Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#6391
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <93Nzb.3466$WT6.1114@twister.socal.rr.com>,
"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:bqniqk$e8j$8@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> In article <Xhqzb.2069$WT6.1828@twister.socal.rr.com>,
>> "David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>> >news:bql21b$c29$22@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> >> In article <Uaizb.2907$rE3.2726@twister.socal.rr.com>,
>> >> "David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> So are conservatives -- telling people what kind of --- to have,
>what
>> >> >genders
>> >> >> can marry, what a woman can do with her body, etc.
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >This one again? Ok, I'll repeat myself. Conservatives believe some
>> >rights
>> >> >are reserved to states and individuals to decide how they want to
>govern
>> >> >themselves. That includes the rights of states and communities,
>through
>> >> >their legislatures, to rule on sexual behaviors, abortion, and
>marriage.
>> >> >It's the Dems who want to nationalize these things and force all
>> >communities
>> >> >nationwide to accept their new age definitions of morality and
>religion.
>> >>
>> >> Why wouldn't the most intimate relationships between people be a right
>> >> reserved to the people themselves (9th amendment)? Surely if there are
>> >any
>> >> "inherent" or "God-given" rights, it would be those that have to do
>with
>> >> intimate relationships and behaviors. Aren't you arguing the 9th
>> >amendment is
>> >> meaningless, that any rights not enumerated are reserved just to the
>> >states?
>> >>
>> >
>> >Not at all. It's just not the business of the feds.
>>
>> Interpretting the US constitution is the business of the feds, and it's
>the US
>> constitution that reserves certain unenumerated rights to the people. Who
>> else but the courts can interpret that and say what those rights are?
>>
>>
>> > There's multiple
>> >jurisdiction below federal. State, county, city. The juridiction
>arguments
>> >among these entities for rights reserved to them is up to them
>individually.
>>
>> None of them has the jurisdiction to interpret the US constitution.
>>
>
>You're hopeless Lloyd. Rights reserved to the states and to the people can
>be decided upon by the states and the people. No interpretation of the US
>constitution is required for those to be decided upon.
Who decides if a right is reserved to the states or to the people? Since it's
in the US constitution, the federal courts must.
>
>> >
>> >The arguments for and against Sodomy laws and Adultery laws each have
>> merit.
>>
>> Sure, so did those against integration. To bigots.
>
>There you go again. You just can't accept pro/con argument based on
>principle.
>
I didn't realize there were pro arguments for discrimination and bigotry.
>>
>> >Government intrusion in personal matters is a matter of great concern to
>be
>> >sure. Yet, the effect of adultery on families, children, cost to society
>is
>> >huge.
>>
>> Are you saying you cannot commit adultery except by sodomy? And even if
>so,
>> why was sodomy between unmarried people illegal? In fact, most of the
>sodomy
>> laws were only enforced for gays (thus unmarried people).
>>
>
>No, sodomy was not part of my comment above. It was all about adultery.
Why, in a discussion about gays? They can't marry, so they can't commit
adultery.
>
>I don't know. I imagine local governments were anxious that their cities
>and towns not become a gathering place for gays.
And if they decided this about, say, Jews?
"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:bqniqk$e8j$8@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> In article <Xhqzb.2069$WT6.1828@twister.socal.rr.com>,
>> "David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>> >news:bql21b$c29$22@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> >> In article <Uaizb.2907$rE3.2726@twister.socal.rr.com>,
>> >> "David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> So are conservatives -- telling people what kind of --- to have,
>what
>> >> >genders
>> >> >> can marry, what a woman can do with her body, etc.
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >This one again? Ok, I'll repeat myself. Conservatives believe some
>> >rights
>> >> >are reserved to states and individuals to decide how they want to
>govern
>> >> >themselves. That includes the rights of states and communities,
>through
>> >> >their legislatures, to rule on sexual behaviors, abortion, and
>marriage.
>> >> >It's the Dems who want to nationalize these things and force all
>> >communities
>> >> >nationwide to accept their new age definitions of morality and
>religion.
>> >>
>> >> Why wouldn't the most intimate relationships between people be a right
>> >> reserved to the people themselves (9th amendment)? Surely if there are
>> >any
>> >> "inherent" or "God-given" rights, it would be those that have to do
>with
>> >> intimate relationships and behaviors. Aren't you arguing the 9th
>> >amendment is
>> >> meaningless, that any rights not enumerated are reserved just to the
>> >states?
