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.
On Mon, 10 Nov 03 13:06:50 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:

>>If CO2 is really a problem, then it should be considered on a per
>>product manufactured, per unit of fuel consumed, etc basis. Not a
>>which-country-emits-it basis.
>
>Exactly. You should look at the CO2 per person, not per country. Agreed?

Your logic is amazingly lacking. There is no correlation between
production and population.
 


Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Bill Putney <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >Erik Aronesty wrote:
> >>
> >> ...I would contend that offending Al Sharpton and raising a brouhaha in
> >> the media is NOT a bad thing for Dean. I would contend that this is
> >> precisely the sort of incident that will make him more popular with
> >> people like you and I. Although less popular wih a minority of angry
> >> idiots that won't matter in the long run.
> >
> >The likelihood of my voting for Dean or any of the other existing
> >Democratic contenders (including Hillary if she decides to be the hero
> >to save the party from it's current demise) with or without this latest
> >debacle is less than 0.1%.
>
> But if Pat Buchanan were to run? If someone reincarnated George Wallace?
> Gee, I bet you'd jump at the chance to vote for them!

And, as usual, you'd be 180% wrong. Besides - I don't believe in
reincarnation. 8^)

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! =-----
 


"David J. Allen" wrote:
>
> I've always thought this accusation against the US, that it, being a
> minority of the worlds population but uses a majority of the resources and
> produces a majority of the waste, was meant to pander to envy of and anger
> against the US.
>
> It requires one to believe that there is a fixed amount of wealth and
> limited resources that must go around fairly to everyone, and that the US
> wants an unfair share of it. This is completely false. The fact is that
> wealth is created by private and free enterprise and the US has always been
> (hopefully will continue to be) about free enterprise. It isn't a measure
> of greed or waste, but of entrepreneurialism and achievement.
>
> Ironically, it's the US that has led the way in cleaning up industry
> emissions and auto emissions. The tax the US places on it's own economy in
> striving for clean air and clean water is enormous. Finding newer
> technologies to reduce or illiminate pollution is great, but there's
> currently nothing that can replace oil as a source of energy without killing
> the world economy.
>
> And like it or not, it's the power of the US economy that has protected the
> world from despotism... from the Nazis and from the Communists. And now
> from Islamic extremists. They are more dangerous than Nazis or Communists
> because they understand that destroying the US economy is what will give
> them the ability to push back and defeat the "infidel" west and impose an
> Islamic empire. If you're looking for greed, look there.

Hear, hear! Or is it "here, here!"? In either case, right on, dude!

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! =-----
 


"C. E. White" wrote:
>
> Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
> > Wrong. The last 120 years have shown warming, and the hottest years on
> > record have all occurred in the last decade.
>
> There are a lot of problems with this claim. By biggest concern is the source of
> the data. A lot of the old data is being inferred from unreliable sources. The
> newer data is better, but it is not always corrected for changes in the micro
> environment around the reporting station.
>
> Even if the measurements are correct, the current global average temperature is
> not particularly high by historic standards. For instance, the current global
> average temperature is lower than during the period around 1200 AD.
>
> > Try reading peer-reviewed scientific journals then.
>
> The problem I see with your constantly making this argument is that "peer reviewed
> journals" select the articles they publish. If they don't agree with the author's
> idea, they don't publish the article, and the author can't claim the article was
> published in a peer reviewed journal. Since the people who control these journals
> are usually part of the liberal establishment, they are not predisposed to
> publishing articles that don't fall in line with their current biases. I suspect
> that if you were on the board picking articles to be published, you would
> immediately dismiss any article that challenged the global warming theory. In the
> end the articles published are chosen through a political process. Not everything
> can be published, so articles that don't agree with the biases of the people doing
> the choosing are left out. This is a viscous circle, dissenters from the popular
> liberal view are shut out, so the peer reviewed "evidence" piles up in favor of
> the "commonly accepted view" and this is used as a reason for continuing to shut
> out he articles that don't agree with the "commonly accepted view." In Galileo's
> time the Catholic church controlled defined the "commonly accepted view", today it
> is liberals and the liberal media. In neither case does this guarantee that the
> "commonly accepted view" is correct.
>
> Ed

Yep. Just like one of LP's favorite groups, the American Psychological
Association. They published a peer-reviewed paper written by some guys
(I spelled it right) from Temple Univ. When the paper started being
cited by pro-pedophile groups and funding for APA activities got
threatened, the APA officially denounced the paper. It had been peer
reviewed, so how could that be?

