Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers

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

No, it was the Republicans who tried to stop an honest recounting of the
votes.


>The final results were accurate and valid.

Says who?

>
>"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?
>>
>
>
>

In article <[email protected]>,
"Gerald G. McGeorge" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Its actually 101% when you include the death taxes.>
>
>LOL!
>
>What Lloyd doesn;t want anyone to understand is that when your employer pays
>your Social Security taxes, in round numbers he pays around 13%, half paid
>by you and shown on your paycheck stub, the other half withheld from your
>TRUE SALARY/WAGES and paid by the employer.

Not so. My employer won't even give me the money they save by my not being
married and not needing their subsidy for health insurance for a spouse,
tuition for children, etc. You're deluding yourself if you think employers
would give employees the money they'd save if they didn't have to pay SS.


>In other words, the employer
>shows the additional 6.2% as part of your your true compensation on his
>books. Lloyd thinks it's a tax on the employer, but it's not, it's a tax on
>YOU.

Which your employer would keep as profit otherwise.


>That's why self-employed persons get the joyous honor of paying the
>WHOLE amount, with the second half called "self-employment tax" on the 1040,
>another piece of subterfuge your liberal tax & spend eleceted
>representatives concocted back in the '70's when they wrote this entire scam
>tax code.
>
>Lloyd and the other leftists think everyone's too stupid to figure this all
>out, but it's actually very easy to unravel it using a program like Turbo
>Tax....
>> --
>> Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum
>immane
>> mittam.
>>
>>
>
>

In article <[email protected]>,
"Joe" <[email protected]> wrote:
>"Explain how increased taxes improve the economy."
>It improves the economy by starting a recession (ex. the Clinton
>Recession)... see the logic I followed there??

Yes, those 8 years of gloom, doom, and recession. When the stock market goes
above 10,000, that's a sure sign of recession. When unemployment hits record
lows, gotta be in a recession!

>
>"Bill Funk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> 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?
>> Explain how increased taxes improve the economy.
>>
>> --
>> Bill Funk
>> replace "g" with "a"
>
>

In article <[email protected]>, Lloyd Parker wrote:

> 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.

CO2 content of the atmosphere been changing for millions years. Did you not
look at the data you keep harping on?

"Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 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

You've never learned. period. You lose every argument you start, but you
keep starting more. Do you like being laughed at Lloyd?

In article <[email protected]>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
> "The Ancient One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>"Brent P" <[email protected]> wrote in message

>>> But I have to admit, this is the product of experience.
<snip>
>>You've learned from experience, Lloyd never has. ;-)

> I've learned from science; you never have.

I've learned from science, and it's not science that you preach parker.
You spout political views and hide behind a PhD in chemistry as if
that makes your political views correct. You dismiss without discussion
any scientific data or analysis that challenges your beliefs. That is *NOT*
science.

Lloyd Parker wrote:

> 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.
>
>

More like a circle. Imagine a clock face- at noon you have communism.
Moving clockwise you have liberalism, down around 6:00 you have
conservatism. Moving toward 9 and then back to 12 you have increasing
levels of the police state until you finally get to fascism, which in
terms of the rights of the individual is no different than communism and
is right back there at 11:59 on the clock dial. One side of the circle
values the indiviual, the other empowers the goverment albeit in
different ways.

Lloyd Parker wrote:

ead 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.

No one denies that those things can happen, but not "for each" of the
previous examples. The documented TRUTH is that in states where
concealed handguns are legal, the number of those events does not even
come CLOSE to the number of times when a legally-carried gun stops a crime.

I suggest remedial reading...

Thus said Steve <[email protected]>:
>More like a circle. Imagine a clock face- at noon you have communism.
>Moving clockwise you have liberalism, down around 6:00 you have
>conservatism. Moving toward 9 and then back to 12 you have increasing
>levels of the police state until you finally get to fascism, which in
>terms of the rights of the individual is no different than communism and
>is right back there at 11:59 on the clock dial. One side of the circle
>values the indiviual, the other empowers the goverment albeit in
>different ways.

Without commenting on the aptness of it, traditionally in such a diagram
6:00 would represent libertarianism (or possibly anarchism.)
Conservatism (as the term is used today in the US, anyway) would be at
9:00.

Lloyd Parker wrote:

> 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.

You'll have to explain what you mean by "balance." The concentration of CO2 has
never been static. In fact, the long term trend was a reduction in the
concentration until about 10,000 years ago. CO2 is constantly being more or less
permanently removed from the atmosphere and tied up in corral reefs, limestone,
coal, oil, peat, etc., etc., etc. Recently mankind has released some of the
stored CO2. Maybe we are actually helping to restore the balance. At any rate the
era of fossil fuel will sooner or later come to an end. It may take another 200
years or 1000 years, but it will end. On the geologic time scale it will just be
a blip.

I don't doubt that an increase in the concentration of CO2 might cause a change
in the climate. However, climate change will occur whether there is or is not a
change in the CO2 concentration. The component of climate change attributable to
human activity may actually be beneficial. It might counter some "natural change"
(whatever that means) or reinforce the "natural change" or it may be trivial
compared to the "natural change." The manmade component might be a good thing, a
bad thing, or an insignificant thing. I object to what I perceive to be a
hijacking of the issue of global warming by groups who are trying to use it as an
excuse for promoting their other unrelated goals. I think the potential for harm
is deliberately overstated. I think the science supporting global warming is not
subject to the sort of scrutiny that it should be because it is a "popular
theory" with liberals. I think the new medias trumpets global warming because it
generates a lot interest. I think a lot of scientist promote global warming
because they can get money to study it.