>> >>
>> >
>> >Not at all. It's just not the business of the feds.
>>
>> Interpretting the US constitution is the business of the feds, and it's
>the US
>> constitution that reserves certain unenumerated rights to the people. Who
>> else but the courts can interpret that and say what those rights are?
>>
>>
>> > There's multiple
>> >jurisdiction below federal. State, county, city. The juridiction
>arguments
>> >among these entities for rights reserved to them is up to them
>individually.
>>
>> None of them has the jurisdiction to interpret the US constitution.
>>
>
>You're hopeless Lloyd. Rights reserved to the states and to the people can
>be decided upon by the states and the people. No interpretation of the US
>constitution is required for those to be decided upon.
Who decides if a right is reserved to the states or to the people? Since it's
in the US constitution, the federal courts must.
>
>> >
>> >The arguments for and against Sodomy laws and Adultery laws each have
>> merit.
>>
>> Sure, so did those against integration. To bigots.
>
>There you go again. You just can't accept pro/con argument based on
>principle.
>
I didn't realize there were pro arguments for discrimination and bigotry.
>>
>> >Government intrusion in personal matters is a matter of great concern to
>be
>> >sure. Yet, the effect of adultery on families, children, cost to society
>is
>> >huge.
>>
>> Are you saying you cannot commit adultery except by sodomy? And even if
>so,
>> why was sodomy between unmarried people illegal? In fact, most of the
>sodomy
>> laws were only enforced for gays (thus unmarried people).
>>
>
>No, sodomy was not part of my comment above. It was all about adultery.
Why, in a discussion about gays? They can't marry, so they can't commit
adultery.
>
>I don't know. I imagine local governments were anxious that their cities
>and towns not become a gathering place for gays.
And if they decided this about, say, Jews?
#6392
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycanbemisinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <sROzb.23583$o9.848@fed1read07>,
"Nick N" <nnote@despammed.com> wrote:
>Lloyd parker parker@learnlink.emory.edu started this mess. See
>http://tinyurl.com/xrz7 for a look at over 55 thousand messages. To this
>day, probably two months later, him and other people are keeping this way OT
>thread alive and clogging our newsgroups with THOUSANDS of messages. It is
>time to kill this or take it elsewhere!
>Lloyd has already being reported to his university and the other people who
>keep posting multiple times are also slowly being reported to their
>according abuse@ addresses. for example, abuse@mci abuse@umich abuse@rogers
>(you know who you are) and a few others. We at Jeep+****** newsgroup are
>fed up and fighting back. I would guess many people are going to start
>having isp problems unless they quit this abuse. On the other hand, I have
>no problem if they just start maybe a yahoo group or someplace they can
>argue tell their blue. Steve, I don't know what newsgroup you originate
>from but I appreciate your interest and support.
>Nick
>
Nick, I hit "reply" because it's so faster than going up and editing the
newsgroups field. Why don't you go back to the original message in this
thread and complain to (and about) the person who first posted it to your
newsgroup?
"Nick N" <nnote@despammed.com> wrote:
>Lloyd parker parker@learnlink.emory.edu started this mess. See
>http://tinyurl.com/xrz7 for a look at over 55 thousand messages. To this
>day, probably two months later, him and other people are keeping this way OT
>thread alive and clogging our newsgroups with THOUSANDS of messages. It is
>time to kill this or take it elsewhere!
>Lloyd has already being reported to his university and the other people who
>keep posting multiple times are also slowly being reported to their
>according abuse@ addresses. for example, abuse@mci abuse@umich abuse@rogers
>(you know who you are) and a few others. We at Jeep+****** newsgroup are
>fed up and fighting back. I would guess many people are going to start
>having isp problems unless they quit this abuse. On the other hand, I have
>no problem if they just start maybe a yahoo group or someplace they can
>argue tell their blue. Steve, I don't know what newsgroup you originate
>from but I appreciate your interest and support.
>Nick
>
Nick, I hit "reply" because it's so faster than going up and editing the
newsgroups field. Why don't you go back to the original message in this
thread and complain to (and about) the person who first posted it to your
newsgroup?