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:
>
> >What if we implemented the Kyoto treaty and many millions lost their
> >jobs and homes in the resulting recession/depression and then
> >discovered that the treaty did nothing to prevent the 'global
> >warming'?
> What if we did nothing and then found out it was too late?
>
> Kind of like a forest fire burning up to your property but you refuse to
> evacuate until you're 100% sure it's going to burn your house.

Nah. I'd allow the forest to be maintained properly near populated
areas so that it didn't wipe out whole residential sections like it did
in California. That would be a non-sequitur except (aside from the
damage to the environment caused by the fire, release of CO2, etc.) that
there are analogies to the CO2 issue as well, IOW - *K*eep *I*t *S*imple
*S*am.

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! =-----
 
"Matthew S. Whiting" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> st3ph3nm wrote:
>
> Only if the theory of global warming is correct. I don't believe it is
> and none of us will likely live long enough to ever find out. The earth
> has been undergoing massive changes in climate for some time, and I
> don't expect that to stop simply because we started recording it better.

There are ways to analyse temperature variations through the past, by
looking at ice core samples, and tree rings, and fossil evidence.
Having said that, accurate temperature readings have been around since
the mid 1800's, and there's a strong trend showing:

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/observe/surftemp/


Cheers,
Steve
 
"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> > >>You hit the nail on the head. The left has a single purpose - punish
> > >>those in the United States by redistributing our wealth to others.
> > >
> >
>
> I've always thought this accusation against the US, that it, being a
> minority of the worlds population but uses a majority of the resources and
> produces a majority of the waste, was meant to pander to envy of and anger
> against the US.

No, it's just pointing out that developed countries make more of a
mess than undeveloped countries. And that we have a responsibility as
global citizens to look at the mess we're making, and do our best to
reduce it. That's all.

>
>
> Ironically, it's the US that has led the way in cleaning up industry
> emissions and auto emissions.

I would have thought it was places like some Scandinavian countries
and Germany that have led the way in cleaning up industry emissions.
California probably leads the way in cleaning up auto emissions, I'd
guess.

> The tax the US places on it's own economy in
> striving for clean air and clean water is enormous.

If you want to maintain your strong economy, it makes sense, too.
There is a strong correlation between fresh water supplies and
strength of the economy, worldwide.

> Finding newer
> technologies to reduce or illiminate pollution is great, but there's
> currently nothing that can replace oil as a source of energy without killing
> the world economy.

Well, totally replace? Yeah, you're right. We can, however, use the
oil we have more efficiently, and use alternative sources where
possible.
>
> And like it or not, it's the power of the US economy that has protected the
> world from despotism... from the Nazis and from the Communists. And now
> from Islamic extremists. They are more dangerous than Nazis or Communists
> because they understand that destroying the US economy is what will give
> them the ability to push back and defeat the "infidel" west and impose an
> Islamic empire. If you're looking for greed, look there.

Yeah, yeah, yeah...
At the risk of going off on a BIG tangent, keep in mind it was a US
foreign policy (concentrated on stamping out Communism) that lost
sight of the long term picture, putting Islamic extremists into the
positions of power that they now have. If you're looking for
solutions to the Islamic extremist problem, look to the sources of the
troubles first. Still, this is getting so far OT, that I probably
won't respond further to that particular issue here. Feel free to
email me if you want a little donnybrook over that one! :)

Cheers,
Steve
 
> Effective tax rate on the middle class is around 25%,
including federal and state income, sales, gas, social security, and
property. <

That's the biggest load of crap I've ever read! The middle income tax rate
on federal alone is nearly 25%, to which you can add 3% social security,
12.8% FICA, whatever the state charges, which can be as high as 9%, and 3-8%
municipal tax for those in major metro areas.

This is PRECISELY the kind of lies, outright lies, told by Democrats and
their Socialist fellow travellers to mask income confiscation from the
middle class.


