Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers

  • Thread starter Dianelos Georgoudis
  • Start date
This site contains affiliate links for which LandyZone may be compensated if you make a purchase.

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

Then you're in the minority. In most businesses, people pay more out of
their paycheck to cover a family than if they were single.

You can count on the fact that it costs a business a bottom line amount to
employ you. That amount includes salary, benefits and "their half" of the
SS tax among other things. That total amount has to bear up to market
pressures. If that tax were to go away, you can bet that salaries of jobs
in demand would go up by close to that amount. Jobs not in demand, probably
wouldn't see a comensurate increase in pay.









> >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.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >


 

"Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 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.
>
There was nothing honest about it. It was all tilted to find Gore votes and
not find Bush votes. What's honest about that?

You ever notice in a basketball game, when the ball goes out of bounds and
it isn't clear who touched it last that all the players point in their teams
direction? Is that honesty?

>
> >The final results were accurate and valid.
>
> Says who?
>


 

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

The feds don't have jurisdiction over all rights. The 14th amendment
muddled that concept up a bit, but it's still a fact that many rights are
reserved to the people and the states. The feds don't have all power.


>
> > 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.
>

It's just like a liberal to look to the preamble to find a "right". That's
what the Florida Supreme Court did to undo state election law. If you're to
interpret "provide for the general welfare" in the preample, which is a
statement of purpose, you can't conclude that citizens have a right of
"general welfare" they can lay claim to. The articles that follow the
preamble and lay out the function of government ARE the interpretation of
general welfare.


 

"Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 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.
>
> >
No, there was ONE way of counting where Gore came out ahead. But it is all
academic because it wasn't how the state law says to count ballots. (Not
that THAT would have stopped the Dems). Gore lost every recount and only
had the HOPE of finding a way to recount where he would come out ahead.
This is what the USSC stopped. It's amazing to hear you say that's how Bush
"stole" the election!


 

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

Thank heaven for a Republican congress and for the fact that Clinton was
less devoted to liberalism (tax & spend) than he was to staying in power.
Of course we can't forget that that much of that booming economy was built
on unsound economic principles, like speculation and overstated earnings.
What did he call it? Irrational exhuberance!

> >
> >"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"
> >
> >


 

"Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 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.
>
Ok. I'll hold you to that.


>
> >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.
>

Face it Lloyd. There is no expertise that comes from taking a "science
course", whatever that is. The only course I've seen called "science" is at
my daughters middle school. Heck, I took 5 quarters of physics... not just
physics, but Berkely Physics... in college and that certainly didn't make me
an expert in physics.

In many areas, there is no level of expertise that gets to the real answers,
i.e, there's more we don't know that we do know; there's no "established
science" yet; or it's wrong. Just because one can wave a degree in
"science" around doesn't give you a level of expertise required to know the
answers to questions like global warming or economics or whatever.

For you to generalize your expertise because you have a phd is like
presuming there's money in your account because you have checks. The Phd's
I've worked with are usually people who have expertise in narrow, focused
areas. For them to claim expertise in any other area is like writing a
check on an account with insufficient funds.


 
> >>>
> >>>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.
>
Very nice!


 
> Communism, Fascism, Nazism and to a lesser degree Socialism all have one
thing in common: Government control of
the means of production and power to control the distribution of wealth
where it sees fit. This is in conflict with the distinctly American value of
limited government and free enterprise. <

It is thus NOT a surprise that those who want to disarm the citizenry are
also the ones most adamant about the right of government to confiscate
wealth and property. (I'm not a gun owner...but maybe I should be!)



 

> > Llotd: Explain how Clinton's tax on the wealthy hurt the economy. >

> First of all, it wasn't just on the wealthy. Second, money taken out of
the private sector will equal a certain number of lost jobs regardless of
where the money comes from (rich or poor). The "drag" the Clinton tax
increase put on the economy wasn't enought to stop the dot com speculation,
which was
wild beyond caring about the diffence between 33% and 39%. <

Good for you! Clinton lucked out, the internet boom and tech speculation of
the mid-90's fueled the entire "Clinton recovery" and simply brushed aside
the Democrats' egregious middle class tax increases. Then the inevetable
happened, the bubble burst and the weight of the tax increases weight
collapsed the economy in on itself.

>
>


 
> There was nothing honest about it. It was all tilted to find Gore votes
and not find Bush votes. What's honest about that? <

Lloyd is like all the other liberal Socialists, they're convinced the
citizens are idiots who wouldn't notice what you just pointed out. We're to
believe the old bastards in Palm Beach county, who can manage a
multi-million dollar portfolio, handicap a horse race and manage 4 bingo
cards at a time couldn't figure out a simple ballot, or were too weak or
stupid to punch through a card. What, like these same people hadn't used the
same voting machines for years? What a crock!


 
> Because he chose to live in Mississippi. If New York wishes to be a
socialist state, that's fine as long as I don't have to live in a socialist
state. It's called choice, or the 'freedom to choose' or 'pro choice'. <

Well, see , there you have a problem with Socialists like Lloyd, he doesn't
believe you should have a choice where to live, or any rights to the product
of your labor. Lloyd & his people know far better than you what's right for
the Country and they need your money for their pet causes. Besides, you live
too well anyway, people in Cameroon are starving....


