Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#3691
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$9M3.10456@newsread2.news.atl.ear thlink.net...
>> >> "And there're no corrupt Republican machines? Hello, Texas? Florida?"
>> >> Wasn't it the corrupt democrats that tried to illegally alter the
>results
>> >of
>> >> Florida? The final results were accurate and valid.
>> >
>> >And what the Dems never acknowledge is the fact that Floridas votes were
>> >recounted again after Bush was declared the winner, every vote was
>counted,
>> >no matter how poorly marked, and it gave Bush more votes than the final
>> >official count had given him.
>>
>> Wrong. As the media reported, depending on how the votes were counted
>> (strictly, loosely), Bush would win some recounts and Gore would win some.
>>
>> >
>No, there was ONE way of counting where Gore came out ahead. But it is all
>academic because it wasn't how the state law says to count ballots. (Not
>that THAT would have stopped the Dems). Gore lost every recount
No, the recount was halted.
>and only
>had the HOPE of finding a way to recount where he would come out ahead.
>This is what the USSC stopped. It's amazing to hear you say that's how Bush
>"stole" the election!
>
>
#3692
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <lKBqb.108210$ZH4.85369@twister.socal.rr.com>,
"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:boe681$i0q$20@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> In article <66mqb.54771$Ub4.47968@twister.socal.rr.com>,
>> "David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>> >Thanks! Of course these are old arguments. Lloyd's arguments look like
>> >cut/paste jobs from previous posts he's made. He always says the same
>thing
>> >over and over. And he always degenerates to name calling....
>> >"right-winger", "fascist", "hate-monger", etc.
>>
>> Only when your side starts with the "socialist" or "communist" name
>calling.
>>
>Ok. I'll hold you to that.
>
>
>>
>> >or self-agrandizement being
>> >that he's such an intelligent guy....Phd and all.... "What are YOUR
>> >credentials?" or "Take a science class!".
>>
>> If you're going to challenge established science, you need some expertise.
>>
>
>Face it Lloyd. There is no expertise that comes from taking a "science
>course", whatever that is. The only course I've seen called "science" is at
>my daughters middle school. Heck, I took 5 quarters of physics... not just
>physics, but Berkely Physics... in college and that certainly didn't make me
>an expert in physics.
1. You might learn something.
2. There's a lot of expertise that comes from having an advanced degree in
science, or from working with a group like IPCC or NOAA.
>
>In many areas, there is no level of expertise that gets to the real answers,
>i.e, there's more we don't know that we do know; there's no "established
>science" yet; or it's wrong. Just because one can wave a degree in
>"science" around doesn't give you a level of expertise required to know the
>answers to questions like global warming or economics or whatever.
Well, you'd have to be well-versed in science before you can make that
judgment, wouldn't you?
>
>For you to generalize your expertise because you have a phd is like
>presuming there's money in your account because you have checks. The Phd's
>I've worked with are usually people who have expertise in narrow, focused
>areas. For them to claim expertise in any other area is like writing a
>check on an account with insufficient funds.
>
>
I see. So you'd no more trust an MD to do brain surgery than an auto
mechanic?
"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:boe681$i0q$20@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> In article <66mqb.54771$Ub4.47968@twister.socal.rr.com>,
>> "David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>> >Thanks! Of course these are old arguments. Lloyd's arguments look like
>> >cut/paste jobs from previous posts he's made. He always says the same
>thing
>> >over and over. And he always degenerates to name calling....
>> >"right-winger", "fascist", "hate-monger", etc.
>>
>> Only when your side starts with the "socialist" or "communist" name
>calling.
>>
>Ok. I'll hold you to that.
>
>
>>
>> >or self-agrandizement being
>> >that he's such an intelligent guy....Phd and all.... "What are YOUR
>> >credentials?" or "Take a science class!".
>>
>> If you're going to challenge established science, you need some expertise.
>>
>
>Face it Lloyd. There is no expertise that comes from taking a "science
>course", whatever that is. The only course I've seen called "science" is at
>my daughters middle school. Heck, I took 5 quarters of physics... not just
>physics, but Berkely Physics... in college and that certainly didn't make me
>an expert in physics.
1. You might learn something.
2. There's a lot of expertise that comes from having an advanced degree in
science, or from working with a group like IPCC or NOAA.
>
>In many areas, there is no level of expertise that gets to the real answers,
>i.e, there's more we don't know that we do know; there's no "established
>science" yet; or it's wrong. Just because one can wave a degree in
>"science" around doesn't give you a level of expertise required to know the
>answers to questions like global warming or economics or whatever.
Well, you'd have to be well-versed in science before you can make that
judgment, wouldn't you?
