Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#4291
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can bemisinterpreted by SUV drivers)
"Steve Stone" <spfleck@zzcitlinkzz.net> wrote:
>What is a liberal these daze ?
>
A "liberal" is anyone that thinks that corporations should be held liable
for their illegal actions. A "liberal" is someone that thinks that what a
person does in their own home alone or with consenting adults is only the
business of those present.
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
>What is a liberal these daze ?
>
A "liberal" is anyone that thinks that corporations should be held liable
for their illegal actions. A "liberal" is someone that thinks that what a
person does in their own home alone or with consenting adults is only the
business of those present.
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
#4292
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can bemisinterpreted by SUV drivers)
DTJ <dtj@comcast.net> wrote:
>On Mon, 10 Nov 03 13:01:38 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>wrote:
>
>>In article <8a5tqvsnv70r2vv63ljkja40g619efvpc2@4ax.com>,
>> DTJ <dtj@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>On Sat, 8 Nov 2003 20:26:51 -0700, "Gerald G. McGeorge"
>>><gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Sorry, I forgot that using my brain is against everything liberals stand
>>>>for.<
>>>>
>>>>That's right, you just stop thinking and let them make all the decisions for
>>>>you, meanwhile be sure and let them have 50% of your wages and shut up! They
>>>>know far better than you how it should be spent...
>>>
>>>50%? You have to be really poor to pay that small of a tax rate!
>>What an idiot. Effective tax rate on the middle class is around 25%,
>>including federal and state income, sales, gas, social security, and property.
>
>Yes you are an idiot.
>
>The middle class pays federal rates higher than 25%, plus another 15%
>or so in SS (if the employer didn't pay it, we would receive it in
>wages), state taxes as high as 5% and more, gas taxes, sales taxes,
>phone taxes, property taxes, and on and on and on.
>
>My family is in the lower middle class, in the heartland, and we pay
>considerably more than 50% of our income in taxes.
I pay less than 20% of my paycheck to the government. Even including my
employer's contribution to SS (which I wouldn't receive if they didn't
pay), I pay less than 25%. I have no state sales or income tax. The
rebate the state pays is roughly the tax on my home. So, when you add all
the other taxes, I think I would be quite far from 50%. But then, I make
more than the average lower middle class family. Perhaps, despite the
claims by the Republicans to the contrary, if you made more you'd pay a
smaller percentage?
( I paid about 2% more in taxes when I paid 8%+ tax in TX, but certainly
not enough to make it up to 50%)
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
>On Mon, 10 Nov 03 13:01:38 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>wrote:
>
>>In article <8a5tqvsnv70r2vv63ljkja40g619efvpc2@4ax.com>,
>> DTJ <dtj@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>On Sat, 8 Nov 2003 20:26:51 -0700, "Gerald G. McGeorge"
>>><gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Sorry, I forgot that using my brain is against everything liberals stand
>>>>for.<
>>>>
>>>>That's right, you just stop thinking and let them make all the decisions for
>>>>you, meanwhile be sure and let them have 50% of your wages and shut up! They
>>>>know far better than you how it should be spent...
>>>
>>>50%? You have to be really poor to pay that small of a tax rate!
>>What an idiot. Effective tax rate on the middle class is around 25%,
>>including federal and state income, sales, gas, social security, and property.
>
>Yes you are an idiot.
>
>The middle class pays federal rates higher than 25%, plus another 15%
>or so in SS (if the employer didn't pay it, we would receive it in
>wages), state taxes as high as 5% and more, gas taxes, sales taxes,
>phone taxes, property taxes, and on and on and on.
>
>My family is in the lower middle class, in the heartland, and we pay
>considerably more than 50% of our income in taxes.
I pay less than 20% of my paycheck to the government. Even including my
employer's contribution to SS (which I wouldn't receive if they didn't
pay), I pay less than 25%. I have no state sales or income tax. The
rebate the state pays is roughly the tax on my home. So, when you add all
the other taxes, I think I would be quite far from 50%. But then, I make
more than the average lower middle class family. Perhaps, despite the
claims by the Republicans to the contrary, if you made more you'd pay a
smaller percentage?
