Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#3681
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <pcAqb.107087$ZH4.92096@twister.socal.rr.com>,
"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>> >The Brady Bill and assault weapons ban are a joke, if you actually got
>out
>> >of that ivory tower you're holed up in you might realize it. If it were
>up
>> >to you I could think of three people off the top of my head who might be
>> >dead at the moment if they didn't have a firearm handy.
>> >An Atlanta police officer's wife who killed her would be rapist.
>> >A man who shot a would be carjacker on the northside of Atlanta somewhere
>in
>> >a Wal-Fart parking lot.
>> >A wal-Fart employee in Florida somewhere IIRC who was being stabbed by
>some
>> >nutcase who was foiled by an old lady w/ a pistol.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> And for each of those, there are family members shot in anger or
>accidentally,
>> suicides with a handy gun, children shooting children with a gun found in
>the
>> house, shooting of a neighbor the homeowner thought was a burglar, etc.
>
>You forget that the government doesn't have the power to prohibit the right
>of people to bear arms.
Really? Tell that to the states and cities that have done so. Tell that to
the courts that have ruled they can do so.
> Just because bad things happen with guns doesn't
>mean the government has the power to prohibit them.
>
>
"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>> >The Brady Bill and assault weapons ban are a joke, if you actually got
>out
>> >of that ivory tower you're holed up in you might realize it. If it were
>up
>> >to you I could think of three people off the top of my head who might be
>> >dead at the moment if they didn't have a firearm handy.
>> >An Atlanta police officer's wife who killed her would be rapist.
>> >A man who shot a would be carjacker on the northside of Atlanta somewhere
>in
>> >a Wal-Fart parking lot.
>> >A wal-Fart employee in Florida somewhere IIRC who was being stabbed by
>some
>> >nutcase who was foiled by an old lady w/ a pistol.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> And for each of those, there are family members shot in anger or
>accidentally,
>> suicides with a handy gun, children shooting children with a gun found in
>the
>> house, shooting of a neighbor the homeowner thought was a burglar, etc.
>
>You forget that the government doesn't have the power to prohibit the right
>of people to bear arms.
Really? Tell that to the states and cities that have done so. Tell that to
the courts that have ruled they can do so.
> Just because bad things happen with guns doesn't
>mean the government has the power to prohibit them.
>
>
#3682
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <pcAqb.107087$ZH4.92096@twister.socal.rr.com>,
"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>> >The Brady Bill and assault weapons ban are a joke, if you actually got
>out
>> >of that ivory tower you're holed up in you might realize it. If it were
>up
>> >to you I could think of three people off the top of my head who might be
>> >dead at the moment if they didn't have a firearm handy.
>> >An Atlanta police officer's wife who killed her would be rapist.
>> >A man who shot a would be carjacker on the northside of Atlanta somewhere
>in
>> >a Wal-Fart parking lot.
>> >A wal-Fart employee in Florida somewhere IIRC who was being stabbed by
>some
>> >nutcase who was foiled by an old lady w/ a pistol.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> And for each of those, there are family members shot in anger or
>accidentally,
>> suicides with a handy gun, children shooting children with a gun found in
>the
>> house, shooting of a neighbor the homeowner thought was a burglar, etc.
>
>You forget that the government doesn't have the power to prohibit the right
>of people to bear arms.
Really? Tell that to the states and cities that have done so. Tell that to
the courts that have ruled they can do so.
> Just because bad things happen with guns doesn't
>mean the government has the power to prohibit them.
>
>
"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>> >The Brady Bill and assault weapons ban are a joke, if you actually got
>out
>> >of that ivory tower you're holed up in you might realize it. If it were
>up
>> >to you I could think of three people off the top of my head who might be
>> >dead at the moment if they didn't have a firearm handy.
>> >An Atlanta police officer's wife who killed her would be rapist.
>> >A man who shot a would be carjacker on the northside of Atlanta somewhere
>in
>> >a Wal-Fart parking lot.
