Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#3531
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:boe5tq$i0q$15@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <vCiqb.11714$9M3.10456@newsread2.news.atl.earthlin k.net>,
> "Joe" <jo_ratner@NOSPAM.yahoo.com> wrote:
> >"And there're no corrupt Republican machines? Hello, Texas? Florida?"
> >Wasn't it the corrupt democrats that tried to illegally alter the results
of
> >Florida?
>
> No, it was the Republicans who tried to stop an honest recounting of the
> votes.
>
There was nothing honest about it. It was all tilted to find Gore votes and
not find Bush votes. What's honest about that?
You ever notice in a basketball game, when the ball goes out of bounds and
it isn't clear who touched it last that all the players point in their teams
direction? Is that honesty?
>
> >The final results were accurate and valid.
>
> Says who?
>
#3532
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:boe5tq$i0q$15@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <vCiqb.11714$9M3.10456@newsread2.news.atl.earthlin k.net>,
> "Joe" <jo_ratner@NOSPAM.yahoo.com> wrote:
> >"And there're no corrupt Republican machines? Hello, Texas? Florida?"
> >Wasn't it the corrupt democrats that tried to illegally alter the results
of
> >Florida?
>
> No, it was the Republicans who tried to stop an honest recounting of the
> votes.
>
There was nothing honest about it. It was all tilted to find Gore votes and
not find Bush votes. What's honest about that?
You ever notice in a basketball game, when the ball goes out of bounds and
it isn't clear who touched it last that all the players point in their teams
direction? Is that honesty?
>
> >The final results were accurate and valid.
>
> Says who?
>
#3533
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:boe601$i0q$16@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <0Hiqb.11729$9M3.6724@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink .net>,
> "Joe" <jo_ratner@NOSPAM.yahoo.com> wrote:
> >At a federal level? YES. STATES should do that, NOT the feds...
>
> So why should a US citizen who lives in Mississippi not have the same
rights
> and privileges as one who lives in New York?
>
The feds don't have jurisdiction over all rights. The 14th amendment
muddled that concept up a bit, but it's still a fact that many rights are
reserved to the people and the states. The feds don't have all power.
>
> > But why
> >listen to what the "founding fathers" wanted...
>
> They wanted the government to "provide for the general welfare" and wrote
that
> into the constitution.
>
It's just like a liberal to look to the preamble to find a "right". That's
what the Florida Supreme Court did to undo state election law. If you're to
interpret "provide for the general welfare" in the preample, which is a
statement of purpose, you can't conclude that citizens have a right of
"general welfare" they can lay claim to. The articles that follow the
preamble and lay out the function of government ARE the interpretation of
general welfare.
#3534
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:boe601$i0q$16@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <0Hiqb.11729$9M3.6724@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink .net>,
> "Joe" <jo_ratner@NOSPAM.yahoo.com> wrote:
> >At a federal level? YES. STATES should do that, NOT the feds...
>
> So why should a US citizen who lives in Mississippi not have the same
rights
> and privileges as one who lives in New York?
>
The feds don't have jurisdiction over all rights. The 14th amendment
muddled that concept up a bit, but it's still a fact that many rights are
reserved to the people and the states. The feds don't have all power.
>
> > But why
> >listen to what the "founding fathers" wanted...
>
> They wanted the government to "provide for the general welfare" and wrote
that
> into the constitution.
>
It's just like a liberal to look to the preamble to find a "right". That's
what the Florida Supreme Court did to undo state election law. If you're to
interpret "provide for the general welfare" in the preample, which is a
statement of purpose, you can't conclude that citizens have a right of
"general welfare" they can lay claim to. The articles that follow the
preamble and lay out the function of government ARE the interpretation of
general welfare.
#3535
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:boe601$i0q$16@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <0Hiqb.11729$9M3.6724@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink .net>,
> "Joe" <jo_ratner@NOSPAM.yahoo.com> wrote:
> >At a federal level? YES. STATES should do that, NOT the feds...
>
> So why should a US citizen who lives in Mississippi not have the same
rights
> and privileges as one who lives in New York?
>
The feds don't have jurisdiction over all rights. The 14th amendment
muddled that concept up a bit, but it's still a fact that many rights are
reserved to the people and the states. The feds don't have all power.
>
> > But why
> >listen to what the "founding fathers" wanted...
>
> They wanted the government to "provide for the general welfare" and wrote
that
> into the constitution.
>
It's just like a liberal to look to the preamble to find a "right". That's
what the Florida Supreme Court did to undo state election law. If you're to
interpret "provide for the general welfare" in the preample, which is a
statement of purpose, you can't conclude that citizens have a right of
"general welfare" they can lay claim to. The articles that follow the
preamble and lay out the function of government ARE the interpretation of
general welfare.
#3536
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:boe616$i0q$17@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <vqjdrv6m9dlk0a@corp.supernews.com>,
> "Douglas A. Shrader" <dshrader@nospam.com> wrote:
> >
> >"Joe" <jo_ratner@NOSPAM.yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >news:vCiqb.11714$9M3.10456@newsread2.news.atl.ear thlink.net...
> >> "And there're no corrupt Republican machines? Hello, Texas? Florida?"
> >> Wasn't it the corrupt democrats that tried to illegally alter the
results
> >of
> >> Florida? The final results were accurate and valid.
> >
> >And what the Dems never acknowledge is the fact that Floridas votes were
> >recounted again after Bush was declared the winner, every vote was
counted,
> >no matter how poorly marked, and it gave Bush more votes than the final
> >official count had given him.
>
> Wrong. As the media reported, depending on how the votes were counted
> (strictly, loosely), Bush would win some recounts and Gore would win some.