( I paid about 2% more in taxes when I paid 8%+ tax in TX, but certainly
not enough to make it up to 50%)
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
#4293
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can bemisinterpreted by SUV drivers)
DTJ <dtj@comcast.net> wrote:
>On Mon, 10 Nov 03 13:01:38 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>wrote:
>
>>In article <8a5tqvsnv70r2vv63ljkja40g619efvpc2@4ax.com>,
>> DTJ <dtj@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>On Sat, 8 Nov 2003 20:26:51 -0700, "Gerald G. McGeorge"
>>><gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Sorry, I forgot that using my brain is against everything liberals stand
>>>>for.<
>>>>
>>>>That's right, you just stop thinking and let them make all the decisions for
>>>>you, meanwhile be sure and let them have 50% of your wages and shut up! They
>>>>know far better than you how it should be spent...
>>>
>>>50%? You have to be really poor to pay that small of a tax rate!
>>What an idiot. Effective tax rate on the middle class is around 25%,
>>including federal and state income, sales, gas, social security, and property.
>
>Yes you are an idiot.
>
>The middle class pays federal rates higher than 25%, plus another 15%
>or so in SS (if the employer didn't pay it, we would receive it in
>wages), state taxes as high as 5% and more, gas taxes, sales taxes,
>phone taxes, property taxes, and on and on and on.
>
>My family is in the lower middle class, in the heartland, and we pay
>considerably more than 50% of our income in taxes.
I pay less than 20% of my paycheck to the government. Even including my
employer's contribution to SS (which I wouldn't receive if they didn't
pay), I pay less than 25%. I have no state sales or income tax. The
rebate the state pays is roughly the tax on my home. So, when you add all
the other taxes, I think I would be quite far from 50%. But then, I make
more than the average lower middle class family. Perhaps, despite the
claims by the Republicans to the contrary, if you made more you'd pay a
smaller percentage?
( I paid about 2% more in taxes when I paid 8%+ tax in TX, but certainly
not enough to make it up to 50%)
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
>On Mon, 10 Nov 03 13:01:38 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>wrote:
>
>>In article <8a5tqvsnv70r2vv63ljkja40g619efvpc2@4ax.com>,
>> DTJ <dtj@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>On Sat, 8 Nov 2003 20:26:51 -0700, "Gerald G. McGeorge"
>>><gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Sorry, I forgot that using my brain is against everything liberals stand
>>>>for.<
>>>>
>>>>That's right, you just stop thinking and let them make all the decisions for
>>>>you, meanwhile be sure and let them have 50% of your wages and shut up! They
>>>>know far better than you how it should be spent...
>>>
>>>50%? You have to be really poor to pay that small of a tax rate!
>>What an idiot. Effective tax rate on the middle class is around 25%,
>>including federal and state income, sales, gas, social security, and property.
>
>Yes you are an idiot.
>
>The middle class pays federal rates higher than 25%, plus another 15%
>or so in SS (if the employer didn't pay it, we would receive it in
>wages), state taxes as high as 5% and more, gas taxes, sales taxes,
>phone taxes, property taxes, and on and on and on.
>
>My family is in the lower middle class, in the heartland, and we pay
>considerably more than 50% of our income in taxes.
I pay less than 20% of my paycheck to the government. Even including my
employer's contribution to SS (which I wouldn't receive if they didn't
pay), I pay less than 25%. I have no state sales or income tax. The
rebate the state pays is roughly the tax on my home. So, when you add all
the other taxes, I think I would be quite far from 50%. But then, I make
more than the average lower middle class family. Perhaps, despite the
claims by the Republicans to the contrary, if you made more you'd pay a
smaller percentage?
( I paid about 2% more in taxes when I paid 8%+ tax in TX, but certainly
not enough to make it up to 50%)
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
#4294
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can bemisinterpreted by SUV drivers)
DTJ <dtj@comcast.net> wrote:
>On Mon, 10 Nov 03 13:01:38 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>wrote:
>
>>In article <8a5tqvsnv70r2vv63ljkja40g619efvpc2@4ax.com>,
>> DTJ <dtj@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>On Sat, 8 Nov 2003 20:26:51 -0700, "Gerald G. McGeorge"
>>><gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Sorry, I forgot that using my brain is against everything liberals stand
>>>>for.<
>>>>
>>>>That's right, you just stop thinking and let them make all the decisions for
>>>>you, meanwhile be sure and let them have 50% of your wages and shut up! They
>>>>know far better than you how it should be spent...
