Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#4341
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can bemisinterpreted by SUV drivers)
"Marc" <whineryy@yifan.net> wrote in message
news:bc01rvo1ccrj1brkg41b38p5ejoa4ef2n6@4ax.com...
> russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto) wrote:
> >In article <boojos$dmh$9@puck.cc.emory.edu>,
> >Lloyd Parker <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> 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.
> >
> >Maybe if you live in a state with no income or sales tax. The average
> >Marylander, for instance, is paying 8% in income and 5% in sales in
> >state taxes alone.
>
> I live in a state that has no income or sales taxes and pays over $1000
per
> year back to residents.
>
> But then, I live in the least populous state.
The least populous state is Wyoming, which I thought had no income tax but
did have a sales tax. If you live there though I will accept your word on
it./
>
> Marc
> For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
#4342
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can bemisinterpreted by SUV drivers)
"Marc" <whineryy@yifan.net> wrote in message
news:bc01rvo1ccrj1brkg41b38p5ejoa4ef2n6@4ax.com...
> russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto) wrote:
> >In article <boojos$dmh$9@puck.cc.emory.edu>,
> >Lloyd Parker <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> 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.
> >
> >Maybe if you live in a state with no income or sales tax. The average
> >Marylander, for instance, is paying 8% in income and 5% in sales in
> >state taxes alone.
>
> I live in a state that has no income or sales taxes and pays over $1000
per
> year back to residents.
>
> But then, I live in the least populous state.
The least populous state is Wyoming, which I thought had no income tax but
did have a sales tax. If you live there though I will accept your word on
it./
>
> Marc
> For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
#4343
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Bill Putney wrote:
>
> ...It just points out the
> absurdity of the liberal mind being demonstrated by the so-called
> Democratic contenders' debates.
>
> I particulary liked the question (and the "candidates" answers) about
> whether the candidates preferred Macs or pc's. It showed how serious
> they all aren't.
I saw on the news tonight that the poor girl (a college student) who
asked that question was made to ask it by CNN - she had her own serious
question ready, but they made her ask that one instead! Poor thing.
Wouldn't be surprised if she becomes a Republican over that after
finding out they couldn't care less about making her appear totally
stupid like that in order to benefit the party - you know - the party
that's supposed to care so much about people.
Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
#4344
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Bill Putney wrote:
>
> ...It just points out the
> absurdity of the liberal mind being demonstrated by the so-called
> Democratic contenders' debates.
>
> I particulary liked the question (and the "candidates" answers) about
> whether the candidates preferred Macs or pc's. It showed how serious
> they all aren't.
I saw on the news tonight that the poor girl (a college student) who
asked that question was made to ask it by CNN - she had her own serious
question ready, but they made her ask that one instead! Poor thing.
Wouldn't be surprised if she becomes a Republican over that after
finding out they couldn't care less about making her appear totally
stupid like that in order to benefit the party - you know - the party
that's supposed to care so much about people.
Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
#4345
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Bill Putney wrote:
>
> ...It just points out the
> absurdity of the liberal mind being demonstrated by the so-called
> Democratic contenders' debates.
>
> I particulary liked the question (and the "candidates" answers) about
> whether the candidates preferred Macs or pc's. It showed how serious
> they all aren't.
I saw on the news tonight that the poor girl (a college student) who
asked that question was made to ask it by CNN - she had her own serious
question ready, but they made her ask that one instead! Poor thing.
Wouldn't be surprised if she becomes a Republican over that after
finding out they couldn't care less about making her appear totally
stupid like that in order to benefit the party - you know - the party
that's supposed to care so much about people.
Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
#4346
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote in message news:<Wo8sb.38843$Ll5.18243@twister.socal.rr.com>. ..
>
> Say what you want about US foreign policy against Communism or supporting
> Israel or whatever, the Islamic extremists only have power to threaten us
> because of oil
Obviously. If it weren't for the oil, the US wouldn't have cared much
*who* was in power in most of the Middle East, and so we'd now have
healthy democracies, good education and strong economies right
throughout the Middle East. Instead, the US has either helped to
create a situation where the extremists have taken power, or (in the
case of Saudi Arabia) directly supported the extremists to take power.
Back then, as long as they weren't left leaning, that was all that
mattered. Too short sighted, unfortunately.
> and proliferation of WMD.
Where?
> If the world didn't need middle
> east oil or if terrorists only had car bombs, there wouldn't be this war on
> terror.
They haven't used WMD to any great effect. The war on terror's
biggest hit on the US was done with knives.
Cheers,
Steve
>
> Say what you want about US foreign policy against Communism or supporting
> Israel or whatever, the Islamic extremists only have power to threaten us
> because of oil
Obviously. If it weren't for the oil, the US wouldn't have cared much
*who* was in power in most of the Middle East, and so we'd now have
healthy democracies, good education and strong economies right
throughout the Middle East. Instead, the US has either helped to
create a situation where the extremists have taken power, or (in the
case of Saudi Arabia) directly supported the extremists to take power.