 
Danish solar scientists Friz-Christensen & Lassen developed a perfect
correlation between solar activity and earth temps going back hundreds of
years. Their conclusion? Solar factors are by far the greatest factor in
earth temps, and the warming trend noted since the early 80's perfectly
parallels an increase in solar activity. Conversely, the cooling period that
preceded it paralleled a similar low point in solar activity.

Unfortunately the Socialist green elitists have tried to quash publication
of these and other similar findings because it debunks their social
revisionist agenda. The Discovery Science channel did an entire program on
this subject, fascinating.

"Vic Klein" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I tried to not to answer these grossly off-topic discussions, but I
> couldn't resist <sigh> making just one point. What with the hoopla about
> global warming several years back when the Kyoto accords were being
> pushed (by nations that hadn't signed them, oddly), I wanted to see just
> how bad things were. We have a US weather station in Williamsport that
> has continuously recorded data for over 100 years, so I thought I'd
> download that for study. Of course, there's a lot of fluctuation, but if
> you plot a linear trend line to the data for the last 103 years you find
> the average annual temperature here has dropped by about 0.5F, not
> increased. Hmmm...where is the warming data? Is that only being
> collected in large, growing cities and not rural areas? Secondly, I
> plotted a 5 year moving average just to see what might show up and there
> is a remarkable cycle that appears, lasting about 11 years or so. Just
> the same as the solar cyles for sunspots. Curious. Maybe we're just
> different from the rest of the world out here in the country, but
> hmmm....
>
> =Vic=
> Bear Gap, PA
>
> Matthew S. Whiting wrote:
> >
> > st3ph3nm wrote:
> > > DTJ <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> > >
> > >>On Sun, 09 Nov 2003 02:49:07 GMT, [email protected] (Brent P)
> > >>wrote:
> > >>
> > >
> > > <snip>
> > >
> > >>>We know better now. When I see a proposed solution that really does
> > >>>lower global CO2 output, I can get behind it. Until then, all I see
> > >>>is a bunch of people who feel guilty and/or want to punish the USA
and
> > >>>are using this topic as their tool to do so.
> > >>
> > >>You hit the nail on the head. The left has a single purpose - punish
> > >>those in the United States by redistributing our wealth to others.
> > >
> > >
> > > I would disagree. Coming from a (well, for you guys, fairly
> > > extremely) leftist background (my Dad was a member of the Labour party
> > > here back when that's what it was) that's not surprising, though I
> > > guess. I don't think the US needs to be punished for being rich. I'm
> > > not jealous of your lifestyle, or your political system. Having said
> > > that, IIRC, something like 22% of our (human caused) greenhouse gas
> > > emissions come from a country that has 7% of the worlds population.
> > > Surely if that 7% can dramatically reduce the amount it's putting out,
> > > it's going to have a significant impact on overall amounts? And
> > > there's no reason not to reduce output of these gases, when in most
> > > cases it can be done by being more efficient - which I would have
> > > thought guys on the right would be into. I would hope that in any
> > > Western country, we could lead the way, develop the technologies, and
> > > sell them on to the developing markets. I wish Australia hadn't
> > > followed the US lead on Kyoto, but there you go.
> >
> > Only if the theory of global warming is correct. I don't believe it is
> > and none of us will likely live long enough to ever find out. The earth
> > has been undergoing massive changes in climate for some time, and I
> > don't expect that to stop simply because we started recording it better.
> >
> > Matt


 
Bill Funk <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Fri, 07 Nov 2003 07:43:53 -0900, Marc <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>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"
>
>However, the flat earth theory was based on a false premise, without
>observation.

What do you call using your eyes to see? I call it observation. I'd
suspect that the people that thought the world was flat based it on
observation.

>That tax increases hurt economies is an observed fact.

Then why is it so hotly debated?

Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
 
"Gerald G. McGeorge" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> When weighted for shares owned, what is the average income of
>shareholders? That is, rather than asking every person in the US whether
>they own and stock and averaging their income if they do, look at every
>share of stock held and average the incomes of its owner. I suspect the
>number would be significantly higher than 40k. I suspect that most shares
>in the US are held by people making more than $1,000,000 per year (or by
>companies run by people that make more than $1,000,000 per year. <
>
>What is this, more Florida recount logic from the Left???!!!
>
>Fact is, the majority of American workers hold shares in 401ks, IRAs, and in
>savings.

