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.
> Since 2001, 12 governorships have gone from republican to democrat, and 12
the opposite. <

And you just lost 2 more!


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

He had NO PLAN to lower the deficiet, he enacted a massive tax increase in
order to generate funds for more tax & spend bull****. His deal got
completely queered when Republicans took control of Congress (the ones who
do the actual spending) and refused to allow any more spending silliness.
The resulting surplus was a fluke.



 
> I've already paid taxes on my salary, so I shouldn't have to pay sales tax
when I use it to buy something. <

RIGHT! Hey, Lloyd is catching on!



 
Lloyd Parker wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>,
> "C. E. White" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >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.
>
> For half a million years, CO2 was around 280 ppm, without much variation. In
> the last 120 years, it's increased to 350 ppm.

Can you site a source that agrees with this. There is lot of conflicting
information available, but none of it shows the concentration as being stable. The
UN site is the closest, but it show fairly wide variation in concentrations on
cyclical basis (from a low of around 180 ppmv, to a high of over 300 ppmv - not
including the current period). See the following references (some of which may be
peer reviewed):

http://www.geocities.com/combusem/CO2HIST.GIF
http://www.urhome.umd.edu/newsdesk/culture/release.cfm?ArticleID=805
http://www.grida.no/climate/vital/02.htm
http://carto.eu.org/article2481.html

> >In fact, the long term trend was a reduction in the
> >concentration until about 10,000 years ago.
>
> Wrong.

Can you site some evidence? Just saying I an wrong does not make me wrong.

see http://www.geocities.com/combusem/CO2HIST.GIF.

> Your opinion on a scientific issue is as valid as mine on say, whether
> Chrysler should issue 30-year bonds or 20-year ones.

Actaully I think my opinion on global warming is just as valid as yours. How many
peer reviewed papers have you written on the subject? How much research have you
done on the subject? What qualifies you as an expert on global warming? You may
have a PhD in chemistry, but other than knowing the chemical properties of CO2, I
don't see where this gives you any special insight into global warming. It seems
to me that you picked your side of the global warming debate based on politics,
not science. I picked mine becasue of self interest. I am not interested in having
my life rearranged becasue a group of liberal chicken littles are claiming the sky
is falling.

Regards,

Ed White


 
On Fri, 07 Nov 03 09:26:47 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:

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

But the point is you don't. But either you know that and don't care
because it doesn't suit your agenda, or you just believe everything
you see in the mainstream press. (With an .edu e-mail, I'm guessing
it is the first.....) Personally, your opinion matters not to me.

Have a great day!

Matt
99 V-10 Super Duty, Super Cab 4x4
 


Lloyd Parker wrote:

> >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.

It requires significant cuts in the US, but not in the third world which is where
a lot of the CO2 producing activities will shift. So while the few American that
can still afford them will be driving around in Chinese built hybrid vehicles, the
Chinese will ramp up their economy and dump more CO2 into the atmosphere. The net
effect will be a wrecked US economy and global warming.

Ed

 
"The Ancient One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Marc" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> "The Ancient One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> >"Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> >news:[email protected]...
>> >> In article <[email protected]>,
>> >> "Douglas A. Shrader" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >"Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> >> >news:[email protected]...
>> >> >> In article <[email protected]>,
>> >> >> "The Ancient One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >> >> Sure, got to make sure. But the UN couldn't find them, and
>150,000
>> >US
>> >> >> >troops
>> >> >> >> haven't found them.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Bingo, The UN couldn't find them, although it is well documented
>that
>> >> >they
>> >> >> >existed.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Not in 2003.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >That is why they were still looking, that is why we are still
>> >> >> >looking. We haven't found Saddam yet either, but we know he exists
>as
>> >> >well.
>> >> >> >Or do you think that is also a lie?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Is he as big as the WMD?
>> >> >
>> >> >You do realize Saddam had twelve years in which to hide them. Where is
>> >Jimmy
>> >> >Hoffa?
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> We claimed direct evidence and knowledge that WMD were there in 2003.
>> >
>> >No, we asked for proof of where they were and if they had been destroyed,
>as
>> >per the UN Mandate. Saddam refused to provide said proof. You really are
>> >dumb aren't you.
>>
>> And we asserted that the only reason he wouldn't prove they didn't exist
>> was because he still had them. We were wrong.
>>
>
>Were we? Just because we have not yet found them does not mean he does not
>have them.
>
And if we tear apart the country and never find them, even after
exhaustively searching all possible locations, it is still possible that he
had them. It is impossible to prove that he did not have them. All we
have to go on is the certainty of our guesses. The same people that
indicated they were there also indicated locations. There was no evidence
at those locations that there are WMDs, nor indication that there were some
within the previous year that were moved to another site. The intelligence
that indicated that there were WMDs was flat out wrong on every verifiable
fact pertaining to WMDs, so why would we assume that they got one of the
unverifiable facts right?

Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
 


Lloyd Parker wrote:

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

Who is "we"? The liberal establishment?

Has "science" ever been wrong before? I seem to recall from a history of science
course that there were respected scientist in the 19th century who were predicting
that the Earth would run out of oxygen within a 100 years. Malthus claimed we run
out of food over a 100 years ago. Respected scientist believed disease was caused
by bad air. Scientist have in the past believed that the universe was filled with
a ether which connected everything together. I am sure you know of many cases
where the collective wisdom of the scientist of the ay proved to be wrong.

Ed

 
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:

>>>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.

You are basing your conclusion on an unproven premise. It was "fairly
obvious" that the earth was flat as well. That didn't make it true...

Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
 
"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:

>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).

If you take $1,000,000,000 out of the private sector and move it to the
public sector and create exactly the same number of jobs at exactly the
same pay as lost in the private sector, how does that affect the economy?

Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
 
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?
>Simply saying that an improved economy followed a tax increase proves
>nothing.
>How about it?

You obviously didn't read about the last few rebates. Some people actually
put them in the bank.

Assuming government spending is linked to government income, when you tax
people, you take the money out of their hands and into the hands of an
entity that does not save. The government expands to fill all possible
revenue. So, a tax cut will pull money out of the active economy, causing
a recession. Leaving taxes alone does nothing. Raising taxes will
decrease the money that someone can save, and passes it along to an entity
that will spend it. As the government continually tells us, spending is
good for the economy.

Any questions?

Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
 
So you are...but not in chemistry...

;-)
DAS
--
---
NB: To reply directly replace "nospam" with "schmetterling"
---
"Matthew Russotto" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:p[email protected]...
[.............]
>
> Naa, I just know more science than you. (OK, perhaps not chemistry,
> but I wouldn't bet on that if I were you). Heck, I'm even published.
..................


 


Lloyd Parker wrote:

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

The "Clinton econmy" did not magically begin the day Clinton took office and end
the day he left office. At least some of the good economic trends of the 90's
were the results of the economic policies of Bush I (which did include a big tax
increase) and some of the bad economic results of the early '00's were likewise
the results of the economic pollicies of Clinton.

Having said this - I personally think the Bush II tax cut was stupid and short
sighted, but that is just my opinion.

Ed

 
On Fri, 07 Nov 03 09:16:11 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:

>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.

The dot.com bubble did *FAR* more to reduce the deficit.
Don't you remember that?
The investors were all in the dot.com bubble, and don't give a damn
about the deficit.
>
>>Simply saying that an improved economy followed a tax increase proves
>>nothing.
>>How about it?
>>

--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
 
On Fri, 07 Nov 2003 07:47:32 -0900, Marc <[email protected]> wrote:

>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?
>>Simply saying that an improved economy followed a tax increase proves
>>nothing.
>>How about it?
>
>You obviously didn't read about the last few rebates. Some people actually
>put them in the bank.

Rebates?
We're discussing tax increases, not rebates.
>
>Assuming government spending is linked to government income, when you tax
>people, you take the money out of their hands and into the hands of an
>entity that does not save. The government expands to fill all possible
>revenue. So, a tax cut will pull money out of the active economy, causing
>a recession. Leaving taxes alone does nothing. Raising taxes will
>decrease the money that someone can save, and passes it along to an entity
>that will spend it. As the government continually tells us, spending is
>good for the economy.
>
>Any questions?

Oh, yes, it's clear now. :)
>
>Marc
>For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"

--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
 
On Fri, 07 Nov 03 09:17:22 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:

>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.

It's called REALITY, LLoyd. Try it sometime.

>
>>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?

You haven't got the foggiest idea of what happened to the economy,
have you?
Ever hear of the dot.com bubble?
>
>>To say that the economy wasn't hurt by it defies reality.
>
>To say that it was defies history.

No, it doesn't.
History does not say that the tax increase helped the economy, only
that the increase happened after the economy started to expand.
That does not even suggest a connection between the two.
>
>>Think how good the economy would have been without the tax increase.
>
>Yeah, like it was under Bush I and Bush II.

The economy started its expansion under Bush 1, and started its
collapse under Clinton.
>
>>
>>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?

You seem to think so.

--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
 
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