Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers

D

David J. Allen

Guest

• Nov 6, 2003

• #1,101

"Gerald G. McGeorge" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> > 1976. and the required MPG level didn't reach critical levels until the
> mid 1980s. <
>
> Right, and to achieve this result mfrs had to "downsize" all their cars.
> However this put drivers at much elevated risk of death & serious injury,
> even the Clinton-era NHTSA reported findings that concluded the forced
> downsizing resulted in the unnecessary deaths of nearly 20,000 people.
They
> concluded the increases in milage achieved by weight reduction could have
> been easily achieved through powertrain management systems that by the
time
> of thewir report, 2000, were already in production. You cn stick the
entire
> fiasco on the backs of liberals like Hopward Metzenbaum of Ohio (who gave
> us the 55 mph speed limit... remember THAT fiasco?) and that @$$#01e Joan
> Claybrook.

I can't count how many trips I've taken back then going up the California
central valley or across the Nevada desert with 55mph signs posted all the
way. Of course, no one ever really drove 55 on those roads. I think the
only effect that law had was to raise the blood pressure and stress level of
millions of drivers, not to mention a permanent crick in your neck due to
checking the rear view mirror so often.

 

T

The Ancient One

Guest

• Nov 6, 2003

• #1,102

"Brent P" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:Avfqb.86555$9E1.433801@attbi_s52...
> In article <[email protected]>, The Ancient One wrote:
> >
> > "Gerald G. McGeorge" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >> > You forget, it's the source and location of the CO2 that matters in
the
> >> political arguement. Not that it simply takes from a carbon sink and
> >> releases CO2 to the atmosphere. A forest fire produces good CO2. An
> >> automobile in the USA produces bad CO2. A factory in China produces
good
> >> CO2. A factory in the USA produces bad CO2. A tractor on a farm in the
USA
> >> > produces bad CO2. A coal fired electric plant in china produces good
> > CO2.
> >> And on and on.
> >>
> >> BrentP nails the issue once again!
> >
> > He seems to have a knack for it, glad I'm not arguing against him.
>
> Thanks
>
> But I have to admit, this is the product of experience. First,
> Dr. Parker has been around the auto groups longer than I can
> remember so that's old hat. Secondly, I spent a trial by fire in
> politics er sci.environment where I learned the hard way how
> left-wingers masquading as environmentalists work. I had been
> naive and thought it was science group.


You've learned from experience, Lloyd never has. ;-)

 

L

Lon Stowell

Guest

• Nov 6, 2003

• #1,103

Approximately 11/5/03 22:54, David J. Allen uttered for posterity:

> "Gerald G. McGeorge" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> > 1976. and the required MPG level didn't reach critical levels until the
>> mid 1980s. <
>>
>> Right, and to achieve this result mfrs had to "downsize" all their cars.
>> However this put drivers at much elevated risk of death & serious injury,
>> even the Clinton-era NHTSA reported findings that concluded the forced
>> downsizing resulted in the unnecessary deaths of nearly 20,000 people.
> They
>> concluded the increases in milage achieved by weight reduction could have
>> been easily achieved through powertrain management systems that by the
> time
>> of thewir report, 2000, were already in production. You cn stick the
> entire
>> fiasco on the backs of liberals like Hopward Metzenbaum of Ohio (who gave
>> us the 55 mph speed limit... remember THAT fiasco?) and that @$$#01e Joan
>> Claybrook.
>
> I can't count how many trips I've taken back then going up the California
> central valley or across the Nevada desert with 55mph signs posted all the
> way. Of course, no one ever really drove 55 on those roads. I think the
> only effect that law had was to raise the blood pressure and stress level of
> millions of drivers, not to mention a permanent crick in your neck due to
> checking the rear view mirror so often.
>

According to NHTSA it also lead to a pronounced increase in single
vehicle accidents on rural highways. Presumed cause that of the
driver falling asleep due to the sheer boredom of toodling across
Nebraska, Nevada, etc. at a mind-numbingly slow 55 or similar mph.

I don't recall if Nevada actually went along with the 55 mph limit,
initially they and Montana "declined the honor". Montana finally
posted a 55 mph speed, but the fine was a trivial amount for wasting
a natural resource and was distinctly not a speeding ticket or
points on a drivers license. Think Nevada caved, but then did
extremely light enforcement.