#6393
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycanbemisinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <sROzb.23583$o9.848@fed1read07>,
"Nick N" <nnote@despammed.com> wrote:
>Lloyd parker parker@learnlink.emory.edu started this mess. See
>http://tinyurl.com/xrz7 for a look at over 55 thousand messages. To this
>day, probably two months later, him and other people are keeping this way OT
>thread alive and clogging our newsgroups with THOUSANDS of messages. It is
>time to kill this or take it elsewhere!
>Lloyd has already being reported to his university and the other people who
>keep posting multiple times are also slowly being reported to their
>according abuse@ addresses. for example, abuse@mci abuse@umich abuse@rogers
>(you know who you are) and a few others. We at Jeep+****** newsgroup are
>fed up and fighting back. I would guess many people are going to start
>having isp problems unless they quit this abuse. On the other hand, I have
>no problem if they just start maybe a yahoo group or someplace they can
>argue tell their blue. Steve, I don't know what newsgroup you originate
>from but I appreciate your interest and support.
>Nick
>
Nick, I hit "reply" because it's so faster than going up and editing the
newsgroups field. Why don't you go back to the original message in this
thread and complain to (and about) the person who first posted it to your
newsgroup?
"Nick N" <nnote@despammed.com> wrote:
>Lloyd parker parker@learnlink.emory.edu started this mess. See
>http://tinyurl.com/xrz7 for a look at over 55 thousand messages. To this
>day, probably two months later, him and other people are keeping this way OT
>thread alive and clogging our newsgroups with THOUSANDS of messages. It is
>time to kill this or take it elsewhere!
>Lloyd has already being reported to his university and the other people who
>keep posting multiple times are also slowly being reported to their
>according abuse@ addresses. for example, abuse@mci abuse@umich abuse@rogers
>(you know who you are) and a few others. We at Jeep+****** newsgroup are
>fed up and fighting back. I would guess many people are going to start
>having isp problems unless they quit this abuse. On the other hand, I have
>no problem if they just start maybe a yahoo group or someplace they can
>argue tell their blue. Steve, I don't know what newsgroup you originate
>from but I appreciate your interest and support.
>Nick
>
Nick, I hit "reply" because it's so faster than going up and editing the
newsgroups field. Why don't you go back to the original message in this
thread and complain to (and about) the person who first posted it to your
newsgroup?
#6394
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycanbemisinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <sROzb.23583$o9.848@fed1read07>,
"Nick N" <nnote@despammed.com> wrote:
>Lloyd parker parker@learnlink.emory.edu started this mess. See
>http://tinyurl.com/xrz7 for a look at over 55 thousand messages. To this
>day, probably two months later, him and other people are keeping this way OT
>thread alive and clogging our newsgroups with THOUSANDS of messages. It is
>time to kill this or take it elsewhere!
>Lloyd has already being reported to his university and the other people who
>keep posting multiple times are also slowly being reported to their
>according abuse@ addresses. for example, abuse@mci abuse@umich abuse@rogers
>(you know who you are) and a few others. We at Jeep+****** newsgroup are
>fed up and fighting back. I would guess many people are going to start
>having isp problems unless they quit this abuse. On the other hand, I have
>no problem if they just start maybe a yahoo group or someplace they can
>argue tell their blue. Steve, I don't know what newsgroup you originate
>from but I appreciate your interest and support.
>Nick
>
Nick, I hit "reply" because it's so faster than going up and editing the
newsgroups field. Why don't you go back to the original message in this
thread and complain to (and about) the person who first posted it to your
newsgroup?
"Nick N" <nnote@despammed.com> wrote:
>Lloyd parker parker@learnlink.emory.edu started this mess. See
>http://tinyurl.com/xrz7 for a look at over 55 thousand messages. To this
>day, probably two months later, him and other people are keeping this way OT
>thread alive and clogging our newsgroups with THOUSANDS of messages. It is
>time to kill this or take it elsewhere!
>Lloyd has already being reported to his university and the other people who
>keep posting multiple times are also slowly being reported to their
>according abuse@ addresses. for example, abuse@mci abuse@umich abuse@rogers
>(you know who you are) and a few others. We at Jeep+****** newsgroup are
>fed up and fighting back. I would guess many people are going to start
>having isp problems unless they quit this abuse. On the other hand, I have
>no problem if they just start maybe a yahoo group or someplace they can
>argue tell their blue. Steve, I don't know what newsgroup you originate
>from but I appreciate your interest and support.