>
>For you to generalize your expertise because you have a phd is like
>presuming there's money in your account because you have checks. The Phd's
>I've worked with are usually people who have expertise in narrow, focused
>areas. For them to claim expertise in any other area is like writing a
>check on an account with insufficient funds.
>
>
I see. So you'd no more trust an MD to do brain surgery than an auto
mechanic?
#3693
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <lKBqb.108210$ZH4.85369@twister.socal.rr.com>,
"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:boe681$i0q$20@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> In article <66mqb.54771$Ub4.47968@twister.socal.rr.com>,
>> "David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>> >Thanks! Of course these are old arguments. Lloyd's arguments look like
>> >cut/paste jobs from previous posts he's made. He always says the same
>thing
>> >over and over. And he always degenerates to name calling....
>> >"right-winger", "fascist", "hate-monger", etc.
>>
>> Only when your side starts with the "socialist" or "communist" name
>calling.
>>
>Ok. I'll hold you to that.
>
>
>>
>> >or self-agrandizement being
>> >that he's such an intelligent guy....Phd and all.... "What are YOUR
>> >credentials?" or "Take a science class!".
>>
>> If you're going to challenge established science, you need some expertise.
>>
>
>Face it Lloyd. There is no expertise that comes from taking a "science
>course", whatever that is. The only course I've seen called "science" is at
>my daughters middle school. Heck, I took 5 quarters of physics... not just
>physics, but Berkely Physics... in college and that certainly didn't make me
>an expert in physics.
1. You might learn something.
2. There's a lot of expertise that comes from having an advanced degree in
science, or from working with a group like IPCC or NOAA.
>
>In many areas, there is no level of expertise that gets to the real answers,
>i.e, there's more we don't know that we do know; there's no "established
>science" yet; or it's wrong. Just because one can wave a degree in
>"science" around doesn't give you a level of expertise required to know the
>answers to questions like global warming or economics or whatever.
Well, you'd have to be well-versed in science before you can make that
judgment, wouldn't you?
>
>For you to generalize your expertise because you have a phd is like
>presuming there's money in your account because you have checks. The Phd's
>I've worked with are usually people who have expertise in narrow, focused
>areas. For them to claim expertise in any other area is like writing a
>check on an account with insufficient funds.
>
>
I see. So you'd no more trust an MD to do brain surgery than an auto
mechanic?
"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:boe681$i0q$20@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> In article <66mqb.54771$Ub4.47968@twister.socal.rr.com>,
>> "David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>> >Thanks! Of course these are old arguments. Lloyd's arguments look like
>> >cut/paste jobs from previous posts he's made. He always says the same
>thing
>> >over and over. And he always degenerates to name calling....
>> >"right-winger", "fascist", "hate-monger", etc.
>>
>> Only when your side starts with the "socialist" or "communist" name
>calling.
>>
>Ok. I'll hold you to that.
>
>
>>
>> >or self-agrandizement being
>> >that he's such an intelligent guy....Phd and all.... "What are YOUR
>> >credentials?" or "Take a science class!".
>>
>> If you're going to challenge established science, you need some expertise.
>>
>
>Face it Lloyd. There is no expertise that comes from taking a "science
>course", whatever that is. The only course I've seen called "science" is at
>my daughters middle school. Heck, I took 5 quarters of physics... not just
>physics, but Berkely Physics... in college and that certainly didn't make me
>an expert in physics.
1. You might learn something.
2. There's a lot of expertise that comes from having an advanced degree in
science, or from working with a group like IPCC or NOAA.
>
>In many areas, there is no level of expertise that gets to the real answers,
>i.e, there's more we don't know that we do know; there's no "established
>science" yet; or it's wrong. Just because one can wave a degree in
>"science" around doesn't give you a level of expertise required to know the
>answers to questions like global warming or economics or whatever.
Well, you'd have to be well-versed in science before you can make that
judgment, wouldn't you?
>
>For you to generalize your expertise because you have a phd is like
>presuming there's money in your account because you have checks. The Phd's
>I've worked with are usually people who have expertise in narrow, focused
>areas. For them to claim expertise in any other area is like writing a
>check on an account with insufficient funds.
>
>
I see. So you'd no more trust an MD to do brain surgery than an auto
mechanic?
#3694
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <lKBqb.108210$ZH4.85369@twister.socal.rr.com>,
"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:boe681$i0q$20@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> In article <66mqb.54771$Ub4.47968@twister.socal.rr.com>,
>> "David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>> >Thanks! Of course these are old arguments. Lloyd's arguments look like
>> >cut/paste jobs from previous posts he's made. He always says the same
>thing
>> >over and over. And he always degenerates to name calling....