--
My governor can kick your governor's ass

 

L

Lloyd Parker

Guest

• Nov 6, 2003

• #1,104

In article <[email protected]>,
"FDRanger92" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"C. E. White" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>>
>>
>> Joe wrote:
>>
>> > "Nature doesn't extinguish fires started by lightening "
>> > if this were true, there would be no vegitation on the planet. It would
>> > have burned off long before humans showed up.
>>
>> OK, you got me. I should have said something like "nature lets fires burn
>until
>> rain storms put them out and doesn't fight them just becasue they are in
>> national forests or near populated areas or becasue they dump lots of
>pollution
>> into the environment." But I bet you understood what I menat in the first
>> place....didn't you?
>>
>> Ed
>>
>
>What about all those greenhouse gasses that the fires have spewed into the
>air? Does that mean that the environmental groups that blocked any thinning
>of the forests are responsible for releasing all that CO2 and contributing
>to global warming. Its certainly put more CO2 into the air than my little
>truck ever will or has in the 11 years I've owned it.
>
>
CO2 put into the air by nature has been in balance for millions of years.
It's man changing this equilibrium that's the problem.

 

L

Lloyd Parker

Guest

• Nov 6, 2003

• #1,105

In article <[email protected]>,
"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> > Joe wrote:
>> >
>> > > "Nature doesn't extinguish fires started by lightening "
>> > > if this were true, there would be no vegitation on the planet. It
>would
>> > > have burned off long before humans showed up.
>> >
>> > OK, you got me. I should have said something like "nature lets fires
>burn
>> until
>> > rain storms put them out and doesn't fight them just becasue they are in
>> > national forests or near populated areas or becasue they dump lots of
>> pollution
>> > into the environment." But I bet you understood what I menat in the
>first
>> > place....didn't you?
>> >
>> > Ed
>> >
>>
>> What about all those greenhouse gasses that the fires have spewed into the
>> air? Does that mean that the environmental groups that blocked any
>thinning
>> of the forests are responsible for releasing all that CO2 and contributing
>> to global warming. Its certainly put more CO2 into the air than my little
>> truck ever will or has in the 11 years I've owned it.
>>
>>
>
>I was thinking the same thing when I went out to get the paper on Sunday
>morning and saw plumes of smoke the size of thunderheads all the way across
>the horizon. There aren't enough SUV's in the world.... NO!.... in history
>to put out the amount of greenhouse gases being released in one day! The
>whole SUV/Greenhouse gases thing is a canard.
>
>Ironically, one of the reasons SUV's are so popular is the supply of large
>cars with powerful engines were so restricted starting with the1973 CAFE
>regulations.
>
>
Humans put out more CO2 than nature by several orders of magnitude.

 

L

Lloyd Parker

Guest

• Nov 6, 2003

• #1,106

In article <[email protected]>,
"Gerald G. McGeorge" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> What about all those greenhouse gasses that the fires have spewed into the
>air? Does that mean that the environmental groups that blocked any thinning
>of the forests are responsible for releasing all that CO2 and contributing
>to global warming. Its certainly put more CO2 into the air than my little
>truck ever will or has in the 11 years I've owned it.>
>
>LOL!!!
>
>Frankly, one volcanic eruption releases more toxic gasses inthe atmosphere
>in an hour than all the man-created activities for the preceding three
>decades.
>
>
Totally false. I suggest remedial reading for you.

 

L

Lloyd Parker

Guest

• Nov 6, 2003

• #1,107

In article <[email protected]>,
"Gerald G. McGeorge" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> 1976. and the required MPG level didn't reach critical levels until the
>mid 1980s. <
>
>Right, and to achieve this result mfrs had to "downsize" all their cars.
>However this put drivers at much elevated risk of death & serious injury,
>even the Clinton-era NHTSA reported findings that concluded the forced
>downsizing resulted in the unnecessary deaths of nearly 20,000 people.

Not proven.


> They
>concluded the increases in milage achieved by weight reduction could have
>been easily achieved through powertrain management systems that by the time
>of thewir report, 2000, were already in production. You cn stick the entire
>fiasco on the backs of liberals like Hopward Metzenbaum of Ohio (who gave
>us the 55 mph speed limit... remember THAT fiasco?) and that @$$#01e Joan
>Claybrook.

