides, not just "your half") and
>>
>> Then let's include the employer's property taxes and utility bills.
>>
>> >state and city taxes. And if you include all the taxes you pay, both
>direct
>> annd indirect, I'd guess a lot
>> >of people pay more than 50% of their income to various governments.
>>
>> Gee, if you right-wingers include everything anybody pays as YOUR taxes, I
>bet
>> you could get up over 100%!
>>
>> >
>> >Ed
>> >
>
>Its actually 101% when you include the death taxes.
>
Do you have any idea how few estates are subject to the estate tax?
#3376
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <P3gqb.313110$9l5.188454@pd7tw2no>,
"Kingbarry2000" <kingbarrypublic@hotmail.com> wrote:
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:bo8ji1$3lv$1@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> In article <3FA6A6C2.670B2F9D@mindspring.com>,
>> "C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >Jonesy wrote:
>> >
>> >> "Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorge@frontier.net> wrote in message
>> news:<bnuuae0m7h@enews4.newsguy.com>...
>> >> > Or, an idealist who gets his first pay check and realizes he's just
>spent
>> >> > 50% of his time working for the Government.
>> >>
>> >> Yet another right-wing lie.
>> >>
>> >> No beginning worker spends even half that amount to The Government.
>> >
>> >In defense of Gerald, it dpends on your loaction and the starting pay.
>I'd
>> guess some engineers in high
>> >tax staes could be approaching 50% when you include Social Security (both
>> sides, not just "your half") and
>>
>> Then let's include the employer's property taxes and utility bills.
>>
>> >state and city taxes. And if you include all the taxes you pay, both
>direct
>> annd indirect, I'd guess a lot
>> >of people pay more than 50% of their income to various governments.
>>
>> Gee, if you right-wingers include everything anybody pays as YOUR taxes, I
>bet
>> you could get up over 100%!
>>
>> >
>> >Ed
>> >
>
>Its actually 101% when you include the death taxes.
>
Do you have any idea how few estates are subject to the estate tax?
"Kingbarry2000" <kingbarrypublic@hotmail.com> wrote:
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:bo8ji1$3lv$1@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> In article <3FA6A6C2.670B2F9D@mindspring.com>,
>> "C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >Jonesy wrote:
>> >
>> >> "Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorge@frontier.net> wrote in message
>> news:<bnuuae0m7h@enews4.newsguy.com>...
>> >> > Or, an idealist who gets his first pay check and realizes he's just
>spent
>> >> > 50% of his time working for the Government.
>> >>
>> >> Yet another right-wing lie.
>> >>
>> >> No beginning worker spends even half that amount to The Government.
>> >
>> >In defense of Gerald, it dpends on your loaction and the starting pay.
>I'd
>> guess some engineers in high
>> >tax staes could be approaching 50% when you include Social Security (both
>> sides, not just "your half") and
>>
>> Then let's include the employer's property taxes and utility bills.
>>
>> >state and city taxes. And if you include all the taxes you pay, both
>direct
>> annd indirect, I'd guess a lot
>> >of people pay more than 50% of their income to various governments.
>>
>> Gee, if you right-wingers include everything anybody pays as YOUR taxes, I
>bet
>> you could get up over 100%!
>>
>> >
>> >Ed
>> >
>
>Its actually 101% when you include the death taxes.
>
Do you have any idea how few estates are subject to the estate tax?
#3377
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <boc9a70250e@enews3.newsguy.com>,
"Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote:
>> Its actually 101% when you include the death taxes.>
>
>LOL!
>
>What Lloyd doesn;t want anyone to understand is that when your employer pays
>your Social Security taxes, in round numbers he pays around 13%, half paid
>by you and shown on your paycheck stub, the other half withheld from your
>TRUE SALARY/WAGES and paid by the employer.
Not so. My employer won't even give me the money they save by my not being
married and not needing their subsidy for health insurance for a spouse,
tuition for children, etc. You're deluding yourself if you think employers
would give employees the money they'd save if they didn't have to pay SS.
>In other words, the employer
>shows the additional 6.2% as part of your your true compensation on his
>books. Lloyd thinks it's a tax on the employer, but it's not, it's a tax on
>YOU.