And the majority of voting shares are controlled by the financial elite.

Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
 
[email protected] (Matthew Russotto) wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>,
>Lloyd Parker <[email protected]> wrote:
>>In article <[email protected]>,
>> DTJ <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>On Sat, 8 Nov 2003 20:26:51 -0700, "Gerald G. McGeorge"
>>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Sorry, I forgot that using my brain is against everything liberals stand
>>>>for.<
>>>>
>>>>That's right, you just stop thinking and let them make all the decisions for
>>>>you, meanwhile be sure and let them have 50% of your wages and shut up! They
>>>>know far better than you how it should be spent...
>>>
>>>50%? You have to be really poor to pay that small of a tax rate!
>>What an idiot. Effective tax rate on the middle class is around 25%,
>>including federal and state income, sales, gas, social security, and property.
>
>Maybe if you live in a state with no income or sales tax. The average
>Marylander, for instance, is paying 8% in income and 5% in sales in
>state taxes alone.

I live in a state that has no income or sales taxes and pays over $1000 per
year back to residents.

But then, I live in the least populous state.

Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
 
"Steve Stone" <[email protected]> wrote:
>What is a liberal these daze ?
>
A "liberal" is anyone that thinks that corporations should be held liable
for their illegal actions. A "liberal" is someone that thinks that what a
person does in their own home alone or with consenting adults is only the
business of those present.

Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
 
DTJ <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Mon, 10 Nov 03 13:01:38 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker)
>wrote:
>
>>In article <[email protected]>,
>> DTJ <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>On Sat, 8 Nov 2003 20:26:51 -0700, "Gerald G. McGeorge"
>>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Sorry, I forgot that using my brain is against everything liberals stand
>>>>for.<
>>>>
>>>>That's right, you just stop thinking and let them make all the decisions for
>>>>you, meanwhile be sure and let them have 50% of your wages and shut up! They
>>>>know far better than you how it should be spent...
>>>
>>>50%? You have to be really poor to pay that small of a tax rate!
>>What an idiot. Effective tax rate on the middle class is around 25%,
>>including federal and state income, sales, gas, social security, and property.
>
>Yes you are an idiot.
>
>The middle class pays federal rates higher than 25%, plus another 15%
>or so in SS (if the employer didn't pay it, we would receive it in
>wages), state taxes as high as 5% and more, gas taxes, sales taxes,
>phone taxes, property taxes, and on and on and on.
>
>My family is in the lower middle class, in the heartland, and we pay
>considerably more than 50% of our income in taxes.

I pay less than 20% of my paycheck to the government. Even including my
employer's contribution to SS (which I wouldn't receive if they didn't
pay), I pay less than 25%. I have no state sales or income tax. The
rebate the state pays is roughly the tax on my home. So, when you add all
the other taxes, I think I would be quite far from 50%. But then, I make
more than the average lower middle class family. Perhaps, despite the
claims by the Republicans to the contrary, if you made more you'd pay a
smaller percentage?

( I paid about 2% more in taxes when I paid 8%+ tax in TX, but certainly
not enough to make it up to 50%)

Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
 
[email protected] (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>,
> "Matthew S. Whiting" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>st3ph3nm wrote:
>>> DTJ <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:<[email protected]>...
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 09 Nov 2003 02:49:07 GMT, [email protected] (Brent P)
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>>>We know better now. When I see a proposed solution that really does
>>>>>lower global CO2 output, I can get behind it. Until then, all I see
>>>>>is a bunch of people who feel guilty and/or want to punish the USA and
>>>>>are using this topic as their tool to do so.
>>>>
>>>>You hit the nail on the head. The left has a single purpose - punish
>>>>those in the United States by redistributing our wealth to others.
>>>
>>>
>>> I would disagree. Coming from a (well, for you guys, fairly
>>> extremely) leftist background (my Dad was a member of the Labour party
>>> here back when that's what it was) that's not surprising, though I
>>> guess. I don't think the US needs to be punished for being rich. I'm
>>> not jealous of your lifestyle, or your political system. Having said
>>> that, IIRC, something like 22% of our (human caused) greenhouse gas
>>> emissions come from a country that has 7% of the worlds population.
>>> Surely if that 7% can dramatically reduce the amount it's putting out,
>>> it's going to have a significant impact on overall amounts? And
>>> there's no reason not to reduce output of these gases, when in most
>>> cases it can be done by being more efficient - which I would have
>>> thought guys on the right would be into. I would hope that in any
>>> Western country, we could lead the way, develop the technologies, and
>>> sell them on to the developing markets. I wish Australia hadn't
>>> followed the US lead on Kyoto, but there you go.
>>
>>Only if the theory of global warming is correct. I don't believe it is
>
>Which matters as much as you saying you don't believe atoms exist.