If I am wrong and the worst case scenario happens, the sea level will rise 10
feet and millions of people will have to move. Fortunately, it won't rise over
night, so they can move. If you believe in global warming, I suggest you buy land
in Kansas now. If the global warming people are wrong and nothing dramatic
happens, millions of people will be spared the pain of having their lives
rearranged for no reason. If the global warming people are right, rearranging the
lives of millions of Americans to meet the terms of the Kyoto treaty won't have
any affect on the end results. We will just continue to move most of our CO2
generating industries to third world countries, and in the end, NYC will still be
underwater, and no one will care because everyone will be out of work anyhow.

To sum it up - even if global warming is true, I believe the cure is worse than
the disease. And furthermore, I think that even if it is true, the case is being
dramatically overstated.

Ed

> Humans put out more CO2 than nature by several orders of magnitude. <

A SCOOP for Lloyd!!!!!!

HUMANS AREN'T NATURAL!!!!!!!

On Thu, 06 Nov 03 14:06:30 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
> "Joe" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>"Explain how increased taxes improve the economy."
>>It improves the economy by starting a recession (ex. the Clinton
>>Recession)... see the logic I followed there??
>
>Yes, those 8 years of gloom, doom, and recession. When the stock market goes
>above 10,000, that's a sure sign of recession. When unemployment hits record
>lows, gotta be in a recession!

But you didn't answer the question:
How does a tax increase improve the economy?
Simply saying that an improved economy followed a tax increase proves
nothing.
How about it?

--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"

On Thu, 06 Nov 03 13:56:41 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:

>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.

No, Clinton's was higher.

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

It's fairly obvious that, since increased taxes hurt an economy,
Clinton's tax increase hurt the economy.
To say that the economy wasn't hurt by it defies reality.
Think how good the economy would have been without the tax increase.

Is this how you teach? Make false statements, then try to lie your way
out of it?
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"

On Thu, 06 Nov 03 14:05:06 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:

>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?

Maybe because the US Constitution says so?
>
>
>> 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.

"General Welfare" and "welfare" are not the same.
But you knew that, and are just trying to obfuscate (for you, that
means lie).

--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"

On Thu, 06 Nov 03 14:02:59 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
> "Gerald G. McGeorge" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Its actually 101% when you include the death taxes.>
>>
>>LOL!
>>
>>What Lloyd doesn;t want anyone to understand is that when your employer pays
>>your Social Security taxes, in round numbers he pays around 13%, half paid
>>by you and shown on your paycheck stub, the other half withheld from your
>>TRUE SALARY/WAGES and paid by the employer.
>
>Not so. My employer won't even give me the money they save by my not being
>married and not needing their subsidy for health insurance for a spouse,
>tuition for children, etc. You're deluding yourself if you think employers
>would give employees the money they'd save if they didn't have to pay SS.

This is typical for you, Lloyd.
You've changed the subject.

>
>
>>In other words, the employer
>>shows the additional 6.2% as part of your your true compensation on his
>>books. Lloyd thinks it's a tax on the employer, but it's not, it's a tax on
>>YOU.
>
>Which your employer would keep as profit otherwise.

Another subject change.
It's irrelevant what the employer *might* do if circumstances were
changed. Reality intrudes; this isn't a hypothetical situation, it's
reality.
Try to stick with reality, here, Lloyd.

--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"

On Thu, 06 Nov 03 14:00:50 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:

>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?

You changed the subject again.
Do you ramble like this in class?
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"

> Totally false. I suggest remedial reading for you. <

Sorry, Mr. Scientist, but volcanic and other geothermal activity are one of
the greatest contributors to climatic shifts. The eruption of Krakatoa
caused global COOLING on a massive scale, the total effect of which lasted
several years, indeed the first year was referred to in Europe as the "Year
Without Summer". More recently the eruption of Mt Pinatubo caused almost
instantaneous weather pattern changes and had an extreme effect on upper
atmosphere conditions globally.

Hey, you're supposed to be the scientist around here and you don't know this
stuff? Hey, REMEDIAL READING FOR YOU!!!!

> Not proven. <

Was proven and confirmed. The resulting squeal you jeard was Joan Claybrook
and her idiot friends at the Center for Auto Safety making up more lies.

> 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. <

Not true, the NAS had no role in either the original or sunbsequent
research. These people died because the cars lacked mass. Simple, end of
argument fact, Lloyd, they're DEAD because they got forced into death traps
by meddling, know-nothing Socialists.

On Thu, 06 Nov 03 13:50:57 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:

>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.

And *AGAIN*!
Your mind is pretty unravelled, isn't it? Loose ends all over the
place.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"

> Do you have any idea how few estates are subject to the estate tax? <

Well, Lloyd, I'm sure when you've amassed roughly $650k in combined net
worth (easy to do with either coast's real estate market) your heirs will be
more than happy to fork over 50% of it to the Socialists to spend on
patronage jobs for their leftist cronies.

MILLIONS of normal, everyday folks are worth this much and their heirs
either have to give it away in terms of $10k gifts, of sell the family
residence to pay the ****ing taxes.