Back then, as long as they weren't left leaning, that was all that
mattered. Too short sighted, unfortunately.
> and proliferation of WMD.
Where?
> If the world didn't need middle
> east oil or if terrorists only had car bombs, there wouldn't be this war on
> terror.
They haven't used WMD to any great effect. The war on terror's
biggest hit on the US was done with knives.
Cheers,
Steve
#4347
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote in message news:<Wo8sb.38843$Ll5.18243@twister.socal.rr.com>. ..
>
> Say what you want about US foreign policy against Communism or supporting
> Israel or whatever, the Islamic extremists only have power to threaten us
> because of oil
Obviously. If it weren't for the oil, the US wouldn't have cared much
*who* was in power in most of the Middle East, and so we'd now have
healthy democracies, good education and strong economies right
throughout the Middle East. Instead, the US has either helped to
create a situation where the extremists have taken power, or (in the
case of Saudi Arabia) directly supported the extremists to take power.
Back then, as long as they weren't left leaning, that was all that
mattered. Too short sighted, unfortunately.
> and proliferation of WMD.
Where?
> If the world didn't need middle
> east oil or if terrorists only had car bombs, there wouldn't be this war on
> terror.
They haven't used WMD to any great effect. The war on terror's
biggest hit on the US was done with knives.
Cheers,
Steve
>
> Say what you want about US foreign policy against Communism or supporting
> Israel or whatever, the Islamic extremists only have power to threaten us
> because of oil
Obviously. If it weren't for the oil, the US wouldn't have cared much
*who* was in power in most of the Middle East, and so we'd now have
healthy democracies, good education and strong economies right
throughout the Middle East. Instead, the US has either helped to
create a situation where the extremists have taken power, or (in the
case of Saudi Arabia) directly supported the extremists to take power.
Back then, as long as they weren't left leaning, that was all that
mattered. Too short sighted, unfortunately.
> and proliferation of WMD.
Where?
> If the world didn't need middle
> east oil or if terrorists only had car bombs, there wouldn't be this war on
> terror.
They haven't used WMD to any great effect. The war on terror's
biggest hit on the US was done with knives.
Cheers,
Steve
#4348
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote in message news:<Wo8sb.38843$Ll5.18243@twister.socal.rr.com>. ..
>
> Say what you want about US foreign policy against Communism or supporting
> Israel or whatever, the Islamic extremists only have power to threaten us
> because of oil
Obviously. If it weren't for the oil, the US wouldn't have cared much
*who* was in power in most of the Middle East, and so we'd now have
healthy democracies, good education and strong economies right
throughout the Middle East. Instead, the US has either helped to
create a situation where the extremists have taken power, or (in the
case of Saudi Arabia) directly supported the extremists to take power.
Back then, as long as they weren't left leaning, that was all that
mattered. Too short sighted, unfortunately.
> and proliferation of WMD.
Where?
> If the world didn't need middle
> east oil or if terrorists only had car bombs, there wouldn't be this war on
> terror.
They haven't used WMD to any great effect. The war on terror's
biggest hit on the US was done with knives.
Cheers,
Steve
>
> Say what you want about US foreign policy against Communism or supporting
> Israel or whatever, the Islamic extremists only have power to threaten us
> because of oil
Obviously. If it weren't for the oil, the US wouldn't have cared much
*who* was in power in most of the Middle East, and so we'd now have
healthy democracies, good education and strong economies right
throughout the Middle East. Instead, the US has either helped to
create a situation where the extremists have taken power, or (in the
case of Saudi Arabia) directly supported the extremists to take power.
Back then, as long as they weren't left leaning, that was all that
mattered. Too short sighted, unfortunately.
> and proliferation of WMD.
Where?
> If the world didn't need middle
> east oil or if terrorists only had car bombs, there wouldn't be this war on
> terror.
They haven't used WMD to any great effect. The war on terror's
biggest hit on the US was done with knives.
Cheers,
Steve
#4349
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net> wrote in message news:<3FB0C2D6.55E0E1C4@kinez.net>...
> st3ph3nm wrote:
<snip>
> > If you want to maintain your strong economy, it makes sense, too.
> > There is a strong correlation between fresh water supplies and
> > strength of the economy, worldwide.
>
> This could be a chicken-egg thing too. If the country (its government
> and its people) are in survival model (or is totally corrupt - the two
> often go hand in hand), then chances are high that it's going have a bad
> economy as well as not properly take care of its water system (due to
> priorities being elsewhere) - one may have nothing to do with the other
> (economy and clean water) in such a country (either due to the
> priorities being different - only so much money to go around - or the
> gov't plain not watching out for the peoples' interests).
>
> One must be careful in assigning cause and effect. You might find that
> contries that have healthy economies and clean water have a much higher
> percentage of blue cars, whereas poor countries with crappy water have
> cars that are more earth tones. It would be a mistake to conclude that
> having blue cars makes for clean water or a good economy (but could in
> some way be a result).