And the NAS looked at it and said NHTSA's study was flawed -- they lumped
together cars of different weights, they lumped together model years with
different safety features, etc.

>
>>
>>
>
>

 

L

Lloyd Parker

Guest

• Nov 6, 2003

• #1,108

In article <[email protected]>,
"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> I doubt many agree with you and your fascist buddies either.
>> >
>> >Do you even know what a fascist is Lloyd?
>> >
>> >
>> Yes, but you right-wingers obviously do not know what a socialist is.
>
>Fascism and Socialism have one thing in common... they view government as
>able to give and take away rights according to their respective value
>systems. That puts both of them on the opposite side of conservatism

Cute, but zealots have claimed to be on the side of God throughout history.
The fact is, the political spectrum runs from communism and socialism on the
left, to fascism and Nazism on the right.


>where
>government is limited precisely because of it's belief in God given,
>individual, indivisible, inalienable rights that government as no
>jurisdiction over. Fascism and Socialism both reject that notion as
>government is the vehicle to compel their values on people.
>
>Democrats are in a constant dance on the edge of socialism. Their values
>include rejecting the unfairness of their being a large disparity between
>rich and poor, which isn't a bad value.... but their answer is to use
>government to compel "charity" or the "transfer of wealth" through taxes.
>The effort includes finding "rights" to justify this, like rights to
>employment, rights to minimum wages, rights of healthcare, rights to
>shelter, right to education, ad infinitum, which rights have to be "found"
>in the constitution via "activist", "progressive" judges.
>
>
And Republicans wanting to force Christian prayer in schools, displays of the
10 Commandments in public buildings, telling a woman what to do with her body,
telling people which kind of sex to have -- none of these are trying to compel
people to act a certain way?

 

L

Lloyd Parker

Guest

• Nov 6, 2003

• #1,109

In article <[email protected]>,
"FDRanger92" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> > >> >
>> > >> >
>> > >> I doubt many agree with you and your fascist buddies either.
>> > >
>> > >Do you even know what a fascist is Lloyd?
>> > >
>> > >
>> > Yes, but you right-wingers obviously do not know what a socialist is.
>>
>> Fascism and Socialism have one thing in common... they view government as
>> able to give and take away rights according to their respective value
>> systems. That puts both of them on the opposite side of conservatism
>where
>> government is limited precisely because of it's belief in God given,
>> individual, indivisible, inalienable rights that government as no
>> jurisdiction over. Fascism and Socialism both reject that notion as
>> government is the vehicle to compel their values on people.
>>
>> Democrats are in a constant dance on the edge of socialism. Their values
>> include rejecting the unfairness of their being a large disparity between
>> rich and poor, which isn't a bad value.... but their answer is to use
>> government to compel "charity" or the "transfer of wealth" through taxes.
>> The effort includes finding "rights" to justify this, like rights to
>> employment, rights to minimum wages, rights of healthcare, rights to
>> shelter, right to education, ad infinitum, which rights have to be "found"
>> in the constitution via "activist", "progressive" judges.
>>
>>
>
>Bravo! Couldn't have put that better myself. Read and try to open your mind
>just a bit Lloyd maybe you'll learn something.
>
>
I thought you dittoheads were taking a rest with your idol in rehab.

 

