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.
In article <[email protected]>, Steve <[email protected]> wrote:
>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...
>
Sorry, there is no evidence of your claim. The only scientific study, by
Kellerman, shows just the opposite.
 
In article <[email protected]>,
"Gerald G. McGeorge" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> 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.

Sorry, there's a $2 million exemption. And even then, the 50% tax doesn't
come in until much higher levels.

>
>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.
>

Lie. Less than 1% of all estates are subject to that.

>
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Bill Funk <[email protected]> wrote:
>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?

Lowered the deficit, showed investors we were serious about getting our
deficit under control.

>Simply saying that an improved economy followed a tax increase proves
>nothing.
>How about it?
>
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Bill Funk <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 15:12:51 -0500, "C. E. White"
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>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
>
>I don't think there's any question that global warming is happening.
>But there are a lot of questions about that:
>
>*Why* is it happening? Truth is, we don't know. We can *model*
>scenarios that say we are at fault, but those models don't admit that
>it's happened in the past, without the possibility of us interfering
>at all.

Actually, they don't need to. Something can have more than one cause. For
example, your body temp. can rise due to many factors; just because factor A
caused it to rise yesterday doesn't mean factor B can't be the cause today.

>*How long* will it last? Again, we don't know.
>Will reducing the CO2 output from our manufacturing/transportation
>slow/reverse the warming? Again, we don't know. And, we have
>absolutely no idea of what would happen if we were to reverse it.
>Would we enter another ice age? We simply don't know.
>
>Models can be made to say anything the people making the models want
>to hear. That's reality.

The models now predict current conditions quite well; the test of a model.

>It's stupid to say that CO2 that we are putting out is the cause of
>global; warming, then push something like Kyoto, which merely shifts
>the location of the CO2 production. Yet, that's what the tree-huggers
>want.

Shifts location? Huh? It would require cuts.

>
>Maybe if we had more facts about what the problem is, we could come up
>with some workable answers.
>
Maybe if more people would read what the scientists say -- IPCC, EPA, NASA,
NOAA, National Academy of Sciences, American Geophysical Union, etc. -- they'd
know we already have "more facts." Reading right-wing web sites and thinking
that constitutes science would be laughable if it were not such a pathetic
commentary on the state of education today.
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Bill Funk <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Thu, 06 Nov 03 13:53:29 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker)
>wrote:
>
>>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.
>
>If so, and CO2 is the reason for our current warming trend, then what
>caused all the other warming trends?
>
If exercise caused your temp. to rise yesterday, does that mean a virus cannot
cause it to do so today?
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Bill Funk <[email protected]> wrote:
>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,

No proof.

>Clinton's tax increase hurt the economy.

Yeah, it performed so much better after W's tax cut than after Clinton's tax
increase, right?

>To say that the economy wasn't hurt by it defies reality.

To say that it was defies history.

>Think how good the economy would have been without the tax increase.

Yeah, like it was under Bush I and Bush II.

>
>Is this how you teach? Make false statements, then try to lie your way
>out of it?
Is this what you think constitutes proof? Asserting something?
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Matt Mead <[email protected]> wrote:
>This was a great response. One I have believed in for years. One
>that will never satisfy those that have an agenda that the "global
>warming" myth supports. Too bad too.
>\


Yeah, too bad we've got science on our side and you've got ignorance on yours.

>Matt
>99 V-10 Super Duty, Super Cab 4x4
>
>On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 15:12:51 -0500, "C. E. White"
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>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
>
 
In article <[email protected]>,
"Gerald G. McGeorge" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> FL law allowed for a candidate to ask for a recount in specific counties.<
>
>Common sense says people know total bull**** when they smell it!
>
>
>> 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.>
>
>Guess thais proves you're not very good at either history, logil or debate,
>Bozo!
>
>
>> >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! >>
>
>Again Lloyd avoids dealing with the obvious. Face it, the Democrats are
>fading into obscurity, they even lost TWO MORE Governorships this week, and
>will probably lose anpther next week.
>> >
>
>
Since 2001, 12 governorships have gone from republican to democrat, and 12 the
opposite.
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Bill Funk <[email protected]> wrote:
>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?

Do you have a reading comprehension problem?
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Bill Funk <[email protected]> wrote:
>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?

Doesn't being an American mean anything?

>>
>>
>>> 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.

No, but it's subjective what general welfare includes. To me and most
Americans, it includes education, transportation, environmental protection,
etc.

>But you knew that, and are just trying to obfuscate (for you, that
>means lie).
>
 
In article <[email protected]>,
"Daniel J. Stern" <[email protected]> wrote:
>On 6 Nov 2003, Dianelos Georgoudis wrote:
>
>> "David J. Allen" <[email protected]> wrote
>> > 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.
>
>> OK, but would you then agree that a government that tries to take away
>> women's right to choose is being fascist?
>
>Let's hold off on the spin and call a carrot a carrot, OK? Regardless of
>where you stand on the issue, the issue is *abortion*, not
>"awomansrighttochoose".
>
>> I am only trying to point out that in the real world governments do try
>> and do succeed in imposing laws according to the prevalent value system
>> and not only according to the welfare of the people, as they probably
>> should.
>
>That's because too many people childishly refuse to accept that absolutist
>or extreme positions on any side of any issue are seldom workable.