>Nick
>
Nick, I hit "reply" because it's so faster than going up and editing the
newsgroups field. Why don't you go back to the original message in this
thread and complain to (and about) the person who first posted it to your
newsgroup?
#6395
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety canbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <4rgvsvsr85ac6otf5vq7tgpvuper2gi50r@4ax.com>,
Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 04 Dec 03 10:19:48 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>wrote:
>
>>In article <fjsssvsjhm8pallc1vtbeep7bao9tn38hv@4ax.com>,
>> Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>>>On Wed, 03 Dec 03 10:56:52 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>>You're free to pay for their healthcare any time you want. But what
>>>>>idiot believes that they have the right to reach into my pocket and take
>>>>>what is mine (it's called stealing). So - really - who is preventing
>>>>>you and anyone who feels that way from paying for the treatment of these
>>>>>people? You have that right, as do I - but by freedom of will - not by
>>>>>confiscation.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>It's called living in a society. Society has the right to compel you to
pay
>>>>taxes, and it's the height of idiocy to call it stealing or theft. If you
>>>>don't want to live in a society, you can leave. Nobody's keeping you
here.
>>>
>>>That assumes that all taxes are for legimitate purposes.
>>>And that's hardly the case.
>>>
>>And you get to decide that? Sorry, that would be anarchy. In our society,
>>our elected government decides that.
>
>And you obviously think that makes them OK.
> You might not agree (that's your right), but I do in fact get to
>decide if taxes are all used for legimitate purposes. It's part living
>in a democratic republic.
>Do *YOU* think all taxes go for legimate purposes?
>
Hell no. Missile defense in space, for example. Haliburton contracts in
Iraq, for another. Do I get to decide which ones I don't pay taxes to
support?
Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 04 Dec 03 10:19:48 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>wrote:
>
>>In article <fjsssvsjhm8pallc1vtbeep7bao9tn38hv@4ax.com>,
>> Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>>>On Wed, 03 Dec 03 10:56:52 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>>You're free to pay for their healthcare any time you want. But what
>>>>>idiot believes that they have the right to reach into my pocket and take
>>>>>what is mine (it's called stealing). So - really - who is preventing
>>>>>you and anyone who feels that way from paying for the treatment of these
>>>>>people? You have that right, as do I - but by freedom of will - not by
>>>>>confiscation.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>It's called living in a society. Society has the right to compel you to
pay
>>>>taxes, and it's the height of idiocy to call it stealing or theft. If you
>>>>don't want to live in a society, you can leave. Nobody's keeping you
here.
>>>
>>>That assumes that all taxes are for legimitate purposes.
>>>And that's hardly the case.
>>>
>>And you get to decide that? Sorry, that would be anarchy. In our society,
>>our elected government decides that.
>
>And you obviously think that makes them OK.
> You might not agree (that's your right), but I do in fact get to
>decide if taxes are all used for legimitate purposes. It's part living
>in a democratic republic.
>Do *YOU* think all taxes go for legimate purposes?
>
Hell no. Missile defense in space, for example. Haliburton contracts in
Iraq, for another. Do I get to decide which ones I don't pay taxes to
support?
#6396
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety canbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <4rgvsvsr85ac6otf5vq7tgpvuper2gi50r@4ax.com>,
Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 04 Dec 03 10:19:48 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>wrote:
>
>>In article <fjsssvsjhm8pallc1vtbeep7bao9tn38hv@4ax.com>,
>> Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>>>On Wed, 03 Dec 03 10:56:52 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>>You're free to pay for their healthcare any time you want. But what
>>>>>idiot believes that they have the right to reach into my pocket and take
>>>>>what is mine (it's called stealing). So - really - who is preventing
>>>>>you and anyone who feels that way from paying for the treatment of these
>>>>>people? You have that right, as do I - but by freedom of will - not by
>>>>>confiscation.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>It's called living in a society. Society has the right to compel you to
pay
>>>>taxes, and it's the height of idiocy to call it stealing or theft. If you
>>>>don't want to live in a society, you can leave. Nobody's keeping you
here.
>>>
>>>That assumes that all taxes are for legimitate purposes.
>>>And that's hardly the case.
>>>
>>And you get to decide that? Sorry, that would be anarchy. In our society,
>>our elected government decides that.
>
>And you obviously think that makes them OK.
> You might not agree (that's your right), but I do in fact get to
>decide if taxes are all used for legimitate purposes. It's part living
>in a democratic republic.