Which your employer would keep as profit otherwise.
>That's why self-employed persons get the joyous honor of paying the
>WHOLE amount, with the second half called "self-employment tax" on the 1040,
>another piece of subterfuge your liberal tax & spend eleceted
>representatives concocted back in the '70's when they wrote this entire scam
>tax code.
>
>Lloyd and the other leftists think everyone's too stupid to figure this all
>out, but it's actually very easy to unravel it using a program like Turbo
>Tax....
>> --
>> Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum
>immane
>> mittam.
>>
>>
>
>
"Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote:
>> Its actually 101% when you include the death taxes.>
>
>LOL!
>
>What Lloyd doesn;t want anyone to understand is that when your employer pays
>your Social Security taxes, in round numbers he pays around 13%, half paid
>by you and shown on your paycheck stub, the other half withheld from your
>TRUE SALARY/WAGES and paid by the employer.
Not so. My employer won't even give me the money they save by my not being
married and not needing their subsidy for health insurance for a spouse,
tuition for children, etc. You're deluding yourself if you think employers
would give employees the money they'd save if they didn't have to pay SS.
>In other words, the employer
>shows the additional 6.2% as part of your your true compensation on his
>books. Lloyd thinks it's a tax on the employer, but it's not, it's a tax on
>YOU.
Which your employer would keep as profit otherwise.
>That's why self-employed persons get the joyous honor of paying the
>WHOLE amount, with the second half called "self-employment tax" on the 1040,
>another piece of subterfuge your liberal tax & spend eleceted
>representatives concocted back in the '70's when they wrote this entire scam
>tax code.
>
>Lloyd and the other leftists think everyone's too stupid to figure this all
>out, but it's actually very easy to unravel it using a program like Turbo
>Tax....
>> --
>> Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum
>immane
>> mittam.
>>
>>
>
>
#3378
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <boc9a70250e@enews3.newsguy.com>,
"Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote:
>> Its actually 101% when you include the death taxes.>
>
>LOL!
>
>What Lloyd doesn;t want anyone to understand is that when your employer pays
>your Social Security taxes, in round numbers he pays around 13%, half paid
>by you and shown on your paycheck stub, the other half withheld from your
>TRUE SALARY/WAGES and paid by the employer.
Not so. My employer won't even give me the money they save by my not being
married and not needing their subsidy for health insurance for a spouse,
tuition for children, etc. You're deluding yourself if you think employers
would give employees the money they'd save if they didn't have to pay SS.
>In other words, the employer
>shows the additional 6.2% as part of your your true compensation on his
>books. Lloyd thinks it's a tax on the employer, but it's not, it's a tax on
>YOU.
Which your employer would keep as profit otherwise.
>That's why self-employed persons get the joyous honor of paying the
>WHOLE amount, with the second half called "self-employment tax" on the 1040,
>another piece of subterfuge your liberal tax & spend eleceted
>representatives concocted back in the '70's when they wrote this entire scam
>tax code.
>
>Lloyd and the other leftists think everyone's too stupid to figure this all
>out, but it's actually very easy to unravel it using a program like Turbo
>Tax....
>> --
>> Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum
>immane
>> mittam.
>>
>>
>
>
"Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote:
>> Its actually 101% when you include the death taxes.>
>
>LOL!
>
>What Lloyd doesn;t want anyone to understand is that when your employer pays
>your Social Security taxes, in round numbers he pays around 13%, half paid
>by you and shown on your paycheck stub, the other half withheld from your
>TRUE SALARY/WAGES and paid by the employer.
Not so. My employer won't even give me the money they save by my not being
married and not needing their subsidy for health insurance for a spouse,
tuition for children, etc. You're deluding yourself if you think employers
would give employees the money they'd save if they didn't have to pay SS.
>In other words, the employer
>shows the additional 6.2% as part of your your true compensation on his
>books. Lloyd thinks it's a tax on the employer, but it's not, it's a tax on
>YOU.
Which your employer would keep as profit otherwise.
>That's why self-employed persons get the joyous honor of paying the
>WHOLE amount, with the second half called "self-employment tax" on the 1040,
>another piece of subterfuge your liberal tax & spend eleceted
>representatives concocted back in the '70's when they wrote this entire scam
>tax code.