Tell that to the anarchists (oops, "libertarians"), or those who claim all
taxes are bad, or those who want no environmental protection, or those who
want to let poor kids starve.


> In
>other words, there are too many people who aren't content to live as they
>choose, and wish to impose their wishes on others. With such a mindset,
>compromise becomes impossible and society lurches from one extreme to the
>other and back again.
>
>
>> Income disparity is one of the worse signs about the health
>> of a society.
>
>"worse"??
>
>> Health is the single greatest good. People in almost all civilized
>> countries, including Canada, Europe, Australia, etc., enjoy universal
>> health care. Sure Americans living in the richest country of all can
>> afford it too.
>
>We can scarcely afford the crapmess we've got now. Study after study after
>study finds that Americans pay more for health care and get less for their
>dollar than citizens of virtually every other first-world country.

Exactly. So why does every other western nation spend less per capita yet
cover every person?

>
>> In a way I do agree with your sentiment. I hate it when people just
>> exclaim "this is my right". People should earn whatever they get -
>
>Suppose a particular group of people -- people over 6-foot-2 tall, for
>instance -- are systematically and pervasively discriminated against. They
>get fired for no reason other than being over 6-foot-2, they get rejected
>when applying to buy or rent housing because they're over 6-foot-2, they
>are blamed for crime and violence, they are the frequent target of street
>violence.
>
>How would you propose people over 6-foot-2 "earn" the right to be free of
>these sorts of tyrranies?
>
>> taxes but rather their offspring who get the dough). Why should
>> they not have to pay taxes for daddy's (or mommy's) fortune
>> they are about to get?
>
>Because the money's already been taxed, often several times. Estate taxes
>constitute double-dipping.

Gee, if you work for Wal-Mart, your employer pays tax on the money they make,
so you shouldn't have to pay taxes on the salary (double dipping). I've
already paid taxes on my salary, so I shouldn't have to pay sales tax when I
use it to buy something.

>
>DS
>
 
In article <[email protected]>,
"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>> >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.
>
>You forget that the government doesn't have the power to prohibit the right
>of people to bear arms.

Really? Tell that to the states and cities that have done so. Tell that to
the courts that have ruled they can do so.


> Just because bad things happen with guns doesn't
>mean the government has the power to prohibit them.
>
>
 
In article <[email protected]>,
"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> 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.
>
>First of all, it wasn't just on the wealthy.

First, it was.


> 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 government spends that money; it doesn't just tuck it in a mattress.


> 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%.

Care to compare the Clinton economy to that of Bush I or II?

>
>
 
In article <[email protected]>,
"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>
>"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.
>
>
It's just like a right-winger to have not read the constitution. Article I,
section 8, pal. Read the constitution!
 
In article <[email protected]>,
"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>
>"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

No, the recount was halted.


>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!
>
>
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Lloyd Parker <[email protected]> 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.

Man's hardly making a dent. (and man is not exactly separate from
nature anyway).

Now, you want to talk about pollution, at one time there were these
single-celled organisms that released as waste a corrosive gas which
eventually became up to 30% of the atmosphere. MAJOR die-offs then,
the stuff was deadly poison to nearly all the organisms alive at the
time. And perfectly natural, too. Man? Man's a piker. Pushed up
CO2 levels a little maybe, but not even anywhere near all-time highs.
And the stuff's nowhere near as toxic as the earlier gas.
--
Matthew T. Russotto [email protected]
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue." But extreme restriction of liberty in pursuit of
a modicum of security is a very expensive vice.
 
In article <[email protected]>, Steve <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>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.

That's one model. A better model is a single-nap cone, with the apex
at the bottom. Towards the wide end of the cone, individual rights.
Towards the narrow, less. The usual spectrum is a closed curve drawn
on the surface of this cone; your circle is a projection of it.

The curve is dropping quickly towards the apex.
--
Matthew T. Russotto [email protected]
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue." But extreme restriction of liberty in pursuit of
a modicum of security is a very expensive vice.
 
In article <[email protected]>,
"Gerald G. McGeorge" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> 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!
>
>
I see another fool who's never actually read the constitution. Article I,
section 8, not the preamble (not the spelling too).
 
In article <[email protected]>,
"Gerald G. McGeorge" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> > 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.
>
>>
>>
>
>
Care to compare Clinton's economy to either of the Bushs'?
 
In article <[email protected]>,
"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>
>"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.

1. You might learn something.
2. There's a lot of expertise that comes from having an advanced degree in
science, or from working with a group like IPCC or NOAA.

>
>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.

Well, you'd have to be well-versed in science before you can make that
judgment, wouldn't you?

>
>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.
>
>
I see. So you'd no more trust an MD to do brain surgery than an auto
mechanic?
 
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