L

Lloyd Parker

Guest

• Nov 6, 2003

• #1,110

In article <[email protected]>,
"FDRanger92" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> "Gerald G. McGeorge" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> You're still clutching onto the old "popular vote" complaint Lloyd. We
>> >didn't have a popular vote. There wasn't a popular election, so there's
>no
>> >popular vote. Counting up the aggregate of individual state votes and
>> >calling it a "popular vote" doesn't make it so. We've had this argument
>> >before and you always ignore this pertinent fact. >
>> >
>> >Well, first, Llyod prefers indictrination to facts. ;-) If we add up the
>> >poopular vote Gore is ALLEGED to have won by around 500,000. I say
>alleged,
>> >because the 2000 Presidential vote total was never verified.
>>
>> Each state certified its election returns.
>>
>>
>> >Had we NOT had
>> >an Elctoral College, as of course we do, that 500,000 represented about
>1/2
>> >of 1 percent of the total vote, satistically insignificant and therefore
>it
>> >would have necessitated a National recount. Given the corrupt Democrat
>> >machines in the urban areas of the Country wher there political base is,
>> >it's doubtful those 500,000 votes would have survived.
>>
>> And there're no corrupt Republican machines? Hello, Texas? Florida?
>>
>
>Not as many as Democratic. The counties Gore tried to Cherry-pick in Florida
>were Democratic strongholds. Do you think that was an accident?
>
>
>> >
>> >Nontheless, with the exception of Clinton's re-election in '96 the
>Democrats
>> >have lost every major campaign since '94 and are now out of power and can
>> >mount no effective opposition other than obstruction.
>>
>>
>> Since there're been 2 "major campaigns" since 94, that makes both parties
>> batting .500.
>>
>> >Their recent hero,
>> >Clinton, was a pragmatist and closet conservative, anything so long as it
>> >got him power. So, other than the biggest tax increase in history, name
>ONE
>> >major liberal adgenda item he either championed or got signed into law.
>>
>> Family leave, environmental protection, workplace safety, kept abortion
>rights
>> from being taken away, Brady Bill, assault weapon ban...
>>
>>
>I can't fault FMLA, in itself its a good thing. Workplace safety sometimes
>goes to far the way the laws are written. Whether you like it or not Lloyd
>there is such a thing as over regulation. I think abortion is wrong, but its
>not for me or anyone else to legislate it, hence I don't think it should be
>an issue.
>The Brady Bill and assault weapons ban are a joke, if you actually got out
>of that ivory tower you're holed up in you might realize it. If it were up
>to you I could think of three people off the top of my head who might be
>dead at the moment if they didn't have a firearm handy.
>An Atlanta police officer's wife who killed her would be rapist.
>A man who shot a would be carjacker on the northside of Atlanta somewhere in
>a Wal-Fart parking lot.
>A wal-Fart employee in Florida somewhere IIRC who was being stabbed by some
>nutcase who was foiled by an old lady w/ a pistol.
>
>
>
And for each of those, there are family members shot in anger or accidentally,
suicides with a handy gun, children shooting children with a gun found in the
house, shooting of a neighbor the homeowner thought was a burglar, etc.

 

L

Lloyd Parker

Guest

• Nov 6, 2003

• #1,111

In article <[email protected]>,
Bill Funk <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Wed, 05 Nov 03 11:42:46 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker)
>wrote:
>
>>>We all remember that lying bastard Clinton ran in '92 on a
>>>middle class tax cut.
>>
>>And when Bush left the budget in much worse shape, to his credit, he took
>>steps to get it under control.
>
>Would that be by instituting the largest tax increase in our history?

Bush's was bigger, since it raised the payroll tax.

>Explain how increased taxes improve the economy.
>
Explain how Clinton's tax on the wealthy hurt the economy.

 

T

The Ancient One

Guest

• Nov 6, 2003

• #1,112

"Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
> >
> >> > Joe wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > "Nature doesn't extinguish fires started by lightening "
> >> > > if this were true, there would be no vegitation on the planet. It
> >would
> >> > > have burned off long before humans showed up.
> >> >
> >> > OK, you got me. I should have said something like "nature lets fires
> >burn
> >> until
> >> > rain storms put them out and doesn't fight them just becasue they are
in
> >> > national forests or near populated areas or becasue they dump lots of
> >> pollution
> >> > into the environment." But I bet you understood what I menat in the
> >first
> >> > place....didn't you?
> >> >
> >> > Ed
> >> >
> >>
> >> What about all those greenhouse gasses that the fires have spewed into
the
> >> air? Does that mean that the environmental groups that blocked any
> >thinning
> >> of the forests are responsible for releasing all that CO2 and
contributing
> >> to global warming. Its certainly put more CO2 into the air than my
little
> >> truck ever will or has in the 11 years I've owned it.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >I was thinking the same thing when I went out to get the paper on Sunday
> >morning and saw plumes of smoke the size of thunderheads all the way
across
> >the horizon. There aren't enough SUV's in the world.... NO!.... in
history
> >to put out the amount of greenhouse gases being released in one day! The
> >whole SUV/Greenhouse gases thing is a canard.
> >
> >Ironically, one of the reasons SUV's are so popular is the supply of
large
> >cars with powerful engines were so restricted starting with the1973 CAFE
> >regulations.
> >
> >
> Humans put out more CO2 than nature by several orders of magnitude.