>>>
>>>50%? You have to be really poor to pay that small of a tax rate!
>>What an idiot. Effective tax rate on the middle class is around 25%,
>>including federal and state income, sales, gas, social security, and property.
>
>Yes you are an idiot.
>
>The middle class pays federal rates higher than 25%, plus another 15%
>or so in SS (if the employer didn't pay it, we would receive it in
>wages), state taxes as high as 5% and more, gas taxes, sales taxes,
>phone taxes, property taxes, and on and on and on.
>
>My family is in the lower middle class, in the heartland, and we pay
>considerably more than 50% of our income in taxes.
I pay less than 20% of my paycheck to the government. Even including my
employer's contribution to SS (which I wouldn't receive if they didn't
pay), I pay less than 25%. I have no state sales or income tax. The
rebate the state pays is roughly the tax on my home. So, when you add all
the other taxes, I think I would be quite far from 50%. But then, I make
more than the average lower middle class family. Perhaps, despite the
claims by the Republicans to the contrary, if you made more you'd pay a
smaller percentage?
( I paid about 2% more in taxes when I paid 8%+ tax in TX, but certainly
not enough to make it up to 50%)
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
>On Mon, 10 Nov 03 13:01:38 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>wrote:
>
>>In article <8a5tqvsnv70r2vv63ljkja40g619efvpc2@4ax.com>,
>> DTJ <dtj@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>On Sat, 8 Nov 2003 20:26:51 -0700, "Gerald G. McGeorge"
>>><gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Sorry, I forgot that using my brain is against everything liberals stand
>>>>for.<
>>>>
>>>>That's right, you just stop thinking and let them make all the decisions for
>>>>you, meanwhile be sure and let them have 50% of your wages and shut up! They
>>>>know far better than you how it should be spent...
>>>
>>>50%? You have to be really poor to pay that small of a tax rate!
>>What an idiot. Effective tax rate on the middle class is around 25%,
>>including federal and state income, sales, gas, social security, and property.
>
>Yes you are an idiot.
>
>The middle class pays federal rates higher than 25%, plus another 15%
>or so in SS (if the employer didn't pay it, we would receive it in
>wages), state taxes as high as 5% and more, gas taxes, sales taxes,
>phone taxes, property taxes, and on and on and on.
>
>My family is in the lower middle class, in the heartland, and we pay
>considerably more than 50% of our income in taxes.
I pay less than 20% of my paycheck to the government. Even including my
employer's contribution to SS (which I wouldn't receive if they didn't
pay), I pay less than 25%. I have no state sales or income tax. The
rebate the state pays is roughly the tax on my home. So, when you add all
the other taxes, I think I would be quite far from 50%. But then, I make
more than the average lower middle class family. Perhaps, despite the
claims by the Republicans to the contrary, if you made more you'd pay a
smaller percentage?
( I paid about 2% more in taxes when I paid 8%+ tax in TX, but certainly
not enough to make it up to 50%)
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
#4295
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
>In article <3FAF9170.6040702@computer.org>,
> "Matthew S. Whiting" <m.whiting@computer.org> wrote:
>>st3ph3nm wrote:
>>> DTJ <dtj@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:<gu5tqvcuqj5rf4n4bie9qjjfd90nd2t66c@4ax.com> ...
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 09 Nov 2003 02:49:07 GMT, tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P)
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>>>We know better now. When I see a proposed solution that really does
>>>>>lower global CO2 output, I can get behind it. Until then, all I see
>>>>>is a bunch of people who feel guilty and/or want to punish the USA and
>>>>>are using this topic as their tool to do so.
>>>>
>>>>You hit the nail on the head. The left has a single purpose - punish
>>>>those in the United States by redistributing our wealth to others.
>>>
>>>
>>> I would disagree. Coming from a (well, for you guys, fairly
>>> extremely) leftist background (my Dad was a member of the Labour party
>>> here back when that's what it was) that's not surprising, though I
>>> guess. I don't think the US needs to be punished for being rich. I'm
>>> not jealous of your lifestyle, or your political system. Having said
>>> that, IIRC, something like 22% of our (human caused) greenhouse gas
>>> emissions come from a country that has 7% of the worlds population.
