Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#3651
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can bemisinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <3FAAAB43.B4072C31@mindspring.com>,
"C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
>You'll have to explain what you mean by "balance." The concentration of CO2
has
>never been static.
For half a million years, CO2 was around 280 ppm, without much variation. In
the last 120 years, it's increased to 350 ppm.
>In fact, the long term trend was a reduction in the
>concentration until about 10,000 years ago.
Wrong.
>CO2 is constantly being more or less
>permanently removed from the atmosphere and tied up in corral reefs,
limestone,
>coal, oil, peat, etc., etc., etc. Recently mankind has released some of the
>stored CO2. Maybe we are actually helping to restore the balance. At any rate
the
>era of fossil fuel will sooner or later come to an end. It may take another
200
>years or 1000 years, but it will end. On the geologic time scale it will just
be
>a blip.
>
>I don't doubt that an increase in the concentration of CO2 might cause a
change
>in the climate. However, climate change will occur whether there is or is not
a
>change in the CO2 concentration. The component of climate change attributable
to
>human activity may actually be beneficial. It might counter some "natural
change"
>(whatever that means) or reinforce the "natural change" or it may be trivial
>compared to the "natural change." The manmade component might be a good
thing, a
>bad thing, or an insignificant thing. I object to what I perceive to be a
>hijacking of the issue of global warming by groups who are trying to use it
as an
>excuse for promoting their other unrelated goals. I think the potential for
harm
>is deliberately overstated. I think the science supporting global warming is
not
>subject to the sort of scrutiny that it should be because it is a "popular
>theory" with liberals.
And you're not qualified to judge any science, are you?
> I think the new medias trumpets global warming because it
>generates a lot interest. I think a lot of scientist promote global warming
>because they can get money to study it.
>
>If I am wrong and the worst case scenario happens, the sea level will rise 10
>feet and millions of people will have to move. Fortunately, it won't rise
over
>night, so they can move. If you believe in global warming, I suggest you buy
land
>in Kansas now. If the global warming people are wrong and nothing dramatic
>happens, millions of people will be spared the pain of having their lives
>rearranged for no reason. If the global warming people are right, rearranging
the
>lives of millions of Americans to meet the terms of the Kyoto treaty won't
have
>any affect on the end results. We will just continue to move most of our CO2
>generating industries to third world countries, and in the end, NYC will
still be
>underwater, and no one will care because everyone will be out of work anyhow.
>
>To sum it up - even if global warming is true, I believe the cure is worse
than
>the disease. And furthermore, I think that even if it is true, the case is
being
>dramatically overstated.
>
>Ed
>
Your opinion on a scientific issue is as valid as mine on say, whether
Chrysler should issue 30-year bonds or 20-year ones.
"C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
>You'll have to explain what you mean by "balance." The concentration of CO2
has
>never been static.
For half a million years, CO2 was around 280 ppm, without much variation. In
the last 120 years, it's increased to 350 ppm.
>In fact, the long term trend was a reduction in the
>concentration until about 10,000 years ago.
Wrong.
>CO2 is constantly being more or less
>permanently removed from the atmosphere and tied up in corral reefs,
limestone,
>coal, oil, peat, etc., etc., etc. Recently mankind has released some of the
>stored CO2. Maybe we are actually helping to restore the balance. At any rate
the
>era of fossil fuel will sooner or later come to an end. It may take another
200
>years or 1000 years, but it will end. On the geologic time scale it will just
be
>a blip.
>
>I don't doubt that an increase in the concentration of CO2 might cause a
change
>in the climate. However, climate change will occur whether there is or is not
a
>change in the CO2 concentration. The component of climate change attributable
to
>human activity may actually be beneficial. It might counter some "natural
change"
>(whatever that means) or reinforce the "natural change" or it may be trivial
>compared to the "natural change." The manmade component might be a good
thing, a
>bad thing, or an insignificant thing. I object to what I perceive to be a
>hijacking of the issue of global warming by groups who are trying to use it
as an
>excuse for promoting their other unrelated goals. I think the potential for
harm
>is deliberately overstated. I think the science supporting global warming is
not
>subject to the sort of scrutiny that it should be because it is a "popular
>theory" with liberals.
And you're not qualified to judge any science, are you?
> I think the new medias trumpets global warming because it
>generates a lot interest. I think a lot of scientist promote global warming
>because they can get money to study it.