>> >A wal-Fart employee in Florida somewhere IIRC who was being stabbed by
>some
>> >nutcase who was foiled by an old lady w/ a pistol.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> And for each of those, there are family members shot in anger or
>accidentally,
>> suicides with a handy gun, children shooting children with a gun found in
>the
>> house, shooting of a neighbor the homeowner thought was a burglar, etc.
>
>You forget that the government doesn't have the power to prohibit the right
>of people to bear arms.
Really? Tell that to the states and cities that have done so. Tell that to
the courts that have ruled they can do so.
> Just because bad things happen with guns doesn't
>mean the government has the power to prohibit them.
>
>
#3683
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <ixAqb.107339$ZH4.49512@twister.socal.rr.com>,
"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:boe5g7$i0q$8@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> In article <rtriqvkhms3sfdqhscdi2qnno4u28o5iud@4ax.com>,
>> Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>> >On Wed, 05 Nov 03 11:42:46 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>> >wrote:
>> >
>> >>>We all remember that lying bastard Clinton ran in '92 on a
>> >>>middle class tax cut.
>> >>
>> >>And when Bush left the budget in much worse shape, to his credit, he
>took
>> >>steps to get it under control.
>> >
>> >Would that be by instituting the largest tax increase in our history?
>>
>> Bush's was bigger, since it raised the payroll tax.
>>
>> >Explain how increased taxes improve the economy.
>> >
>> Explain how Clinton's tax on the wealthy hurt the economy.
>
>First of all, it wasn't just on the wealthy.
First, it was.
> Second, money taken out of the
>private sector will equal a certain number of lost jobs regardless of where
>the money comes from (rich or poor).
The government spends that money; it doesn't just tuck it in a mattress.
> The "drag" the Clinton tax increase
>put on the economy wasn't enought to stop the dot com speculation, which was
>wild beyond caring about the diffence between 33% and 39%.
Care to compare the Clinton economy to that of Bush I or II?
>
>
"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:boe5g7$i0q$8@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> In article <rtriqvkhms3sfdqhscdi2qnno4u28o5iud@4ax.com>,
>> Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>> >On Wed, 05 Nov 03 11:42:46 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>> >wrote:
>> >
>> >>>We all remember that lying bastard Clinton ran in '92 on a
>> >>>middle class tax cut.
>> >>
>> >>And when Bush left the budget in much worse shape, to his credit, he
>took
>> >>steps to get it under control.
>> >
>> >Would that be by instituting the largest tax increase in our history?
>>
>> Bush's was bigger, since it raised the payroll tax.
>>
>> >Explain how increased taxes improve the economy.
>> >
>> Explain how Clinton's tax on the wealthy hurt the economy.
>
>First of all, it wasn't just on the wealthy.
First, it was.
> Second, money taken out of the
>private sector will equal a certain number of lost jobs regardless of where
>the money comes from (rich or poor).
The government spends that money; it doesn't just tuck it in a mattress.
> The "drag" the Clinton tax increase
>put on the economy wasn't enought to stop the dot com speculation, which was
>wild beyond caring about the diffence between 33% and 39%.
Care to compare the Clinton economy to that of Bush I or II?
>
>
#3684
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <ixAqb.107339$ZH4.49512@twister.socal.rr.com>,
"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:boe5g7$i0q$8@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> In article <rtriqvkhms3sfdqhscdi2qnno4u28o5iud@4ax.com>,
>> Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>> >On Wed, 05 Nov 03 11:42:46 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>> >wrote:
>> >
>> >>>We all remember that lying bastard Clinton ran in '92 on a
>> >>>middle class tax cut.
>> >>
>> >>And when Bush left the budget in much worse shape, to his credit, he
>took
>> >>steps to get it under control.
>> >
>> >Would that be by instituting the largest tax increase in our history?
>>
>> Bush's was bigger, since it raised the payroll tax.