>Do *YOU* think all taxes go for legimate purposes?
>
Hell no. Missile defense in space, for example. Haliburton contracts in
Iraq, for another. Do I get to decide which ones I don't pay taxes to
support?
Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 04 Dec 03 10:19:48 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>wrote:
>
>>In article <fjsssvsjhm8pallc1vtbeep7bao9tn38hv@4ax.com>,
>> Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>>>On Wed, 03 Dec 03 10:56:52 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>>You're free to pay for their healthcare any time you want. But what
>>>>>idiot believes that they have the right to reach into my pocket and take
>>>>>what is mine (it's called stealing). So - really - who is preventing
>>>>>you and anyone who feels that way from paying for the treatment of these
>>>>>people? You have that right, as do I - but by freedom of will - not by
>>>>>confiscation.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>It's called living in a society. Society has the right to compel you to
pay
>>>>taxes, and it's the height of idiocy to call it stealing or theft. If you
>>>>don't want to live in a society, you can leave. Nobody's keeping you
here.
>>>
>>>That assumes that all taxes are for legimitate purposes.
>>>And that's hardly the case.
>>>
>>And you get to decide that? Sorry, that would be anarchy. In our society,
>>our elected government decides that.
>
>And you obviously think that makes them OK.
> You might not agree (that's your right), but I do in fact get to
>decide if taxes are all used for legimitate purposes. It's part living
>in a democratic republic.
>Do *YOU* think all taxes go for legimate purposes?
>
Hell no. Missile defense in space, for example. Haliburton contracts in
Iraq, for another. Do I get to decide which ones I don't pay taxes to
support?
#6397
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety canbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <4rgvsvsr85ac6otf5vq7tgpvuper2gi50r@4ax.com>,
Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 04 Dec 03 10:19:48 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>wrote:
>
>>In article <fjsssvsjhm8pallc1vtbeep7bao9tn38hv@4ax.com>,
>> Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>>>On Wed, 03 Dec 03 10:56:52 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>>You're free to pay for their healthcare any time you want. But what
>>>>>idiot believes that they have the right to reach into my pocket and take
>>>>>what is mine (it's called stealing). So - really - who is preventing
>>>>>you and anyone who feels that way from paying for the treatment of these
>>>>>people? You have that right, as do I - but by freedom of will - not by
>>>>>confiscation.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>It's called living in a society. Society has the right to compel you to
pay
>>>>taxes, and it's the height of idiocy to call it stealing or theft. If you
>>>>don't want to live in a society, you can leave. Nobody's keeping you
here.
>>>
>>>That assumes that all taxes are for legimitate purposes.
>>>And that's hardly the case.
>>>
>>And you get to decide that? Sorry, that would be anarchy. In our society,
>>our elected government decides that.
>
>And you obviously think that makes them OK.
> You might not agree (that's your right), but I do in fact get to
>decide if taxes are all used for legimitate purposes. It's part living
>in a democratic republic.
>Do *YOU* think all taxes go for legimate purposes?
>
Hell no. Missile defense in space, for example. Haliburton contracts in
Iraq, for another. Do I get to decide which ones I don't pay taxes to
support?
Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 04 Dec 03 10:19:48 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>wrote:
>
>>In article <fjsssvsjhm8pallc1vtbeep7bao9tn38hv@4ax.com>,
>> Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>>>On Wed, 03 Dec 03 10:56:52 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>>You're free to pay for their healthcare any time you want. But what
>>>>>idiot believes that they have the right to reach into my pocket and take
>>>>>what is mine (it's called stealing). So - really - who is preventing
>>>>>you and anyone who feels that way from paying for the treatment of these
>>>>>people? You have that right, as do I - but by freedom of will - not by
>>>>>confiscation.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>It's called living in a society. Society has the right to compel you to
pay
>>>>taxes, and it's the height of idiocy to call it stealing or theft. If you
>>>>don't want to live in a society, you can leave. Nobody's keeping you
here.
>>>
>>>That assumes that all taxes are for legimitate purposes.
>>>And that's hardly the case.
>>>
>>And you get to decide that? Sorry, that would be anarchy. In our society,
>>our elected government decides that.
>
>And you obviously think that makes them OK.
> You might not agree (that's your right), but I do in fact get to
>decide if taxes are all used for legimitate purposes. It's part living
>in a democratic republic.