>>> Surely if that 7% can dramatically reduce the amount it's putting out,
>>> it's going to have a significant impact on overall amounts? And
>>> there's no reason not to reduce output of these gases, when in most
>>> cases it can be done by being more efficient - which I would have
>>> thought guys on the right would be into. I would hope that in any
>>> Western country, we could lead the way, develop the technologies, and
>>> sell them on to the developing markets. I wish Australia hadn't
>>> followed the US lead on Kyoto, but there you go.
>>
>>Only if the theory of global warming is correct. I don't believe it is
>
>Which matters as much as you saying you don't believe atoms exist.
Obviously a non-sequitur.
Prove that we are not on the cusp of another ice age and that increased CO2
in the atmosphere will help out the planet.
(not that I think that is or is not the case, just that your condescending
attitude is covering up your ignorance and unwillingness to debate the
facts)
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
>In article <3FAF9170.6040702@computer.org>,
> "Matthew S. Whiting" <m.whiting@computer.org> wrote:
>>st3ph3nm wrote:
>>> DTJ <dtj@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:<gu5tqvcuqj5rf4n4bie9qjjfd90nd2t66c@4ax.com> ...
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 09 Nov 2003 02:49:07 GMT, tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P)
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>>>We know better now. When I see a proposed solution that really does
>>>>>lower global CO2 output, I can get behind it. Until then, all I see
>>>>>is a bunch of people who feel guilty and/or want to punish the USA and
>>>>>are using this topic as their tool to do so.
>>>>
>>>>You hit the nail on the head. The left has a single purpose - punish
>>>>those in the United States by redistributing our wealth to others.
>>>
>>>
>>> I would disagree. Coming from a (well, for you guys, fairly
>>> extremely) leftist background (my Dad was a member of the Labour party
>>> here back when that's what it was) that's not surprising, though I
>>> guess. I don't think the US needs to be punished for being rich. I'm
>>> not jealous of your lifestyle, or your political system. Having said
>>> that, IIRC, something like 22% of our (human caused) greenhouse gas
>>> emissions come from a country that has 7% of the worlds population.
>>> Surely if that 7% can dramatically reduce the amount it's putting out,
>>> it's going to have a significant impact on overall amounts? And
>>> there's no reason not to reduce output of these gases, when in most
>>> cases it can be done by being more efficient - which I would have
>>> thought guys on the right would be into. I would hope that in any
>>> Western country, we could lead the way, develop the technologies, and
>>> sell them on to the developing markets. I wish Australia hadn't
>>> followed the US lead on Kyoto, but there you go.
>>
>>Only if the theory of global warming is correct. I don't believe it is
>
>Which matters as much as you saying you don't believe atoms exist.
Obviously a non-sequitur.
Prove that we are not on the cusp of another ice age and that increased CO2
in the atmosphere will help out the planet.
(not that I think that is or is not the case, just that your condescending
attitude is covering up your ignorance and unwillingness to debate the
facts)
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
#4296
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
>In article <3FAF9170.6040702@computer.org>,
> "Matthew S. Whiting" <m.whiting@computer.org> wrote:
>>st3ph3nm wrote:
>>> DTJ <dtj@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:<gu5tqvcuqj5rf4n4bie9qjjfd90nd2t66c@4ax.com> ...
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 09 Nov 2003 02:49:07 GMT, tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P)
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>>>We know better now. When I see a proposed solution that really does
>>>>>lower global CO2 output, I can get behind it. Until then, all I see
>>>>>is a bunch of people who feel guilty and/or want to punish the USA and
>>>>>are using this topic as their tool to do so.
>>>>
>>>>You hit the nail on the head. The left has a single purpose - punish
>>>>those in the United States by redistributing our wealth to others.
>>>
>>>
>>> I would disagree. Coming from a (well, for you guys, fairly
>>> extremely) leftist background (my Dad was a member of the Labour party
>>> here back when that's what it was) that's not surprising, though I
>>> guess. I don't think the US needs to be punished for being rich. I'm
>>> not jealous of your lifestyle, or your political system. Having said
>>> that, IIRC, something like 22% of our (human caused) greenhouse gas
>>> emissions come from a country that has 7% of the worlds population.