>>
>> >Explain how increased taxes improve the economy.
>> >
>> Explain how Clinton's tax on the wealthy hurt the economy.
>
>First of all, it wasn't just on the wealthy.
First, it was.
> Second, money taken out of the
>private sector will equal a certain number of lost jobs regardless of where
>the money comes from (rich or poor).
The government spends that money; it doesn't just tuck it in a mattress.
> The "drag" the Clinton tax increase
>put on the economy wasn't enought to stop the dot com speculation, which was
>wild beyond caring about the diffence between 33% and 39%.
Care to compare the Clinton economy to that of Bush I or II?
>
>
"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:boe5g7$i0q$8@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> In article <rtriqvkhms3sfdqhscdi2qnno4u28o5iud@4ax.com>,
>> Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>> >On Wed, 05 Nov 03 11:42:46 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>> >wrote:
>> >
>> >>>We all remember that lying bastard Clinton ran in '92 on a
>> >>>middle class tax cut.
>> >>
>> >>And when Bush left the budget in much worse shape, to his credit, he
>took
>> >>steps to get it under control.
>> >
>> >Would that be by instituting the largest tax increase in our history?
>>
>> Bush's was bigger, since it raised the payroll tax.
>>
>> >Explain how increased taxes improve the economy.
>> >
>> Explain how Clinton's tax on the wealthy hurt the economy.
>
>First of all, it wasn't just on the wealthy.
First, it was.
> Second, money taken out of the
>private sector will equal a certain number of lost jobs regardless of where
>the money comes from (rich or poor).
The government spends that money; it doesn't just tuck it in a mattress.
> The "drag" the Clinton tax increase
>put on the economy wasn't enought to stop the dot com speculation, which was
>wild beyond caring about the diffence between 33% and 39%.
Care to compare the Clinton economy to that of Bush I or II?
>
>
#3685
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <ixAqb.107339$ZH4.49512@twister.socal.rr.com>,
"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:boe5g7$i0q$8@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> In article <rtriqvkhms3sfdqhscdi2qnno4u28o5iud@4ax.com>,
>> Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>> >On Wed, 05 Nov 03 11:42:46 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>> >wrote:
>> >
>> >>>We all remember that lying bastard Clinton ran in '92 on a
>> >>>middle class tax cut.
>> >>
>> >>And when Bush left the budget in much worse shape, to his credit, he
>took
>> >>steps to get it under control.
>> >
>> >Would that be by instituting the largest tax increase in our history?
>>
>> Bush's was bigger, since it raised the payroll tax.
>>
>> >Explain how increased taxes improve the economy.
>> >
>> Explain how Clinton's tax on the wealthy hurt the economy.
>
>First of all, it wasn't just on the wealthy.
First, it was.
> Second, money taken out of the
>private sector will equal a certain number of lost jobs regardless of where
>the money comes from (rich or poor).
The government spends that money; it doesn't just tuck it in a mattress.
> The "drag" the Clinton tax increase
>put on the economy wasn't enought to stop the dot com speculation, which was
>wild beyond caring about the diffence between 33% and 39%.
Care to compare the Clinton economy to that of Bush I or II?
>
>
"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:boe5g7$i0q$8@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> In article <rtriqvkhms3sfdqhscdi2qnno4u28o5iud@4ax.com>,
>> Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>> >On Wed, 05 Nov 03 11:42:46 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>> >wrote:
>> >
>> >>>We all remember that lying bastard Clinton ran in '92 on a
>> >>>middle class tax cut.
>> >>
>> >>And when Bush left the budget in much worse shape, to his credit, he
>took
>> >>steps to get it under control.
>> >
>> >Would that be by instituting the largest tax increase in our history?
>>
>> Bush's was bigger, since it raised the payroll tax.
>>
>> >Explain how increased taxes improve the economy.
>> >
>> Explain how Clinton's tax on the wealthy hurt the economy.