>
>Lloyd and the other leftists think everyone's too stupid to figure this all
>out, but it's actually very easy to unravel it using a program like Turbo
>Tax....
>> --
>> Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum
>immane
>> mittam.
>>
>>
>
>
#3379
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <boc9a70250e@enews3.newsguy.com>,
"Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote:
>> Its actually 101% when you include the death taxes.>
>
>LOL!
>
>What Lloyd doesn;t want anyone to understand is that when your employer pays
>your Social Security taxes, in round numbers he pays around 13%, half paid
>by you and shown on your paycheck stub, the other half withheld from your
>TRUE SALARY/WAGES and paid by the employer.
Not so. My employer won't even give me the money they save by my not being
married and not needing their subsidy for health insurance for a spouse,
tuition for children, etc. You're deluding yourself if you think employers
would give employees the money they'd save if they didn't have to pay SS.
>In other words, the employer
>shows the additional 6.2% as part of your your true compensation on his
>books. Lloyd thinks it's a tax on the employer, but it's not, it's a tax on
>YOU.
Which your employer would keep as profit otherwise.
>That's why self-employed persons get the joyous honor of paying the
>WHOLE amount, with the second half called "self-employment tax" on the 1040,
>another piece of subterfuge your liberal tax & spend eleceted
>representatives concocted back in the '70's when they wrote this entire scam
>tax code.
>
>Lloyd and the other leftists think everyone's too stupid to figure this all
>out, but it's actually very easy to unravel it using a program like Turbo
>Tax....
>> --
>> Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum
>immane
>> mittam.
>>
>>
>
>
"Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote:
>> Its actually 101% when you include the death taxes.>
>
>LOL!
>
>What Lloyd doesn;t want anyone to understand is that when your employer pays
>your Social Security taxes, in round numbers he pays around 13%, half paid
>by you and shown on your paycheck stub, the other half withheld from your
>TRUE SALARY/WAGES and paid by the employer.
Not so. My employer won't even give me the money they save by my not being
married and not needing their subsidy for health insurance for a spouse,
tuition for children, etc. You're deluding yourself if you think employers
would give employees the money they'd save if they didn't have to pay SS.
>In other words, the employer
>shows the additional 6.2% as part of your your true compensation on his
>books. Lloyd thinks it's a tax on the employer, but it's not, it's a tax on
>YOU.
Which your employer would keep as profit otherwise.
>That's why self-employed persons get the joyous honor of paying the
>WHOLE amount, with the second half called "self-employment tax" on the 1040,
>another piece of subterfuge your liberal tax & spend eleceted
>representatives concocted back in the '70's when they wrote this entire scam
>tax code.
>
>Lloyd and the other leftists think everyone's too stupid to figure this all
>out, but it's actually very easy to unravel it using a program like Turbo
>Tax....
>> --
>> Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum
>immane
>> mittam.
>>
>>
>
>
#3380
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <vCiqb.11714$9M3.10456@newsread2.news.atl.earthlin k.net>,
"Joe" <jo_ratner@NOSPAM.yahoo.com> wrote:
>"And there're no corrupt Republican machines? Hello, Texas? Florida?"
>Wasn't it the corrupt democrats that tried to illegally alter the results of
>Florida?
No, it was the Republicans who tried to stop an honest recounting of the
votes.
>The final results were accurate and valid.
Says who?
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:bob0k1$s2a$1@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> In article <bo8tgh012ij@enews1.newsguy.com>,
>> "Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote:
><snip>
>> And there're no corrupt Republican machines? Hello, Texas? Florida?
>>
>
>
>
"Joe" <jo_ratner@NOSPAM.yahoo.com> wrote:
>"And there're no corrupt Republican machines? Hello, Texas? Florida?"
>Wasn't it the corrupt democrats that tried to illegally alter the results of
>Florida?
No, it was the Republicans who tried to stop an honest recounting of the
votes.
>The final results were accurate and valid.
Says who?
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:bob0k1$s2a$1@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> In article <bo8tgh012ij@enews1.newsguy.com>,
>> "Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote:
><snip>
>> And there're no corrupt Republican machines? Hello, Texas? Florida?
>>
>
>
>