>>> Surely if that 7% can dramatically reduce the amount it's putting out,
>>> it's going to have a significant impact on overall amounts? And
>>> there's no reason not to reduce output of these gases, when in most
>>> cases it can be done by being more efficient - which I would have
>>> thought guys on the right would be into. I would hope that in any
>>> Western country, we could lead the way, develop the technologies, and
>>> sell them on to the developing markets. I wish Australia hadn't
>>> followed the US lead on Kyoto, but there you go.
>>
>>Only if the theory of global warming is correct. I don't believe it is
>
>Which matters as much as you saying you don't believe atoms exist.
Obviously a non-sequitur.
Prove that we are not on the cusp of another ice age and that increased CO2
in the atmosphere will help out the planet.
(not that I think that is or is not the case, just that your condescending
attitude is covering up your ignorance and unwillingness to debate the
facts)
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
>In article <3FAF9170.6040702@computer.org>,
> "Matthew S. Whiting" <m.whiting@computer.org> wrote:
>>st3ph3nm wrote:
>>> DTJ <dtj@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:<gu5tqvcuqj5rf4n4bie9qjjfd90nd2t66c@4ax.com> ...
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 09 Nov 2003 02:49:07 GMT, tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P)
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>>>We know better now. When I see a proposed solution that really does
>>>>>lower global CO2 output, I can get behind it. Until then, all I see
>>>>>is a bunch of people who feel guilty and/or want to punish the USA and
>>>>>are using this topic as their tool to do so.
>>>>
>>>>You hit the nail on the head. The left has a single purpose - punish
>>>>those in the United States by redistributing our wealth to others.
>>>
>>>
>>> I would disagree. Coming from a (well, for you guys, fairly
>>> extremely) leftist background (my Dad was a member of the Labour party
>>> here back when that's what it was) that's not surprising, though I
>>> guess. I don't think the US needs to be punished for being rich. I'm
>>> not jealous of your lifestyle, or your political system. Having said
>>> that, IIRC, something like 22% of our (human caused) greenhouse gas
>>> emissions come from a country that has 7% of the worlds population.
>>> Surely if that 7% can dramatically reduce the amount it's putting out,
>>> it's going to have a significant impact on overall amounts? And
>>> there's no reason not to reduce output of these gases, when in most
>>> cases it can be done by being more efficient - which I would have
>>> thought guys on the right would be into. I would hope that in any
>>> Western country, we could lead the way, develop the technologies, and
>>> sell them on to the developing markets. I wish Australia hadn't
>>> followed the US lead on Kyoto, but there you go.
>>
>>Only if the theory of global warming is correct. I don't believe it is
>
>Which matters as much as you saying you don't believe atoms exist.
Obviously a non-sequitur.
Prove that we are not on the cusp of another ice age and that increased CO2
in the atmosphere will help out the planet.
(not that I think that is or is not the case, just that your condescending
attitude is covering up your ignorance and unwillingness to debate the
facts)
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
#4297
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
>In article <3FAF9170.6040702@computer.org>,
> "Matthew S. Whiting" <m.whiting@computer.org> wrote:
>>st3ph3nm wrote:
>>> DTJ <dtj@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:<gu5tqvcuqj5rf4n4bie9qjjfd90nd2t66c@4ax.com> ...
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 09 Nov 2003 02:49:07 GMT, tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P)
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>>>We know better now. When I see a proposed solution that really does
>>>>>lower global CO2 output, I can get behind it. Until then, all I see
>>>>>is a bunch of people who feel guilty and/or want to punish the USA and
>>>>>are using this topic as their tool to do so.
>>>>
>>>>You hit the nail on the head. The left has a single purpose - punish
>>>>those in the United States by redistributing our wealth to others.
>>>
>>>
>>> I would disagree. Coming from a (well, for you guys, fairly
>>> extremely) leftist background (my Dad was a member of the Labour party
>>> here back when that's what it was) that's not surprising, though I
>>> guess. I don't think the US needs to be punished for being rich. I'm
>>> not jealous of your lifestyle, or your political system. Having said
>>> that, IIRC, something like 22% of our (human caused) greenhouse gas
>>> emissions come from a country that has 7% of the worlds population.