>
> >
No, there was ONE way of counting where Gore came out ahead. But it is all
academic because it wasn't how the state law says to count ballots. (Not
that THAT would have stopped the Dems). Gore lost every recount and only
had the HOPE of finding a way to recount where he would come out ahead.
This is what the USSC stopped. It's amazing to hear you say that's how Bush
"stole" the election!
#3537
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:boe616$i0q$17@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <vqjdrv6m9dlk0a@corp.supernews.com>,
> "Douglas A. Shrader" <dshrader@nospam.com> wrote:
> >
> >"Joe" <jo_ratner@NOSPAM.yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >news:vCiqb.11714$9M3.10456@newsread2.news.atl.ear thlink.net...
> >> "And there're no corrupt Republican machines? Hello, Texas? Florida?"
> >> Wasn't it the corrupt democrats that tried to illegally alter the
results
> >of
> >> Florida? The final results were accurate and valid.
> >
> >And what the Dems never acknowledge is the fact that Floridas votes were
> >recounted again after Bush was declared the winner, every vote was
counted,
> >no matter how poorly marked, and it gave Bush more votes than the final
> >official count had given him.
>
> Wrong. As the media reported, depending on how the votes were counted
> (strictly, loosely), Bush would win some recounts and Gore would win some.
>
> >
No, there was ONE way of counting where Gore came out ahead. But it is all
academic because it wasn't how the state law says to count ballots. (Not
that THAT would have stopped the Dems). Gore lost every recount and only
had the HOPE of finding a way to recount where he would come out ahead.
This is what the USSC stopped. It's amazing to hear you say that's how Bush
"stole" the election!
#3538
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:boe616$i0q$17@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <vqjdrv6m9dlk0a@corp.supernews.com>,
> "Douglas A. Shrader" <dshrader@nospam.com> wrote:
> >
> >"Joe" <jo_ratner@NOSPAM.yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >news:vCiqb.11714$9M3.10456@newsread2.news.atl.ear thlink.net...
> >> "And there're no corrupt Republican machines? Hello, Texas? Florida?"
> >> Wasn't it the corrupt democrats that tried to illegally alter the
results
> >of
> >> Florida? The final results were accurate and valid.
> >
> >And what the Dems never acknowledge is the fact that Floridas votes were
> >recounted again after Bush was declared the winner, every vote was
counted,
> >no matter how poorly marked, and it gave Bush more votes than the final
> >official count had given him.
>
> Wrong. As the media reported, depending on how the votes were counted
> (strictly, loosely), Bush would win some recounts and Gore would win some.
>
> >
No, there was ONE way of counting where Gore came out ahead. But it is all
academic because it wasn't how the state law says to count ballots. (Not
that THAT would have stopped the Dems). Gore lost every recount and only
had the HOPE of finding a way to recount where he would come out ahead.
This is what the USSC stopped. It's amazing to hear you say that's how Bush
"stole" the election!
#3539
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:boe62k$i0q$18@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <2Kiqb.11735$9M3.10343@newsread2.news.atl.earthlin k.net>,
> "Joe" <jo_ratner@NOSPAM.yahoo.com> wrote:
> >"Explain how increased taxes improve the economy."
> >It improves the economy by starting a recession (ex. the Clinton
> >Recession)... see the logic I followed there??
>
> Yes, those 8 years of gloom, doom, and recession. When the stock market
goes
> above 10,000, that's a sure sign of recession. When unemployment hits
record
> lows, gotta be in a recession!
>
Thank heaven for a Republican congress and for the fact that Clinton was
less devoted to liberalism (tax & spend) than he was to staying in power.
Of course we can't forget that that much of that booming economy was built
on unsound economic principles, like speculation and overstated earnings.
What did he call it? Irrational exhuberance!
> >
> >"Bill Funk" <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote in message
> >news:rtriqvkhms3sfdqhscdi2qnno4u28o5iud@4ax.com.. .
> >> On Wed, 05 Nov 03 11:42:46 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >>We all remember that lying bastard Clinton ran in '92 on a
> >> >>middle class tax cut.
> >> >
> >> >And when Bush left the budget in much worse shape, to his credit, he
took
> >> >steps to get it under control.
> >>
> >> Would that be by instituting the largest tax increase in our history?
> >> Explain how increased taxes improve the economy.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Bill Funk
> >> replace "g" with "a"
> >
> >
#3540
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:boe62k$i0q$18@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <2Kiqb.11735$9M3.10343@newsread2.news.atl.earthlin k.net>,
> "Joe" <jo_ratner@NOSPAM.yahoo.com> wrote:
> >"Explain how increased taxes improve the economy."
> >It improves the economy by starting a recession (ex. the Clinton
> >Recession)... see the logic I followed there??
>
> Yes, those 8 years of gloom, doom, and recession. When the stock market
goes
> above 10,000, that's a sure sign of recession. When unemployment hits
record
> lows, gotta be in a recession!
>
Thank heaven for a Republican congress and for the fact that Clinton was
less devoted to liberalism (tax & spend) than he was to staying in power.
Of course we can't forget that that much of that booming economy was built
on unsound economic principles, like speculation and overstated earnings.
What did he call it? Irrational exhuberance!
> >
> >"Bill Funk" <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote in message
> >news:rtriqvkhms3sfdqhscdi2qnno4u28o5iud@4ax.com.. .
> >> On Wed, 05 Nov 03 11:42:46 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >>We all remember that lying bastard Clinton ran in '92 on a
> >> >>middle class tax cut.
> >> >
> >> >And when Bush left the budget in much worse shape, to his credit, he
took
> >> >steps to get it under control.
> >>
> >> Would that be by instituting the largest tax increase in our history?
> >> Explain how increased taxes improve the economy.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Bill Funk
> >> replace "g" with "a"
> >
> >