Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#3751
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
> Lowered the deficit, showed investors we were serious about getting our
deficit under control. <
He had NO PLAN to lower the deficiet, he enacted a massive tax increase in
order to generate funds for more tax & spend --------. His deal got
completely queered when Republicans took control of Congress (the ones who
do the actual spending) and refused to allow any more spending silliness.
The resulting surplus was a fluke.
deficit under control. <
He had NO PLAN to lower the deficiet, he enacted a massive tax increase in
order to generate funds for more tax & spend --------. His deal got
completely queered when Republicans took control of Congress (the ones who
do the actual spending) and refused to allow any more spending silliness.
The resulting surplus was a fluke.
#3755
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:boganc$44t$23@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <84Bqb.107733$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!
Ok, but the argument still holds that "provide for the general welfare"
doesn't imply any right to welfare citizens can lay claim to from the
government.
#3756
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:boganc$44t$23@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <84Bqb.107733$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!
Ok, but the argument still holds that "provide for the general welfare"
doesn't imply any right to welfare citizens can lay claim to from the
government.
#3757
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:boganc$44t$23@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <84Bqb.107733$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!
Ok, but the argument still holds that "provide for the general welfare"
doesn't imply any right to welfare citizens can lay claim to from the
government.
#3758
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >> Humans put out more CO2 than nature by several orders of magnitude.
> >
> >Prove it.
> >
> >
> http://www.agriculture.purdue.edu/ag...o_Peanuts.html
Whoops, you forgot the proof Lloyd. It was a nice opinion piece though. Where is
the peer review? Where did the article support your contention that "Humans put
out more CO2 than nature by several orders of magnitude." The article only said
"Humans are releasing more than 8 billion tons of CO2 into Earth's atmosphere
annually, Thompson said. By comparison, the natural contribution of CO2 from
volcanoes ranges from 300 million to 1.1 billion tons per year." This only
addresses the CO2 from volcanoes, not from all of "nature."
Regards,
Ed White
#3759
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >> Humans put out more CO2 than nature by several orders of magnitude.
> >
> >Prove it.
> >
> >
> http://www.agriculture.purdue.edu/ag...o_Peanuts.html
Whoops, you forgot the proof Lloyd. It was a nice opinion piece though. Where is
the peer review? Where did the article support your contention that "Humans put
out more CO2 than nature by several orders of magnitude." The article only said
"Humans are releasing more than 8 billion tons of CO2 into Earth's atmosphere
annually, Thompson said. By comparison, the natural contribution of CO2 from
volcanoes ranges from 300 million to 1.1 billion tons per year." This only
addresses the CO2 from volcanoes, not from all of "nature."
Regards,
Ed White
#3760
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >> Humans put out more CO2 than nature by several orders of magnitude.
> >
> >Prove it.
> >
> >
> http://www.agriculture.purdue.edu/ag...o_Peanuts.html
Whoops, you forgot the proof Lloyd. It was a nice opinion piece though. Where is
the peer review? Where did the article support your contention that "Humans put
out more CO2 than nature by several orders of magnitude." The article only said
"Humans are releasing more than 8 billion tons of CO2 into Earth's atmosphere
annually, Thompson said. By comparison, the natural contribution of CO2 from
volcanoes ranges from 300 million to 1.1 billion tons per year." This only
addresses the CO2 from volcanoes, not from all of "nature."
Regards,
Ed White