>>> Surely if that 7% can dramatically reduce the amount it's putting out,
>>> it's going to have a significant impact on overall amounts? And
>>> there's no reason not to reduce output of these gases, when in most
>>> cases it can be done by being more efficient - which I would have
>>> thought guys on the right would be into. I would hope that in any
>>> Western country, we could lead the way, develop the technologies, and
>>> sell them on to the developing markets. I wish Australia hadn't
>>> followed the US lead on Kyoto, but there you go.
>>
>>Only if the theory of global warming is correct. I don't believe it is
>
>Which matters as much as you saying you don't believe atoms exist.
Obviously a non-sequitur.
Prove that we are not on the cusp of another ice age and that increased CO2
in the atmosphere will help out the planet.
(not that I think that is or is not the case, just that your condescending
attitude is covering up your ignorance and unwillingness to debate the
facts)
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
>In article <3FAF9170.6040702@computer.org>,
> "Matthew S. Whiting" <m.whiting@computer.org> wrote:
>>st3ph3nm wrote:
>>> DTJ <dtj@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:<gu5tqvcuqj5rf4n4bie9qjjfd90nd2t66c@4ax.com> ...
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 09 Nov 2003 02:49:07 GMT, tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P)
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>>>We know better now. When I see a proposed solution that really does
>>>>>lower global CO2 output, I can get behind it. Until then, all I see
>>>>>is a bunch of people who feel guilty and/or want to punish the USA and
>>>>>are using this topic as their tool to do so.
>>>>
>>>>You hit the nail on the head. The left has a single purpose - punish
>>>>those in the United States by redistributing our wealth to others.
>>>
>>>
>>> I would disagree. Coming from a (well, for you guys, fairly
>>> extremely) leftist background (my Dad was a member of the Labour party
>>> here back when that's what it was) that's not surprising, though I
>>> guess. I don't think the US needs to be punished for being rich. I'm
>>> not jealous of your lifestyle, or your political system. Having said
>>> that, IIRC, something like 22% of our (human caused) greenhouse gas
>>> emissions come from a country that has 7% of the worlds population.
>>> Surely if that 7% can dramatically reduce the amount it's putting out,
>>> it's going to have a significant impact on overall amounts? And
>>> there's no reason not to reduce output of these gases, when in most
>>> cases it can be done by being more efficient - which I would have
>>> thought guys on the right would be into. I would hope that in any
>>> Western country, we could lead the way, develop the technologies, and
>>> sell them on to the developing markets. I wish Australia hadn't
>>> followed the US lead on Kyoto, but there you go.
>>
>>Only if the theory of global warming is correct. I don't believe it is
>
>Which matters as much as you saying you don't believe atoms exist.
Obviously a non-sequitur.
Prove that we are not on the cusp of another ice age and that increased CO2
in the atmosphere will help out the planet.
(not that I think that is or is not the case, just that your condescending
attitude is covering up your ignorance and unwillingness to debate the
facts)
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
#4298
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
"Brent P" <tetraethyllead@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:_GQrb.162737$Tr4.435252@attbi_s03...
> In article <boojaj$dmh$2@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
> > tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>
> <parker forgot how to trim>
>
> >>> This is fine for people in the US. If you had been born and raised on
> >>> the Solomons, though, you might be annoyed to find that the world
> >>> doesn't care if your entire homeland is inundated. This is a very
> >>> simplistic argument - I'll address it more further down.
> >>
> >>Then why does the proposed solution, the kyoto treaty, do nothing but
> >>encourage the relocation of CO2 output to China, India, and other such
> >>nations?
>
> > Because the US emits 2 times as much CO2 as the next nation (Russia) and
over
> > 4 times as much on a per capita basis as any other nation.
>
> Let's say the kyoto treaty is accepted. The US limits CO2 output.
> Production of the crap americans buy is relocated to china and india
> and the products are shipped to the USA for sale. There is a net increase
> in the amount of CO2 and pollutants released. The US's per capita CO2
> emissions go way down, China's and India's go up a blip (huge
> populations). There has been a net increase in the CO2 released into
> the atmosphere. Why does this make you happy? Why is this a goal you
> strive for?
>
> If CO2 emissions are a real problem, this solution called the kyoto
> treaty doesn't address it at all, it simply shifts where on the globe
> they come from. This does not matter if we are to believe that CO2
> emissions cause global warming. So, the goal must be something else.
> What is that something else that makes you want this to occur?