>
>First of all, it wasn't just on the wealthy.
First, it was.
> Second, money taken out of the
>private sector will equal a certain number of lost jobs regardless of where
>the money comes from (rich or poor).
The government spends that money; it doesn't just tuck it in a mattress.
> The "drag" the Clinton tax increase
>put on the economy wasn't enought to stop the dot com speculation, which was
>wild beyond caring about the diffence between 33% and 39%.
Care to compare the Clinton economy to that of Bush I or II?
>
>
#3686
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <84Bqb.107733$ZH4.89802@twister.socal.rr.com>,
"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:boe601$i0q$16@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> In article <0Hiqb.11729$9M3.6724@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink .net>,
>> "Joe" <jo_ratner@NOSPAM.yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >At a federal level? YES. STATES should do that, NOT the feds...
>>
>> So why should a US citizen who lives in Mississippi not have the same
>rights
>> and privileges as one who lives in New York?
>>
>
>The feds don't have jurisdiction over all rights. The 14th amendment
>muddled that concept up a bit, but it's still a fact that many rights are
>reserved to the people and the states. The feds don't have all power.
>
>
>>
>> > But why
>> >listen to what the "founding fathers" wanted...
>>
>> They wanted the government to "provide for the general welfare" and wrote
>that
>> into the constitution.
>>
>
>It's just like a liberal to look to the preamble to find a "right". That's
>what the Florida Supreme Court did to undo state election law. If you're to
>interpret "provide for the general welfare" in the preample, which is a
>statement of purpose, you can't conclude that citizens have a right of
>"general welfare" they can lay claim to. The articles that follow the
>preamble and lay out the function of government ARE the interpretation of
>general welfare.
>
>
It's just like a right-winger to have not read the constitution. Article I,
section 8, pal. Read the constitution!
"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:boe601$i0q$16@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> In article <0Hiqb.11729$9M3.6724@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink .net>,
>> "Joe" <jo_ratner@NOSPAM.yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >At a federal level? YES. STATES should do that, NOT the feds...
>>
>> So why should a US citizen who lives in Mississippi not have the same
>rights
>> and privileges as one who lives in New York?
>>
>
>The feds don't have jurisdiction over all rights. The 14th amendment
>muddled that concept up a bit, but it's still a fact that many rights are
>reserved to the people and the states. The feds don't have all power.
>
>
>>
>> > But why
>> >listen to what the "founding fathers" wanted...
>>
>> They wanted the government to "provide for the general welfare" and wrote
>that
>> into the constitution.
>>
>
>It's just like a liberal to look to the preamble to find a "right". That's
>what the Florida Supreme Court did to undo state election law. If you're to
>interpret "provide for the general welfare" in the preample, which is a
>statement of purpose, you can't conclude that citizens have a right of
>"general welfare" they can lay claim to. The articles that follow the
>preamble and lay out the function of government ARE the interpretation of
>general welfare.
>
>
It's just like a right-winger to have not read the constitution. Article I,
section 8, pal. Read the constitution!
#3687
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <84Bqb.107733$ZH4.89802@twister.socal.rr.com>,
"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:boe601$i0q$16@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> In article <0Hiqb.11729$9M3.6724@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink .net>,
>> "Joe" <jo_ratner@NOSPAM.yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >At a federal level? YES. STATES should do that, NOT the feds...
>>
>> So why should a US citizen who lives in Mississippi not have the same
>rights
>> and privileges as one who lives in New York?
>>
>
>The feds don't have jurisdiction over all rights. The 14th amendment
>muddled that concept up a bit, but it's still a fact that many rights are
>reserved to the people and the states. The feds don't have all power.
>
>
>>
>> > But why
>> >listen to what the "founding fathers" wanted...
>>
>> They wanted the government to "provide for the general welfare" and wrote
>that
>> into the constitution.
