Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#3661
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?
#3662
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <vpblqvo11kq7647dh48hf6eg9q1sonirl5@4ax.com>,
Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 06 Nov 03 14:05:06 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>wrote:
>
>>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?
>
>Maybe because the US Constitution says so?
Doesn't being an American mean anything?
>>
>>
>>> 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.
>
>"General Welfare" and "welfare" are not the same.
No, but it's subjective what general welfare includes. To me and most
Americans, it includes education, transportation, environmental protection,
etc.
>But you knew that, and are just trying to obfuscate (for you, that
>means lie).
>
Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 06 Nov 03 14:05:06 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>wrote:
>
>>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?
>
>Maybe because the US Constitution says so?
Doesn't being an American mean anything?
>>
>>
>>> 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.
>
>"General Welfare" and "welfare" are not the same.
No, but it's subjective what general welfare includes. To me and most
Americans, it includes education, transportation, environmental protection,
etc.
>But you knew that, and are just trying to obfuscate (for you, that
>means lie).
>
#3663
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <vpblqvo11kq7647dh48hf6eg9q1sonirl5@4ax.com>,
Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 06 Nov 03 14:05:06 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>wrote:
>
>>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?
>
>Maybe because the US Constitution says so?
Doesn't being an American mean anything?
>>
>>
>>> 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.
>
>"General Welfare" and "welfare" are not the same.
No, but it's subjective what general welfare includes. To me and most
Americans, it includes education, transportation, environmental protection,
etc.
>But you knew that, and are just trying to obfuscate (for you, that
>means lie).
>
Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 06 Nov 03 14:05:06 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>wrote:
>
>>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?
>
>Maybe because the US Constitution says so?
Doesn't being an American mean anything?
>>
>>
>>> 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.
>
>"General Welfare" and "welfare" are not the same.
No, but it's subjective what general welfare includes. To me and most
Americans, it includes education, transportation, environmental protection,
etc.
>But you knew that, and are just trying to obfuscate (for you, that
>means lie).
>
#3664
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <vpblqvo11kq7647dh48hf6eg9q1sonirl5@4ax.com>,
Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 06 Nov 03 14:05:06 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>wrote:
>
>>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?
>
>Maybe because the US Constitution says so?
Doesn't being an American mean anything?
>>
>>
>>> 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.
>
>"General Welfare" and "welfare" are not the same.
No, but it's subjective what general welfare includes. To me and most
Americans, it includes education, transportation, environmental protection,
etc.
>But you knew that, and are just trying to obfuscate (for you, that
>means lie).
>
Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 06 Nov 03 14:05:06 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>wrote:
>
>>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?
>
>Maybe because the US Constitution says so?
Doesn't being an American mean anything?
>>
>>
>>> 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.
>
>"General Welfare" and "welfare" are not the same.
No, but it's subjective what general welfare includes. To me and most
Americans, it includes education, transportation, environmental protection,
etc.
>But you knew that, and are just trying to obfuscate (for you, that
>means lie).
>
#3665
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <a1clqv07grvmv9iqc1f7i4urkrj1610kof@4ax.com>,
Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 06 Nov 03 14:00:50 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>wrote:
>
>>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?
>
>You changed the subject again.
>Do you ramble like this in class?
Do you have a reading comprehension problem?
Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 06 Nov 03 14:00:50 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>wrote:
>
>>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?
>
>You changed the subject again.
>Do you ramble like this in class?
Do you have a reading comprehension problem?
#3666
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <a1clqv07grvmv9iqc1f7i4urkrj1610kof@4ax.com>,
Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 06 Nov 03 14:00:50 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>wrote:
>
>>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?
>
>You changed the subject again.
>Do you ramble like this in class?
Do you have a reading comprehension problem?
Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 06 Nov 03 14:00:50 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>wrote:
>
>>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?
>
>You changed the subject again.
>Do you ramble like this in class?
Do you have a reading comprehension problem?
#3667
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <a1clqv07grvmv9iqc1f7i4urkrj1610kof@4ax.com>,
Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 06 Nov 03 14:00:50 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>wrote:
>
>>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?
>
>You changed the subject again.
>Do you ramble like this in class?
Do you have a reading comprehension problem?
Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 06 Nov 03 14:00:50 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>wrote:
>
>>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?
>
>You changed the subject again.
>Do you ramble like this in class?
Do you have a reading comprehension problem?
#3668
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <ptclqvkj216uftgknepuuorbsstnsllveu@4ax.com>,
Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 06 Nov 03 13:53:29 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>wrote:
>
>>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.
>
>If so, and CO2 is the reason for our current warming trend, then what
>caused all the other warming trends?
>
If exercise caused your temp. to rise yesterday, does that mean a virus cannot
cause it to do so today?
Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 06 Nov 03 13:53:29 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>wrote:
>
>>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.
>
>If so, and CO2 is the reason for our current warming trend, then what
>caused all the other warming trends?
>
If exercise caused your temp. to rise yesterday, does that mean a virus cannot
cause it to do so today?
#3669
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <ptclqvkj216uftgknepuuorbsstnsllveu@4ax.com>,
Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 06 Nov 03 13:53:29 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>wrote:
>
>>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.
>
>If so, and CO2 is the reason for our current warming trend, then what
>caused all the other warming trends?
>
If exercise caused your temp. to rise yesterday, does that mean a virus cannot
cause it to do so today?
Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 06 Nov 03 13:53:29 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>wrote:
>
>>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.
>
>If so, and CO2 is the reason for our current warming trend, then what
>caused all the other warming trends?
>
If exercise caused your temp. to rise yesterday, does that mean a virus cannot
cause it to do so today?
#3670
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <ptclqvkj216uftgknepuuorbsstnsllveu@4ax.com>,
Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 06 Nov 03 13:53:29 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>wrote:
>
>>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.
>
>If so, and CO2 is the reason for our current warming trend, then what
>caused all the other warming trends?
>
If exercise caused your temp. to rise yesterday, does that mean a virus cannot
cause it to do so today?
Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 06 Nov 03 13:53:29 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>wrote:
>
>>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.
>
>If so, and CO2 is the reason for our current warming trend, then what
>caused all the other warming trends?
>
If exercise caused your temp. to rise yesterday, does that mean a virus cannot
cause it to do so today?