Prove it.

 

T

The Ancient One

Guest

• Nov 6, 2003

• #1,113

"Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "FDRanger92" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >"C. E. White" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >>
> >>
> >> Joe wrote:
> >>
> >> > "Nature doesn't extinguish fires started by lightening "
> >> > if this were true, there would be no vegitation on the planet. It
would
> >> > have burned off long before humans showed up.
> >>
> >> OK, you got me. I should have said something like "nature lets fires
burn
> >until
> >> rain storms put them out and doesn't fight them just becasue they are
in
> >> national forests or near populated areas or becasue they dump lots of
> >pollution
> >> into the environment." But I bet you understood what I menat in the
first
> >> place....didn't you?
> >>
> >> Ed
> >>
> >
> >What about all those greenhouse gasses that the fires have spewed into
the
> >air? Does that mean that the environmental groups that blocked any
thinning
> >of the forests are responsible for releasing all that CO2 and
contributing
> >to global warming. Its certainly put more CO2 into the air than my little
> >truck ever will or has in the 11 years I've owned it.
> >
> >
> CO2 put into the air by nature has been in balance for millions of years.
> It's man changing this equilibrium that's the problem.

Totally false. I suggest you learn some science.

 

T

The Ancient One

Guest

• Nov 6, 2003

• #1,114

"Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "FDRanger92" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >"Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >> In article <[email protected]>,
> >> "Gerald G. McGeorge" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >> You're still clutching onto the old "popular vote" complaint Lloyd.
We
> >> >didn't have a popular vote. There wasn't a popular election, so
there's
> >no
> >> >popular vote. Counting up the aggregate of individual state votes and
> >> >calling it a "popular vote" doesn't make it so. We've had this
argument
> >> >before and you always ignore this pertinent fact. >
> >> >
> >> >Well, first, Llyod prefers indictrination to facts. ;-) If we add up
the
> >> >poopular vote Gore is ALLEGED to have won by around 500,000. I say
> >alleged,
> >> >because the 2000 Presidential vote total was never verified.
> >>
> >> Each state certified its election returns.
> >>
> >>
> >> >Had we NOT had
> >> >an Elctoral College, as of course we do, that 500,000 represented
about
> >1/2
> >> >of 1 percent of the total vote, satistically insignificant and
therefore
> >it
> >> >would have necessitated a National recount. Given the corrupt Democrat
> >> >machines in the urban areas of the Country wher there political base
is,
> >> >it's doubtful those 500,000 votes would have survived.
> >>
> >> And there're no corrupt Republican machines? Hello, Texas? Florida?
> >>
> >
> >Not as many as Democratic. The counties Gore tried to Cherry-pick in
Florida
> >were Democratic strongholds. Do you think that was an accident?
> >
> >
> >> >
> >> >Nontheless, with the exception of Clinton's re-election in '96 the
> >Democrats
> >> >have lost every major campaign since '94 and are now out of power and
can
> >> >mount no effective opposition other than obstruction.
> >>
> >>
> >> Since there're been 2 "major campaigns" since 94, that makes both
parties
> >> batting .500.
> >>
> >> >Their recent hero,
> >> >Clinton, was a pragmatist and closet conservative, anything so long as
it
> >> >got him power. So, other than the biggest tax increase in history,
name
> >ONE
> >> >major liberal adgenda item he either championed or got signed into
law.
> >>
> >> Family leave, environmental protection, workplace safety, kept abortion
> >rights
> >> from being taken away, Brady Bill, assault weapon ban...
> >>
> >>
> >I can't fault FMLA, in itself its a good thing. Workplace safety
sometimes
> >goes to far the way the laws are written. Whether you like it or not
Lloyd
> >there is such a thing as over regulation. I think abortion is wrong, but
its
> >not for me or anyone else to legislate it, hence I don't think it should
be
> >an issue.
> >The Brady Bill and assault weapons ban are a joke, if you actually got
out
> >of that ivory tower you're holed up in you might realize it. If it were
up
> >to you I could think of three people off the top of my head who might be
> >dead at the moment if they didn't have a firearm handy.
> >An Atlanta police officer's wife who killed her would be rapist.
> >A man who shot a would be carjacker on the northside of Atlanta somewhere
in
> >a Wal-Fart parking lot.
> >A wal-Fart employee in Florida somewhere IIRC who was being stabbed by
some
> >nutcase who was foiled by an old lady w/ a pistol.
> >
> >
> >
> And for each of those, there are family members shot in anger or
accidentally,
> suicides with a handy gun, children shooting children with a gun found in
the
> house, shooting of a neighbor the homeowner thought was a burglar, etc.