>>
>
>It's just like a liberal to look to the preamble to find a "right". That's
>what the Florida Supreme Court did to undo state election law. If you're to
>interpret "provide for the general welfare" in the preample, which is a
>statement of purpose, you can't conclude that citizens have a right of
>"general welfare" they can lay claim to. The articles that follow the
>preamble and lay out the function of government ARE the interpretation of
>general welfare.
>
>
It's just like a right-winger to have not read the constitution. Article I,
section 8, pal. Read the constitution!
"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:boe601$i0q$16@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> In article <0Hiqb.11729$9M3.6724@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink .net>,
>> "Joe" <jo_ratner@NOSPAM.yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >At a federal level? YES. STATES should do that, NOT the feds...
>>
>> So why should a US citizen who lives in Mississippi not have the same
>rights
>> and privileges as one who lives in New York?
>>
>
>The feds don't have jurisdiction over all rights. The 14th amendment
>muddled that concept up a bit, but it's still a fact that many rights are
>reserved to the people and the states. The feds don't have all power.
>
>
>>
>> > But why
>> >listen to what the "founding fathers" wanted...
>>
>> They wanted the government to "provide for the general welfare" and wrote
>that
>> into the constitution.
>>
>
>It's just like a liberal to look to the preamble to find a "right". That's
>what the Florida Supreme Court did to undo state election law. If you're to
>interpret "provide for the general welfare" in the preample, which is a
>statement of purpose, you can't conclude that citizens have a right of
>"general welfare" they can lay claim to. The articles that follow the
>preamble and lay out the function of government ARE the interpretation of
>general welfare.
>
>
It's just like a right-winger to have not read the constitution. Article I,
section 8, pal. Read the constitution!
#3688
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <84Bqb.107733$ZH4.89802@twister.socal.rr.com>,
"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:boe601$i0q$16@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> In article <0Hiqb.11729$9M3.6724@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink .net>,
>> "Joe" <jo_ratner@NOSPAM.yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >At a federal level? YES. STATES should do that, NOT the feds...
>>
>> So why should a US citizen who lives in Mississippi not have the same
>rights
>> and privileges as one who lives in New York?
>>
>
>The feds don't have jurisdiction over all rights. The 14th amendment
>muddled that concept up a bit, but it's still a fact that many rights are
>reserved to the people and the states. The feds don't have all power.
>
>
>>
>> > But why
>> >listen to what the "founding fathers" wanted...
>>
>> They wanted the government to "provide for the general welfare" and wrote
>that
>> into the constitution.
>>
>
>It's just like a liberal to look to the preamble to find a "right". That's
>what the Florida Supreme Court did to undo state election law. If you're to
>interpret "provide for the general welfare" in the preample, which is a
>statement of purpose, you can't conclude that citizens have a right of
>"general welfare" they can lay claim to. The articles that follow the
>preamble and lay out the function of government ARE the interpretation of
>general welfare.
>
>
It's just like a right-winger to have not read the constitution. Article I,
section 8, pal. Read the constitution!
"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:boe601$i0q$16@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> In article <0Hiqb.11729$9M3.6724@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink .net>,
>> "Joe" <jo_ratner@NOSPAM.yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >At a federal level? YES. STATES should do that, NOT the feds...
>>
>> So why should a US citizen who lives in Mississippi not have the same
>rights
>> and privileges as one who lives in New York?
>>
>
>The feds don't have jurisdiction over all rights. The 14th amendment
>muddled that concept up a bit, but it's still a fact that many rights are
>reserved to the people and the states. The feds don't have all power.
>
>
>>
>> > But why
>> >listen to what the "founding fathers" wanted...
>>
>> They wanted the government to "provide for the general welfare" and wrote
>that
>> into the constitution.