>
>If I am wrong and the worst case scenario happens, the sea level will rise 10
>feet and millions of people will have to move. Fortunately, it won't rise
over
>night, so they can move. If you believe in global warming, I suggest you buy
land
>in Kansas now. If the global warming people are wrong and nothing dramatic
>happens, millions of people will be spared the pain of having their lives
>rearranged for no reason. If the global warming people are right, rearranging
the
>lives of millions of Americans to meet the terms of the Kyoto treaty won't
have
>any affect on the end results. We will just continue to move most of our CO2
>generating industries to third world countries, and in the end, NYC will
still be
>underwater, and no one will care because everyone will be out of work anyhow.
>
>To sum it up - even if global warming is true, I believe the cure is worse
than
>the disease. And furthermore, I think that even if it is true, the case is
being
>dramatically overstated.
>
>Ed
>
Your opinion on a scientific issue is as valid as mine on say, whether
Chrysler should issue 30-year bonds or 20-year ones.
#3652
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can bemisinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <3FAAAB43.B4072C31@mindspring.com>,
"C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
>You'll have to explain what you mean by "balance." The concentration of CO2
has
>never been static.
For half a million years, CO2 was around 280 ppm, without much variation. In
the last 120 years, it's increased to 350 ppm.
>In fact, the long term trend was a reduction in the
>concentration until about 10,000 years ago.
Wrong.
>CO2 is constantly being more or less
>permanently removed from the atmosphere and tied up in corral reefs,
limestone,
>coal, oil, peat, etc., etc., etc. Recently mankind has released some of the
>stored CO2. Maybe we are actually helping to restore the balance. At any rate
the
>era of fossil fuel will sooner or later come to an end. It may take another
200
>years or 1000 years, but it will end. On the geologic time scale it will just
be
>a blip.
>
>I don't doubt that an increase in the concentration of CO2 might cause a
change
>in the climate. However, climate change will occur whether there is or is not
a
>change in the CO2 concentration. The component of climate change attributable
to
>human activity may actually be beneficial. It might counter some "natural
change"
>(whatever that means) or reinforce the "natural change" or it may be trivial
>compared to the "natural change." The manmade component might be a good
thing, a
>bad thing, or an insignificant thing. I object to what I perceive to be a
>hijacking of the issue of global warming by groups who are trying to use it
as an
>excuse for promoting their other unrelated goals. I think the potential for
harm
>is deliberately overstated. I think the science supporting global warming is
not
>subject to the sort of scrutiny that it should be because it is a "popular
>theory" with liberals.
And you're not qualified to judge any science, are you?
> I think the new medias trumpets global warming because it
>generates a lot interest. I think a lot of scientist promote global warming
>because they can get money to study it.
>
>If I am wrong and the worst case scenario happens, the sea level will rise 10
>feet and millions of people will have to move. Fortunately, it won't rise
over
>night, so they can move. If you believe in global warming, I suggest you buy
land
>in Kansas now. If the global warming people are wrong and nothing dramatic
>happens, millions of people will be spared the pain of having their lives
>rearranged for no reason. If the global warming people are right, rearranging
the
>lives of millions of Americans to meet the terms of the Kyoto treaty won't
have
>any affect on the end results. We will just continue to move most of our CO2
>generating industries to third world countries, and in the end, NYC will
still be
>underwater, and no one will care because everyone will be out of work anyhow.
>
>To sum it up - even if global warming is true, I believe the cure is worse
than
>the disease. And furthermore, I think that even if it is true, the case is
being
>dramatically overstated.
>
>Ed
>
Your opinion on a scientific issue is as valid as mine on say, whether
Chrysler should issue 30-year bonds or 20-year ones.
"C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
>You'll have to explain what you mean by "balance." The concentration of CO2
has
>never been static.
For half a million years, CO2 was around 280 ppm, without much variation. In
the last 120 years, it's increased to 350 ppm.
>In fact, the long term trend was a reduction in the
>concentration until about 10,000 years ago.
Wrong.
>CO2 is constantly being more or less
>permanently removed from the atmosphere and tied up in corral reefs,
limestone,
>coal, oil, peat, etc., etc., etc. Recently mankind has released some of the
>stored CO2. Maybe we are actually helping to restore the balance. At any rate
the
>era of fossil fuel will sooner or later come to an end. It may take another
200
>years or 1000 years, but it will end. On the geologic time scale it will just
be
>a blip.
>
>I don't doubt that an increase in the concentration of CO2 might cause a
change
>in the climate. However, climate change will occur whether there is or is not
a
>change in the CO2 concentration. The component of climate change attributable
to
>human activity may actually be beneficial. It might counter some "natural
change"
>(whatever that means) or reinforce the "natural change" or it may be trivial
>compared to the "natural change." The manmade component might be a good
thing, a
>bad thing, or an insignificant thing. I object to what I perceive to be a
>hijacking of the issue of global warming by groups who are trying to use it
as an
>excuse for promoting their other unrelated goals. I think the potential for
harm
>is deliberately overstated. I think the science supporting global warming is
not
>subject to the sort of scrutiny that it should be because it is a "popular
>theory" with liberals.