A complete lie. Better ditch those lying left wing sites and read some facts
Lloyd. In your words, Prove it.

 

L

Lloyd Parker

Guest

• Nov 6, 2003

• #1,115

In article <[email protected]>,
"The Ancient One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Brent P" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:Avfqb.86555$9E1.433801@attbi_s52...
>> In article <[email protected]>, The Ancient One wrote:
>> >
>> > "Gerald G. McGeorge" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> > news:[email protected]...
>> >> > You forget, it's the source and location of the CO2 that matters in
>the
>> >> political arguement. Not that it simply takes from a carbon sink and
>> >> releases CO2 to the atmosphere. A forest fire produces good CO2. An
>> >> automobile in the USA produces bad CO2. A factory in China produces
>good
>> >> CO2. A factory in the USA produces bad CO2. A tractor on a farm in the
>USA
>> >> > produces bad CO2. A coal fired electric plant in china produces good
>> > CO2.
>> >> And on and on.
>> >>
>> >> BrentP nails the issue once again!
>> >
>> > He seems to have a knack for it, glad I'm not arguing against him.
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> But I have to admit, this is the product of experience. First,
>> Dr. Parker has been around the auto groups longer than I can
>> remember so that's old hat. Secondly, I spent a trial by fire in
>> politics er sci.environment where I learned the hard way how
>> left-wingers masquading as environmentalists work. I had been
>> naive and thought it was science group.
>
>
>You've learned from experience, Lloyd never has. ;-)
>
>
I've learned from science; you never have.

 

L

Lloyd Parker

Guest

• Nov 6, 2003

• #1,116

In article <P3gqb.313110$9l5.188454@pd7tw2no>,
"Kingbarry2000" <[email protected]> wrote:
>"Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> "C. E. White" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >Jonesy wrote:
>> >
>> >> "Gerald G. McGeorge" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:<[email protected]>...
>> >> > Or, an idealist who gets his first pay check and realizes he's just
>spent
>> >> > 50% of his time working for the Government.
>> >>
>> >> Yet another right-wing lie.
>> >>
>> >> No beginning worker spends even half that amount to The Government.
>> >
>> >In defense of Gerald, it dpends on your loaction and the starting pay.
>I'd
>> guess some engineers in high
>> >tax staes could be approaching 50% when you include Social Security (both
>> sides, not just "your half") and
>>
>> Then let's include the employer's property taxes and utility bills.
>>
>> >state and city taxes. And if you include all the taxes you pay, both
>direct
>> annd indirect, I'd guess a lot
>> >of people pay more than 50% of their income to various governments.
>>
>> Gee, if you right-wingers include everything anybody pays as YOUR taxes, I
>bet
>> you could get up over 100%!
>>
>> >
>> >Ed
>> >
>
>Its actually 101% when you include the death taxes.
>
Do you have any idea how few estates are subject to the estate tax?

 

L

Lloyd Parker

Guest

• Nov 6, 2003

• #1,117

In article <[email protected]>,
"Joe" <[email protected]> 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?


> 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.

>
>"Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> "Joe" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >"Most people view paying taxes in return for government sources as
>something
>> >necessary"
>> >Most people don't mind paying for infrastructure and defense... It's all
>the
>> >"social programs" and pork that I HATE...
>>
>> OK, ask the middle class if they want college grants and scholarships cut.
>If
>> they want their parents' Medicare and Medicaid benefits cut. If they want
>> workplace safety not enforced. If they want no meat inspections. If they
>> want to eliminate prisons, or aid to local schools, or law enforcement.
>>
>> >
>> >"Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> >news:[email protected]...
>> >> In article <[email protected]>,
>> >> "Gerald G. McGeorge" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >snip
>> >> Most people view paying taxes in return for government sources as
>> >something
>> >> necessary. That's why they live in a society and not an anarchy.
>> >
>> >
>
>