>
> secondly, Dr. Parker, if you believe CO2 emissions to be a problem
> why are you driving a mercedes benz? Why are you not driving a geo
> metro or an insight or some other micro car or hybred?
Because he is an elitist snob who thinks he knows whats best for everybody
else. Only those below him should be required to drive more efficient
vehicles. Kind of like a certain SUV bashing Kennedy who has a private jet
spew pollution into the air while it trucks his rear end anywhere he goes.
#4299
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
"Brent P" <tetraethyllead@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:_GQrb.162737$Tr4.435252@attbi_s03...
> In article <boojaj$dmh$2@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
> > tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>
> <parker forgot how to trim>
>
> >>> This is fine for people in the US. If you had been born and raised on
> >>> the Solomons, though, you might be annoyed to find that the world
> >>> doesn't care if your entire homeland is inundated. This is a very
> >>> simplistic argument - I'll address it more further down.
> >>
> >>Then why does the proposed solution, the kyoto treaty, do nothing but
> >>encourage the relocation of CO2 output to China, India, and other such
> >>nations?
>
> > Because the US emits 2 times as much CO2 as the next nation (Russia) and
over
> > 4 times as much on a per capita basis as any other nation.
>
> Let's say the kyoto treaty is accepted. The US limits CO2 output.
> Production of the crap americans buy is relocated to china and india
> and the products are shipped to the USA for sale. There is a net increase
> in the amount of CO2 and pollutants released. The US's per capita CO2
> emissions go way down, China's and India's go up a blip (huge
> populations). There has been a net increase in the CO2 released into
> the atmosphere. Why does this make you happy? Why is this a goal you
> strive for?
>
> If CO2 emissions are a real problem, this solution called the kyoto
> treaty doesn't address it at all, it simply shifts where on the globe
> they come from. This does not matter if we are to believe that CO2
> emissions cause global warming. So, the goal must be something else.
> What is that something else that makes you want this to occur?
>
> secondly, Dr. Parker, if you believe CO2 emissions to be a problem
> why are you driving a mercedes benz? Why are you not driving a geo
> metro or an insight or some other micro car or hybred?
Because he is an elitist snob who thinks he knows whats best for everybody
else. Only those below him should be required to drive more efficient
vehicles. Kind of like a certain SUV bashing Kennedy who has a private jet
spew pollution into the air while it trucks his rear end anywhere he goes.
#4300
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
"Brent P" <tetraethyllead@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:_GQrb.162737$Tr4.435252@attbi_s03...
> In article <boojaj$dmh$2@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
> > tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>
> <parker forgot how to trim>
>
> >>> This is fine for people in the US. If you had been born and raised on
> >>> the Solomons, though, you might be annoyed to find that the world
> >>> doesn't care if your entire homeland is inundated. This is a very
> >>> simplistic argument - I'll address it more further down.
> >>
> >>Then why does the proposed solution, the kyoto treaty, do nothing but
> >>encourage the relocation of CO2 output to China, India, and other such
> >>nations?
>
> > Because the US emits 2 times as much CO2 as the next nation (Russia) and
over
> > 4 times as much on a per capita basis as any other nation.
>
> Let's say the kyoto treaty is accepted. The US limits CO2 output.
> Production of the crap americans buy is relocated to china and india
> and the products are shipped to the USA for sale. There is a net increase
> in the amount of CO2 and pollutants released. The US's per capita CO2
> emissions go way down, China's and India's go up a blip (huge
> populations). There has been a net increase in the CO2 released into
> the atmosphere. Why does this make you happy? Why is this a goal you
> strive for?
>
> If CO2 emissions are a real problem, this solution called the kyoto
> treaty doesn't address it at all, it simply shifts where on the globe
> they come from. This does not matter if we are to believe that CO2
> emissions cause global warming. So, the goal must be something else.
> What is that something else that makes you want this to occur?
>
> secondly, Dr. Parker, if you believe CO2 emissions to be a problem
> why are you driving a mercedes benz? Why are you not driving a geo
> metro or an insight or some other micro car or hybred?
Because he is an elitist snob who thinks he knows whats best for everybody
else. Only those below him should be required to drive more efficient
vehicles. Kind of like a certain SUV bashing Kennedy who has a private jet
spew pollution into the air while it trucks his rear end anywhere he goes.