And you're not qualified to judge any science, are you?
> I think the new medias trumpets global warming because it
>generates a lot interest. I think a lot of scientist promote global warming
>because they can get money to study it.
>
>If I am wrong and the worst case scenario happens, the sea level will rise 10
>feet and millions of people will have to move. Fortunately, it won't rise
over
>night, so they can move. If you believe in global warming, I suggest you buy
land
>in Kansas now. If the global warming people are wrong and nothing dramatic
>happens, millions of people will be spared the pain of having their lives
>rearranged for no reason. If the global warming people are right, rearranging
the
>lives of millions of Americans to meet the terms of the Kyoto treaty won't
have
>any affect on the end results. We will just continue to move most of our CO2
>generating industries to third world countries, and in the end, NYC will
still be
>underwater, and no one will care because everyone will be out of work anyhow.
>
>To sum it up - even if global warming is true, I believe the cure is worse
than
>the disease. And furthermore, I think that even if it is true, the case is
being
>dramatically overstated.
>
>Ed
>
Your opinion on a scientific issue is as valid as mine on say, whether
Chrysler should issue 30-year bonds or 20-year ones.
#3653
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <boeahq011fh@enews4.newsguy.com>,
"Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote:
>> FL law allowed for a candidate to ask for a recount in specific counties.<
>
>Common sense says people know total -------- when they smell it!
>
>
>> The US constitution provides that a person's transgressions do not extend
>to their children. Guess that puts you on the wrong side of the
>constitution.>
>
>Guess thais proves you're not very good at either history, logil or debate,
>Bozo!
>
>
>> >No, old Al Gore screwed himself and the entire Democrat party by what he
>did, and the public hasn't forgotten. By the way, Texas has only recently
>become a Republican state. The Democrats have controlled politics there
>since the 1870's, and their latest trick to keep from accepting reality was
>to LEAVE THE STATE! Some representation! >>
>
>Again Lloyd avoids dealing with the obvious. Face it, the Democrats are
>fading into obscurity, they even lost TWO MORE Governorships this week, and
>will probably lose anpther next week.
>> >
>
>
Since 2001, 12 governorships have gone from republican to democrat, and 12 the
opposite.
"Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote:
>> FL law allowed for a candidate to ask for a recount in specific counties.<
>
>Common sense says people know total -------- when they smell it!
>
>
>> The US constitution provides that a person's transgressions do not extend
>to their children. Guess that puts you on the wrong side of the
>constitution.>
>
>Guess thais proves you're not very good at either history, logil or debate,
>Bozo!
>
>
>> >No, old Al Gore screwed himself and the entire Democrat party by what he
>did, and the public hasn't forgotten. By the way, Texas has only recently
>become a Republican state. The Democrats have controlled politics there
>since the 1870's, and their latest trick to keep from accepting reality was
>to LEAVE THE STATE! Some representation! >>
>
>Again Lloyd avoids dealing with the obvious. Face it, the Democrats are
>fading into obscurity, they even lost TWO MORE Governorships this week, and
>will probably lose anpther next week.
>> >
>
>
Since 2001, 12 governorships have gone from republican to democrat, and 12 the
opposite.
#3654
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <boeahq011fh@enews4.newsguy.com>,
"Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote:
>> FL law allowed for a candidate to ask for a recount in specific counties.<
>
>Common sense says people know total -------- when they smell it!
>
>
>> The US constitution provides that a person's transgressions do not extend
>to their children. Guess that puts you on the wrong side of the
>constitution.>
>
>Guess thais proves you're not very good at either history, logil or debate,
>Bozo!
>
>
>> >No, old Al Gore screwed himself and the entire Democrat party by what he
>did, and the public hasn't forgotten. By the way, Texas has only recently
>become a Republican state. The Democrats have controlled politics there
>since the 1870's, and their latest trick to keep from accepting reality was
>to LEAVE THE STATE! Some representation! >>
>
>Again Lloyd avoids dealing with the obvious. Face it, the Democrats are
>fading into obscurity, they even lost TWO MORE Governorships this week, and
>will probably lose anpther next week.
>> >
>
>
Since 2001, 12 governorships have gone from republican to democrat, and 12 the
opposite.
"Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote:
>> FL law allowed for a candidate to ask for a recount in specific counties.<
>
>Common sense says people know total -------- when they smell it!
>
>
>> The US constitution provides that a person's transgressions do not extend
>to their children. Guess that puts you on the wrong side of the
>constitution.>
>
>Guess thais proves you're not very good at either history, logil or debate,
>Bozo!
>
>
>> >No, old Al Gore screwed himself and the entire Democrat party by what he
>did, and the public hasn't forgotten. By the way, Texas has only recently
>become a Republican state. The Democrats have controlled politics there
>since the 1870's, and their latest trick to keep from accepting reality was
>to LEAVE THE STATE! Some representation! >>
>
>Again Lloyd avoids dealing with the obvious. Face it, the Democrats are
>fading into obscurity, they even lost TWO MORE Governorships this week, and
>will probably lose anpther next week.
>> >
>
>
Since 2001, 12 governorships have gone from republican to democrat, and 12 the
opposite.
#3655
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <boeahq011fh@enews4.newsguy.com>,
"Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote:
>> FL law allowed for a candidate to ask for a recount in specific counties.<
>
>Common sense says people know total -------- when they smell it!
>
>
>> The US constitution provides that a person's transgressions do not extend
>to their children. Guess that puts you on the wrong side of the
>constitution.>
>
>Guess thais proves you're not very good at either history, logil or debate,
>Bozo!
>
>
>> >No, old Al Gore screwed himself and the entire Democrat party by what he
>did, and the public hasn't forgotten. By the way, Texas has only recently
>become a Republican state. The Democrats have controlled politics there
>since the 1870's, and their latest trick to keep from accepting reality was
>to LEAVE THE STATE! Some representation! >>
>
>Again Lloyd avoids dealing with the obvious. Face it, the Democrats are
>fading into obscurity, they even lost TWO MORE Governorships this week, and
>will probably lose anpther next week.
>> >
>
>
Since 2001, 12 governorships have gone from republican to democrat, and 12 the
opposite.
"Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote:
>> FL law allowed for a candidate to ask for a recount in specific counties.<
>
>Common sense says people know total -------- when they smell it!
>
>
>> The US constitution provides that a person's transgressions do not extend
>to their children. Guess that puts you on the wrong side of the
>constitution.>
>
>Guess thais proves you're not very good at either history, logil or debate,
>Bozo!
>
>
>> >No, old Al Gore screwed himself and the entire Democrat party by what he
>did, and the public hasn't forgotten. By the way, Texas has only recently
>become a Republican state. The Democrats have controlled politics there
>since the 1870's, and their latest trick to keep from accepting reality was
>to LEAVE THE STATE! Some representation! >>
>
>Again Lloyd avoids dealing with the obvious. Face it, the Democrats are
>fading into obscurity, they even lost TWO MORE Governorships this week, and
>will probably lose anpther next week.
>> >
>
>
Since 2001, 12 governorships have gone from republican to democrat, and 12 the
opposite.
#3656
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <sgblqvssoi6gaq7mrsoe5i7dmfg3ck31mv@4ax.com>,
Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 06 Nov 03 14:06:30 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>wrote:
>
>>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!
>
>But you didn't answer the question:
>How does a tax increase improve the economy?
Lowered the deficit, showed investors we were serious about getting our
deficit under control.
>Simply saying that an improved economy followed a tax increase proves
>nothing.
>How about it?
>
Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 06 Nov 03 14:06:30 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>wrote:
>
>>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!
>
>But you didn't answer the question:
>How does a tax increase improve the economy?
Lowered the deficit, showed investors we were serious about getting our
deficit under control.
>Simply saying that an improved economy followed a tax increase proves
>nothing.
>How about it?
>
#3657
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <sgblqvssoi6gaq7mrsoe5i7dmfg3ck31mv@4ax.com>,
Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 06 Nov 03 14:06:30 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>wrote:
>
>>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!
>
>But you didn't answer the question:
>How does a tax increase improve the economy?
Lowered the deficit, showed investors we were serious about getting our
deficit under control.
>Simply saying that an improved economy followed a tax increase proves
>nothing.
>How about it?
>
Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 06 Nov 03 14:06:30 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>wrote:
>
>>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!
>
>But you didn't answer the question:
>How does a tax increase improve the economy?
Lowered the deficit, showed investors we were serious about getting our
deficit under control.
>Simply saying that an improved economy followed a tax increase proves
>nothing.
>How about it?
>
#3658
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <sgblqvssoi6gaq7mrsoe5i7dmfg3ck31mv@4ax.com>,
Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 06 Nov 03 14:06:30 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>wrote:
>
>>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!