>>
>
>It's just like a liberal to look to the preamble to find a "right". That's
>what the Florida Supreme Court did to undo state election law. If you're to
>interpret "provide for the general welfare" in the preample, which is a
>statement of purpose, you can't conclude that citizens have a right of
>"general welfare" they can lay claim to. The articles that follow the
>preamble and lay out the function of government ARE the interpretation of
>general welfare.
>
>
It's just like a right-winger to have not read the constitution. Article I,
section 8, pal. Read the constitution!
#3689
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <KcBqb.107831$ZH4.34372@twister.socal.rr.com>,
"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>
>"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$9M3.10456@newsread2.news.atl.ear thlink.net...
>> >> "And there're no corrupt Republican machines? Hello, Texas? Florida?"
>> >> Wasn't it the corrupt democrats that tried to illegally alter the
>results
>> >of
>> >> Florida? The final results were accurate and valid.
>> >
>> >And what the Dems never acknowledge is the fact that Floridas votes were
>> >recounted again after Bush was declared the winner, every vote was
>counted,
>> >no matter how poorly marked, and it gave Bush more votes than the final
>> >official count had given him.
>>
>> Wrong. As the media reported, depending on how the votes were counted
>> (strictly, loosely), Bush would win some recounts and Gore would win some.
>>
>> >
>No, there was ONE way of counting where Gore came out ahead. But it is all
>academic because it wasn't how the state law says to count ballots. (Not
>that THAT would have stopped the Dems). Gore lost every recount
No, the recount was halted.
>and only
>had the HOPE of finding a way to recount where he would come out ahead.
>This is what the USSC stopped. It's amazing to hear you say that's how Bush
>"stole" the election!
>
>
"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:boe616$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$9M3.10456@newsread2.news.atl.ear thlink.net...
>> >> "And there're no corrupt Republican machines? Hello, Texas? Florida?"
>> >> Wasn't it the corrupt democrats that tried to illegally alter the
>results
>> >of
>> >> Florida? The final results were accurate and valid.
>> >
>> >And what the Dems never acknowledge is the fact that Floridas votes were
>> >recounted again after Bush was declared the winner, every vote was
>counted,
>> >no matter how poorly marked, and it gave Bush more votes than the final
>> >official count had given him.
>>
>> Wrong. As the media reported, depending on how the votes were counted
>> (strictly, loosely), Bush would win some recounts and Gore would win some.
>>
>> >
>No, there was ONE way of counting where Gore came out ahead. But it is all
>academic because it wasn't how the state law says to count ballots. (Not
>that THAT would have stopped the Dems). Gore lost every recount
No, the recount was halted.
>and only
>had the HOPE of finding a way to recount where he would come out ahead.
>This is what the USSC stopped. It's amazing to hear you say that's how Bush
>"stole" the election!
>
>
#3690
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <KcBqb.107831$ZH4.34372@twister.socal.rr.com>,
"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>
>"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$9M3.10456@newsread2.news.atl.ear thlink.net...
>> >> "And there're no corrupt Republican machines? Hello, Texas? Florida?"
>> >> Wasn't it the corrupt democrats that tried to illegally alter the
>results
>> >of
>> >> Florida? The final results were accurate and valid.
>> >
>> >And what the Dems never acknowledge is the fact that Floridas votes were
>> >recounted again after Bush was declared the winner, every vote was
>counted,
>> >no matter how poorly marked, and it gave Bush more votes than the final
>> >official count had given him.
>>
>> Wrong. As the media reported, depending on how the votes were counted
>> (strictly, loosely), Bush would win some recounts and Gore would win some.
>>
>> >
>No, there was ONE way of counting where Gore came out ahead. But it is all
>academic because it wasn't how the state law says to count ballots. (Not
>that THAT would have stopped the Dems). Gore lost every recount
No, the recount was halted.
>and only
>had the HOPE of finding a way to recount where he would come out ahead.
>This is what the USSC stopped. It's amazing to hear you say that's how Bush
>"stole" the election!
>
>
"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:boe616$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
No, the recount was halted.
>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!
>
>