>> >"right-winger", "fascist", "hate-monger", etc.
>>
>> Only when your side starts with the "socialist" or "communist" name
>calling.
>>
>Ok. I'll hold you to that.
>
>
>>
>> >or self-agrandizement being
>> >that he's such an intelligent guy....Phd and all.... "What are YOUR
>> >credentials?" or "Take a science class!".
>>
>> If you're going to challenge established science, you need some expertise.
>>
>
>Face it Lloyd. There is no expertise that comes from taking a "science
>course", whatever that is. The only course I've seen called "science" is at
>my daughters middle school. Heck, I took 5 quarters of physics... not just
>physics, but Berkely Physics... in college and that certainly didn't make me
>an expert in physics.
1. You might learn something.
2. There's a lot of expertise that comes from having an advanced degree in
science, or from working with a group like IPCC or NOAA.
>
>In many areas, there is no level of expertise that gets to the real answers,
>i.e, there's more we don't know that we do know; there's no "established
>science" yet; or it's wrong. Just because one can wave a degree in
>"science" around doesn't give you a level of expertise required to know the
>answers to questions like global warming or economics or whatever.
Well, you'd have to be well-versed in science before you can make that
judgment, wouldn't you?
>
>For you to generalize your expertise because you have a phd is like
>presuming there's money in your account because you have checks. The Phd's
>I've worked with are usually people who have expertise in narrow, focused
>areas. For them to claim expertise in any other area is like writing a
>check on an account with insufficient funds.
>
>
I see. So you'd no more trust an MD to do brain surgery than an auto
mechanic?
"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:boe681$i0q$20@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> In article <66mqb.54771$Ub4.47968@twister.socal.rr.com>,
>> "David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>> >Thanks! Of course these are old arguments. Lloyd's arguments look like
>> >cut/paste jobs from previous posts he's made. He always says the same
>thing
>> >over and over. And he always degenerates to name calling....
>> >"right-winger", "fascist", "hate-monger", etc.
>>
>> Only when your side starts with the "socialist" or "communist" name
>calling.
>>
>Ok. I'll hold you to that.
>
>
>>
>> >or self-agrandizement being
>> >that he's such an intelligent guy....Phd and all.... "What are YOUR
>> >credentials?" or "Take a science class!".
>>
>> If you're going to challenge established science, you need some expertise.
>>
>
>Face it Lloyd. There is no expertise that comes from taking a "science
>course", whatever that is. The only course I've seen called "science" is at
>my daughters middle school. Heck, I took 5 quarters of physics... not just
>physics, but Berkely Physics... in college and that certainly didn't make me
>an expert in physics.
1. You might learn something.
2. There's a lot of expertise that comes from having an advanced degree in
science, or from working with a group like IPCC or NOAA.
>
>In many areas, there is no level of expertise that gets to the real answers,
>i.e, there's more we don't know that we do know; there's no "established
>science" yet; or it's wrong. Just because one can wave a degree in
>"science" around doesn't give you a level of expertise required to know the
>answers to questions like global warming or economics or whatever.
Well, you'd have to be well-versed in science before you can make that
judgment, wouldn't you?
>
>For you to generalize your expertise because you have a phd is like
>presuming there's money in your account because you have checks. The Phd's
>I've worked with are usually people who have expertise in narrow, focused
>areas. For them to claim expertise in any other area is like writing a
>check on an account with insufficient funds.
>
>
I see. So you'd no more trust an MD to do brain surgery than an auto
mechanic?
#3695
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <boepg222fum@enews2.newsguy.com>,
"Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote:
>
>> > Llotd: Explain how Clinton's tax on the wealthy hurt the economy. >
>
>> First of all, it wasn't just on the wealthy. 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 "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%. <
>
>Good for you! Clinton lucked out, the internet boom and tech speculation of
>the mid-90's fueled the entire "Clinton recovery" and simply brushed aside
>the Democrats' egregious middle class tax increases. Then the inevetable
>happened, the bubble burst and the weight of the tax increases weight
>collapsed the economy in on itself.
>
>>
>>
>
>
Care to compare Clinton's economy to either of the Bushs'?
"Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote:
>
>> > Llotd: Explain how Clinton's tax on the wealthy hurt the economy. >
>
>> First of all, it wasn't just on the wealthy. 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 "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%. <
>
>Good for you! Clinton lucked out, the internet boom and tech speculation of
>the mid-90's fueled the entire "Clinton recovery" and simply brushed aside
>the Democrats' egregious middle class tax increases. Then the inevetable
>happened, the bubble burst and the weight of the tax increases weight
>collapsed the economy in on itself.