>
>But you didn't answer the question:
>How does a tax increase improve the economy?
Lowered the deficit, showed investors we were serious about getting our
deficit under control.
>Simply saying that an improved economy followed a tax increase proves
>nothing.
>How about it?
>
Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 06 Nov 03 14:06:30 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>wrote:
>
>>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!
>
>But you didn't answer the question:
>How does a tax increase improve the economy?
Lowered the deficit, showed investors we were serious about getting our
deficit under control.
>Simply saying that an improved economy followed a tax increase proves
>nothing.
>How about it?
>
#3659
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <skblqvora0ntmqsnnhinefmo3j7t5o6o88@4ax.com>,
Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 06 Nov 03 13:56:41 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>wrote:
>
>>In article <rtriqvkhms3sfdqhscdi2qnno4u28o5iud@4ax.com>,
>> Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>>>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?
>>
>>Bush's was bigger, since it raised the payroll tax.
>
>No, Clinton's was higher.
>
>>
>>>Explain how increased taxes improve the economy.
>>>
>>Explain how Clinton's tax on the wealthy hurt the economy.
>
>It's fairly obvious that, since increased taxes hurt an economy,
No proof.
>Clinton's tax increase hurt the economy.
Yeah, it performed so much better after W's tax cut than after Clinton's tax
increase, right?
>To say that the economy wasn't hurt by it defies reality.
To say that it was defies history.
>Think how good the economy would have been without the tax increase.
Yeah, like it was under Bush I and Bush II.
>
>Is this how you teach? Make false statements, then try to lie your way
>out of it?
Is this what you think constitutes proof? Asserting something?
Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 06 Nov 03 13:56:41 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>wrote:
>
>>In article <rtriqvkhms3sfdqhscdi2qnno4u28o5iud@4ax.com>,
>> Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>>>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?
>>
>>Bush's was bigger, since it raised the payroll tax.
>
>No, Clinton's was higher.
>
>>
>>>Explain how increased taxes improve the economy.
>>>
>>Explain how Clinton's tax on the wealthy hurt the economy.
>
>It's fairly obvious that, since increased taxes hurt an economy,
No proof.
>Clinton's tax increase hurt the economy.
Yeah, it performed so much better after W's tax cut than after Clinton's tax
increase, right?
>To say that the economy wasn't hurt by it defies reality.
To say that it was defies history.
>Think how good the economy would have been without the tax increase.
Yeah, like it was under Bush I and Bush II.
>
>Is this how you teach? Make false statements, then try to lie your way
>out of it?
Is this what you think constitutes proof? Asserting something?
#3660
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <skblqvora0ntmqsnnhinefmo3j7t5o6o88@4ax.com>,
Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 06 Nov 03 13:56:41 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>wrote:
>
>>In article <rtriqvkhms3sfdqhscdi2qnno4u28o5iud@4ax.com>,
>> Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>>>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?
>>
>>Bush's was bigger, since it raised the payroll tax.
>
>No, Clinton's was higher.
>
>>
>>>Explain how increased taxes improve the economy.
>>>
>>Explain how Clinton's tax on the wealthy hurt the economy.
>
>It's fairly obvious that, since increased taxes hurt an economy,
No proof.
>Clinton's tax increase hurt the economy.
Yeah, it performed so much better after W's tax cut than after Clinton's tax
increase, right?
>To say that the economy wasn't hurt by it defies reality.
To say that it was defies history.
>Think how good the economy would have been without the tax increase.
Yeah, like it was under Bush I and Bush II.
>
>Is this how you teach? Make false statements, then try to lie your way
>out of it?
Is this what you think constitutes proof? Asserting something?
Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 06 Nov 03 13:56:41 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>wrote:
>
>>In article <rtriqvkhms3sfdqhscdi2qnno4u28o5iud@4ax.com>,
>> Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>>>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?
>>
>>Bush's was bigger, since it raised the payroll tax.
>
>No, Clinton's was higher.
>
>>
>>>Explain how increased taxes improve the economy.
>>>
>>Explain how Clinton's tax on the wealthy hurt the economy.
>
>It's fairly obvious that, since increased taxes hurt an economy,
No proof.
>Clinton's tax increase hurt the economy.
Yeah, it performed so much better after W's tax cut than after Clinton's tax
increase, right?
>To say that the economy wasn't hurt by it defies reality.
To say that it was defies history.
>Think how good the economy would have been without the tax increase.
Yeah, like it was under Bush I and Bush II.
>
>Is this how you teach? Make false statements, then try to lie your way
>out of it?
Is this what you think constitutes proof? Asserting something?