I wasn't assigning cause and effect. Obviously, a healthy economic
system is more likely to be allocating resources to good water
supplies. Having said that, blue cars don't give you the ability to
grow lots of food. The number of blue cars in your country doesn't
affect the health of your population. The number of blue cars doesn't
have a bearing on how many people can live in a given area. Factorys
don't rely on blue cars (very much) as a major input to most
industrial processes. It's not surprising that there's a correlation.
Clean water is a valuable (though often undervalued) ingredient to a
healthy economy.
Cheers,
Steve
> st3ph3nm wrote:
<snip>
> > If you want to maintain your strong economy, it makes sense, too.
> > There is a strong correlation between fresh water supplies and
> > strength of the economy, worldwide.
>
> This could be a chicken-egg thing too. If the country (its government
> and its people) are in survival model (or is totally corrupt - the two
> often go hand in hand), then chances are high that it's going have a bad
> economy as well as not properly take care of its water system (due to
> priorities being elsewhere) - one may have nothing to do with the other
> (economy and clean water) in such a country (either due to the
> priorities being different - only so much money to go around - or the
> gov't plain not watching out for the peoples' interests).
>
> One must be careful in assigning cause and effect. You might find that
> contries that have healthy economies and clean water have a much higher
> percentage of blue cars, whereas poor countries with crappy water have
> cars that are more earth tones. It would be a mistake to conclude that
> having blue cars makes for clean water or a good economy (but could in
> some way be a result).
I wasn't assigning cause and effect. Obviously, a healthy economic
system is more likely to be allocating resources to good water
supplies. Having said that, blue cars don't give you the ability to
grow lots of food. The number of blue cars in your country doesn't
affect the health of your population. The number of blue cars doesn't
have a bearing on how many people can live in a given area. Factorys
don't rely on blue cars (very much) as a major input to most
industrial processes. It's not surprising that there's a correlation.
Clean water is a valuable (though often undervalued) ingredient to a
healthy economy.
Cheers,
Steve
#4350
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net> wrote in message news:<3FB0C2D6.55E0E1C4@kinez.net>...
> st3ph3nm wrote:
<snip>
> > If you want to maintain your strong economy, it makes sense, too.
> > There is a strong correlation between fresh water supplies and
> > strength of the economy, worldwide.
>
> This could be a chicken-egg thing too. If the country (its government
> and its people) are in survival model (or is totally corrupt - the two
> often go hand in hand), then chances are high that it's going have a bad
> economy as well as not properly take care of its water system (due to
> priorities being elsewhere) - one may have nothing to do with the other
> (economy and clean water) in such a country (either due to the
> priorities being different - only so much money to go around - or the
> gov't plain not watching out for the peoples' interests).
>
> One must be careful in assigning cause and effect. You might find that
> contries that have healthy economies and clean water have a much higher
> percentage of blue cars, whereas poor countries with crappy water have
> cars that are more earth tones. It would be a mistake to conclude that
> having blue cars makes for clean water or a good economy (but could in
> some way be a result).
I wasn't assigning cause and effect. Obviously, a healthy economic
system is more likely to be allocating resources to good water
supplies. Having said that, blue cars don't give you the ability to
grow lots of food. The number of blue cars in your country doesn't
affect the health of your population. The number of blue cars doesn't
have a bearing on how many people can live in a given area. Factorys
don't rely on blue cars (very much) as a major input to most
industrial processes. It's not surprising that there's a correlation.
Clean water is a valuable (though often undervalued) ingredient to a
healthy economy.
Cheers,
Steve
> st3ph3nm wrote:
<snip>
> > If you want to maintain your strong economy, it makes sense, too.
> > There is a strong correlation between fresh water supplies and
> > strength of the economy, worldwide.
>
> This could be a chicken-egg thing too. If the country (its government
> and its people) are in survival model (or is totally corrupt - the two
> often go hand in hand), then chances are high that it's going have a bad
> economy as well as not properly take care of its water system (due to
> priorities being elsewhere) - one may have nothing to do with the other
> (economy and clean water) in such a country (either due to the
> priorities being different - only so much money to go around - or the
> gov't plain not watching out for the peoples' interests).
>
> One must be careful in assigning cause and effect. You might find that
> contries that have healthy economies and clean water have a much higher
> percentage of blue cars, whereas poor countries with crappy water have
> cars that are more earth tones. It would be a mistake to conclude that
> having blue cars makes for clean water or a good economy (but could in
> some way be a result).
I wasn't assigning cause and effect. Obviously, a healthy economic
system is more likely to be allocating resources to good water
supplies. Having said that, blue cars don't give you the ability to
grow lots of food. The number of blue cars in your country doesn't
affect the health of your population. The number of blue cars doesn't
have a bearing on how many people can live in a given area. Factorys
don't rely on blue cars (very much) as a major input to most
industrial processes. It's not surprising that there's a correlation.
Clean water is a valuable (though often undervalued) ingredient to a
healthy economy.
Cheers,
Steve