 

L

Lloyd Parker

Guest

• Nov 6, 2003

• #1,118

In article <[email protected]>,
"Douglas A. Shrader" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Joe" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> "And there're no corrupt Republican machines? Hello, Texas? Florida?"
>> Wasn't it the corrupt democrats that tried to illegally alter the results
>of
>> Florida? The final results were accurate and valid.
>
>And what the Dems never acknowledge is the fact that Floridas votes were
>recounted again after Bush was declared the winner, every vote was counted,
>no matter how poorly marked, and it gave Bush more votes than the final
>official count had given him.

Wrong. As the media reported, depending on how the votes were counted
(strictly, loosely), Bush would win some recounts and Gore would win some.

>
>
>>
>> "Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>> > In article <[email protected]>,
>> > "Gerald G. McGeorge" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> <snip>
>> > And there're no corrupt Republican machines? Hello, Texas? Florida?
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>
>

 

L

Lloyd Parker

Guest

• Nov 6, 2003

• #1,119

In article <[email protected]>,
"Gerald G. McGeorge" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Wasn't it the corrupt democrats that tried to illegally alter the results
>of Florida? The final results were accurate and valid.>
>
>Actually it looks like the ORIGINAL results were accurate & valid!
>
>The Democrats proved their disegenuousness when they only wanted to recout
>three heavily Democratic counties.

FL law allowed for a candidate to ask for a recount in specific counties.


>Worse, with a perfectly straight face
>they had Bill Daley act as their spokesperson! For those too young to
>remember, Daley is the son of the late Richard J. Daley, mayor of Chicago in
>the 50's & 60's. Daley stole the 1960 election for Kennedy, which had a much
>closer National vote count than 2000, only 100,000 difference. Daley's
>Democratic machine created massive voter fraud, people voted twice, dead
>people voted, Hell, dead people's DOGS voted. Hence the old Chicago saying
>"vote early, vote often!"

The US constitution provides that a person's transgressions do not extend to
their children. Guess that puts you on the wrong side of the constitution.

>
>No, old Al Gore screwed himself and the entire Democrat party by what he
>did, and the public hasn't forgotten. By the way, Texas has only recently
>become a Republican state. The Democrats have controlled politics there
>since the 1870's, and their latest trick to keep from accepting reality was
>to LEAVE THE STATE! Some representation!
>
>

 

L

Lloyd Parker

Guest

• Nov 6, 2003

• #1,120

In article <[email protected]>,
"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>Thanks! Of course these are old arguments. Lloyd's arguments look like
>cut/paste jobs from previous posts he's made. He always says the same thing
>over and over. And he always degenerates to name calling....
>"right-winger", "fascist", "hate-monger", etc.

Only when your side starts with the "socialist" or "communist" name calling.


>or self-agrandizement being
>that he's such an intelligent guy....Phd and all.... "What are YOUR
>credentials?" or "Take a science class!".

If you're going to challenge established science, you need some expertise.


>What's good about that is it's a
>chance for those of us on the other side of the idealogical divide to home
>in on a fixed target.
>
>Nonetheless, I believe he really enjoys it. He's been doing this for years
>and he always gets beat-up and then comes back for more!
>
>"Gerald G. McGeorge" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> Great post, David.
>>
>> > Fascism and Socialism have one thing in common... they view government
>as
>> > able to give and take away rights according to their respective value
>> > systems. That puts both of them on the opposite side of conservatism
>> where
>> > government is limited precisely because of it's belief in God given,
>> > individual, indivisible, inalienable rights that government as no
>> > jurisdiction over. Fascism and Socialism both reject that notion as
>> > government is the vehicle to compel their values on people.
>> >
>> > Democrats are in a constant dance on the edge of socialism. Their
>values
>> > include rejecting the unfairness of their being a large disparity
>between
>> > rich and poor, which isn't a bad value.... but their answer is to use
>> > government to compel "charity" or the "transfer of wealth" through
>taxes.
>> > The effort includes finding "rights" to justify this, like rights to
>> > employment, rights to minimum wages, rights of healthcare, rights to
>> > shelter, right to education, ad infinitum, which rights have to be
>"found"
>> > in the constitution via "activist", "progressive" judges.
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>