>
>>
>>
>
>
Care to compare Clinton's economy to either of the Bushs'?
#3696
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <boepg222fum@enews2.newsguy.com>,
"Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote:
>
>> > Llotd: Explain how Clinton's tax on the wealthy hurt the economy. >
>
>> First of all, it wasn't just on the wealthy. 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 "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%. <
>
>Good for you! Clinton lucked out, the internet boom and tech speculation of
>the mid-90's fueled the entire "Clinton recovery" and simply brushed aside
>the Democrats' egregious middle class tax increases. Then the inevetable
>happened, the bubble burst and the weight of the tax increases weight
>collapsed the economy in on itself.
>
>>
>>
>
>
Care to compare Clinton's economy to either of the Bushs'?
"Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote:
>
>> > Llotd: Explain how Clinton's tax on the wealthy hurt the economy. >
>
>> First of all, it wasn't just on the wealthy. 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 "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%. <
>
>Good for you! Clinton lucked out, the internet boom and tech speculation of
>the mid-90's fueled the entire "Clinton recovery" and simply brushed aside
>the Democrats' egregious middle class tax increases. Then the inevetable
>happened, the bubble burst and the weight of the tax increases weight
>collapsed the economy in on itself.
>
>>
>>
>
>
Care to compare Clinton's economy to either of the Bushs'?
#3697
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <boepg222fum@enews2.newsguy.com>,
"Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote:
>
>> > Llotd: Explain how Clinton's tax on the wealthy hurt the economy. >
>
>> First of all, it wasn't just on the wealthy. 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 "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%. <
>
>Good for you! Clinton lucked out, the internet boom and tech speculation of
>the mid-90's fueled the entire "Clinton recovery" and simply brushed aside
>the Democrats' egregious middle class tax increases. Then the inevetable
>happened, the bubble burst and the weight of the tax increases weight
>collapsed the economy in on itself.
>
>>
>>
>
>
Care to compare Clinton's economy to either of the Bushs'?
"Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote:
>
>> > Llotd: Explain how Clinton's tax on the wealthy hurt the economy. >
>
>> First of all, it wasn't just on the wealthy. 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 "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%. <
>
>Good for you! Clinton lucked out, the internet boom and tech speculation of
>the mid-90's fueled the entire "Clinton recovery" and simply brushed aside
>the Democrats' egregious middle class tax increases. Then the inevetable
>happened, the bubble burst and the weight of the tax increases weight
>collapsed the economy in on itself.
>
>>
>>
>
>
Care to compare Clinton's economy to either of the Bushs'?
#3698
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <boeqcg02h19@enews2.newsguy.com>,
"Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote:
>> 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.>
>
>Oh, oh, Lloyd, it appears someone actually understands Constitutional law
>here, better go get one of your Socialist lawyer buddies to help you provide
>obfuscation on this one!
>
>
I see another fool who's never actually read the constitution. Article I,
section 8, not the preamble (not the spelling too).
"Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote:
>> 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.>
>
>Oh, oh, Lloyd, it appears someone actually understands Constitutional law
>here, better go get one of your Socialist lawyer buddies to help you provide
>obfuscation on this one!
>
>
I see another fool who's never actually read the constitution. Article I,
section 8, not the preamble (not the spelling too).
#3699
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <boeqcg02h19@enews2.newsguy.com>,
"Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote:
>> 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.>
>
>Oh, oh, Lloyd, it appears someone actually understands Constitutional law
>here, better go get one of your Socialist lawyer buddies to help you provide
>obfuscation on this one!
>
>
I see another fool who's never actually read the constitution. Article I,
section 8, not the preamble (not the spelling too).
"Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote:
>> 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.>
>
>Oh, oh, Lloyd, it appears someone actually understands Constitutional law
>here, better go get one of your Socialist lawyer buddies to help you provide
>obfuscation on this one!
>
>
I see another fool who's never actually read the constitution. Article I,
section 8, not the preamble (not the spelling too).
#3700
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <boeqcg02h19@enews2.newsguy.com>,
"Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote:
>> 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.>
>
>Oh, oh, Lloyd, it appears someone actually understands Constitutional law
>here, better go get one of your Socialist lawyer buddies to help you provide
>obfuscation on this one!
>
>
I see another fool who's never actually read the constitution. Article I,
section 8, not the preamble (not the spelling too).
"Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote:
>> 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.>
>
>Oh, oh, Lloyd, it appears someone actually understands Constitutional law
>here, better go get one of your Socialist lawyer buddies to help you provide
>obfuscation on this one!
>
>
I see another fool who's never actually read the constitution. Article I,
section 8, not the preamble (not the spelling too).