>Do *YOU* think all taxes go for legimate purposes?
>
Hell no. Missile defense in space, for example. Haliburton contracts in
Iraq, for another. Do I get to decide which ones I don't pay taxes to
support?
#6398
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <dbhvsvs6ful4cghb4b4hf0bnd6554s5kgv@4ax.com>,
Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 04 Dec 03 10:09:39 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>wrote:
>
>>What does that mean? There are plenty of innovations. Airbus now is
outdoing
>>Boeing in orders, for example. Why? Innovative ideas.
>
>Sure.
>Like Britain, France & Germany giving economic incentives (money) to
>their airlines to buy Airbus.
Not nowadays. WTO would slap that down.
>That's on top of the economic incentives those governments gave to
>Airbus (subsidies) to help Airbus products.
They gave startup subsidies, all of which Airbus paid back, as it was required
to.
>Boeing doesn't get such help. They have to sell their products on
>merit.
>
Yeah, sure. That's funny.
Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 04 Dec 03 10:09:39 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>wrote:
>
>>What does that mean? There are plenty of innovations. Airbus now is
outdoing
>>Boeing in orders, for example. Why? Innovative ideas.
>
>Sure.
>Like Britain, France & Germany giving economic incentives (money) to
>their airlines to buy Airbus.
Not nowadays. WTO would slap that down.
>That's on top of the economic incentives those governments gave to
>Airbus (subsidies) to help Airbus products.
They gave startup subsidies, all of which Airbus paid back, as it was required
to.
>Boeing doesn't get such help. They have to sell their products on
>merit.
>
Yeah, sure. That's funny.
#6399
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <dbhvsvs6ful4cghb4b4hf0bnd6554s5kgv@4ax.com>,
Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 04 Dec 03 10:09:39 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>wrote:
>
>>What does that mean? There are plenty of innovations. Airbus now is
outdoing
>>Boeing in orders, for example. Why? Innovative ideas.
>
>Sure.
>Like Britain, France & Germany giving economic incentives (money) to
>their airlines to buy Airbus.
Not nowadays. WTO would slap that down.
>That's on top of the economic incentives those governments gave to
>Airbus (subsidies) to help Airbus products.
They gave startup subsidies, all of which Airbus paid back, as it was required
to.
>Boeing doesn't get such help. They have to sell their products on
>merit.
>
Yeah, sure. That's funny.
Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 04 Dec 03 10:09:39 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>wrote:
>
>>What does that mean? There are plenty of innovations. Airbus now is
outdoing
>>Boeing in orders, for example. Why? Innovative ideas.
>
>Sure.
>Like Britain, France & Germany giving economic incentives (money) to
>their airlines to buy Airbus.
Not nowadays. WTO would slap that down.
>That's on top of the economic incentives those governments gave to
>Airbus (subsidies) to help Airbus products.
They gave startup subsidies, all of which Airbus paid back, as it was required
to.
>Boeing doesn't get such help. They have to sell their products on
>merit.
>
Yeah, sure. That's funny.
#6400
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <dbhvsvs6ful4cghb4b4hf0bnd6554s5kgv@4ax.com>,
Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 04 Dec 03 10:09:39 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>wrote:
>
>>What does that mean? There are plenty of innovations. Airbus now is
outdoing
>>Boeing in orders, for example. Why? Innovative ideas.
>
>Sure.
>Like Britain, France & Germany giving economic incentives (money) to
>their airlines to buy Airbus.
Not nowadays. WTO would slap that down.
>That's on top of the economic incentives those governments gave to
>Airbus (subsidies) to help Airbus products.
They gave startup subsidies, all of which Airbus paid back, as it was required
to.
>Boeing doesn't get such help. They have to sell their products on
>merit.
>
Yeah, sure. That's funny.
Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 04 Dec 03 10:09:39 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>wrote:
>
>>What does that mean? There are plenty of innovations. Airbus now is
outdoing
>>Boeing in orders, for example. Why? Innovative ideas.
>
>Sure.
>Like Britain, France & Germany giving economic incentives (money) to
>their airlines to buy Airbus.
Not nowadays. WTO would slap that down.
>That's on top of the economic incentives those governments gave to
>Airbus (subsidies) to help Airbus products.
They gave startup subsidies, all of which Airbus paid back, as it was required
to.
>Boeing doesn't get such help. They have to sell their products on
>merit.
>
Yeah, sure. That's funny.