 
> Then you're in the minority. In most businesses, people pay more out of
their paycheck to cover a family than if they were single. >

But that doesn;t justify unfairly taxing singles. Marrieds use grossly more
resources and government services than do singles, and singles get virtually
nothing in exchange for paying double the taxes of marrieds.

Being married and having children is a matter of choice. That decision
should not be subsidised by the government at the expense of singles, the
most discriminated against minority after white males over 45.


 
> It's just like a liberal to look to the preamble to find a "right".
That's what the Florida Supreme Court did to undo state election law. If
you're to interpret "provide for the general welfare" in the preample, which
is a statement of purpose, you can't conclude that citizens have a right of
"general welfare" they can lay claim to. The articles that follow the
preamble and lay out the function of government ARE the interpretation of
general welfare.>

Oh, oh, Lloyd, it appears someone actually understands Constitutional law
here, better go get one of your Socialist lawyer buddies to help you provide
obfuscation on this one!


 
> No, there was ONE way of counting where Gore came out ahead. But it is
all academic because it wasn't how the state law says to count ballots.
(Not that THAT would have stopped the Dems). Gore lost every recount and
only had the HOPE of finding a way to recount where he would come out ahead.
This is what the USSC stopped. It's amazing to hear you say that's how Bush
"stole" the election!>

Now, David, there you go again, trying to bring reality rather than Democrat
fable into this entire matter. Now, Everyone knows Gore won, but those awful
Bush brothers and the Republicans conspired to steal the election by not
allowing the Democrats to only count the votes they wanted counted, and that
AWFUL, Kathryn Harris had the audacity to interpret Florida election law the
way it was written. Maybe Howard Dean can fix all this after he wins the
Presidency....


 
> Thank heaven for a Republican congress and for the fact that Clinton was
less devoted to liberalism (tax & spend) than he was to staying in power. Of
course we can't forget that that much of that booming economy was built on
unsound economic principles, like speculation and overstated earnings. What
did he call it? Irrational exhuberance! <

Actually it was Greenspan that called it "irrational exuberance", for which
the Clintonites roundly condemned him...

We can also note that the Enron, Tyco, Worldcom & Global Crossing scams ALL
occured during the Clinton Presidency.....Oh, how Lloyd hopes we'll all
blame it on Bush....

>
> > >
> > >"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"
> > >
> > >
>
>


 


Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
> Do you have any idea how few estates are subject to the estate tax?

If you keep going down that train of thought, Lloyd, you'll
inadvertently prove one area in which the rich get gouged on taxes that
100% of the people in the upper middle class and below pay absolutely
nothing - and as someone else pointed out, on property/wealth that taxes
have already been paid on at least once. But so nice to see that you're
being "fair and balanced" on that issue (although unintentionally I'm
sure).

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! =-----
 


Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
> Wrong. As the media reported, depending on how the votes were counted
> (strictly, loosely), Bush would win some recounts...

something like 16 out of 17

> ...and Gore would win some

something like 1 out of 17. But of course that *1* method would be the
only "correct" one.

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! =-----
 

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

Read what I wrote LP, they counted EVERY vote, not just the proper ones,
EVERY vote, and Bush won by a larger margin than the official vote gave him.
You are wrong once again, which is at least normal for you.
And I saw the ballots in question, they were very simple to use, I've voted
with them myself before, and Chicago used the same ballot in the same
election without a problem.

>
> >
> >
> >>
> >> "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?
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >


 

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

No one minded Gore asking for a recount, he had that right. He did not have
the right to insist on recount after recount until he could find one that
favored him.
Had he bowed out gracefully after the first recount he would have had an
excellent chance of beating Bush in 2004, way he went on though he destroyed
any chance he ever had at winning the Presidency. Sort of like the way you
would do better in debates if you quit after the first reply instead of
digging yourself in deeper with every lie you post.

>
>
> >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.

Constitution does not always affect public perception. If you wish to be
seen as honest you find someone publicly recognized as honest.


>
> >
> >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!
> >
> >


 

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

No, they granted the honest recounting, it was only after the Democrates
tried to steal the election that the Republicans asked the SCOTUS for a
ruling.

>
> >The final results were accurate and valid.
>
> Says who?

The Supreme Court of the United States of America, and every intelligent
human being on Earth, which rules you out.
I suggest you take a class, any class. You need to learn something to take
the place of that rattle in your empty head.

>
> >
> >"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?
> >>
> >
> >
> >


 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

S
Defenders Vs Insurers tomfoolery
Replies
1
Views
4K
lightning
lightning
300bhp/ton
Driven: New Defender - On & Off Road. Is it a Pretender?
2
Replies
30
Views
6K
lightning
lightning
P
Range Rover P38 EKA and BeCM Lockout
Replies
6
Views
5K
Doolinjames
D
natas
Hurricane Dorian survivor.
Replies
8
Views
2K
ProjectX
ProjectX
Alibro
How to recondition a VCU yourself.
15 16 17
Replies
325
Views
47K
Alibro
Alibro
Back
Top