Obviously a non-sequitur.

Prove that we are not on the cusp of another ice age and that increased CO2
in the atmosphere will help out the planet.

(not that I think that is or is not the case, just that your condescending
attitude is covering up your ignorance and unwillingness to debate the
facts)

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

"Brent P" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:_GQrb.162737$Tr4.435252@attbi_s03...
> In article <[email protected]>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
> > [email protected] (Brent P) wrote:
>
> <parker forgot how to trim>
>
> >>> This is fine for people in the US. If you had been born and raised on
> >>> the Solomons, though, you might be annoyed to find that the world
> >>> doesn't care if your entire homeland is inundated. This is a very
> >>> simplistic argument - I'll address it more further down.
> >>
> >>Then why does the proposed solution, the kyoto treaty, do nothing but
> >>encourage the relocation of CO2 output to China, India, and other such
> >>nations?
>
> > Because the US emits 2 times as much CO2 as the next nation (Russia) and
over
> > 4 times as much on a per capita basis as any other nation.
>
> Let's say the kyoto treaty is accepted. The US limits CO2 output.
> Production of the crap americans buy is relocated to china and india
> and the products are shipped to the USA for sale. There is a net increase
> in the amount of CO2 and pollutants released. The US's per capita CO2
> emissions go way down, China's and India's go up a blip (huge
> populations). There has been a net increase in the CO2 released into
> the atmosphere. Why does this make you happy? Why is this a goal you
> strive for?
>
> If CO2 emissions are a real problem, this solution called the kyoto
> treaty doesn't address it at all, it simply shifts where on the globe
> they come from. This does not matter if we are to believe that CO2
> emissions cause global warming. So, the goal must be something else.
> What is that something else that makes you want this to occur?
>
> secondly, Dr. Parker, if you believe CO2 emissions to be a problem
> why are you driving a mercedes benz? Why are you not driving a geo
> metro or an insight or some other micro car or hybred?

Because he is an elitist snob who thinks he knows whats best for everybody
else. Only those below him should be required to drive more efficient
vehicles. Kind of like a certain SUV bashing Kennedy who has a private jet
spew pollution into the air while it trucks his rear end anywhere he goes.


 


st3ph3nm wrote:
>
> I would have thought it was places like some Scandinavian countries
> and Germany that have led the way in cleaning up industry emissions.
> California probably leads the way in cleaning up auto emissions, I'd
> guess.

Probably more than made up for in damage (emisions, particulates, human
deaths, property damage, etc.) due to forest fires from
counter-productive forest management policies. Same for their policies
in the last decade on not building power plants which also bit them in
the a**. But as long as it makes them feel good - that's what's
important.

> If you want to maintain your strong economy, it makes sense, too.
> There is a strong correlation between fresh water supplies and
> strength of the economy, worldwide.

This could be a chicken-egg thing too. If the country (its government
and its people) are in survival model (or is totally corrupt - the two
often go hand in hand), then chances are high that it's going have a bad
economy as well as not properly take care of its water system (due to
priorities being elsewhere) - one may have nothing to do with the other
(economy and clean water) in such a country (either due to the
priorities being different - only so much money to go around - or the
gov't plain not watching out for the peoples' interests).

One must be careful in assigning cause and effect. You might find that
contries that have healthy economies and clean water have a much higher
percentage of blue cars, whereas poor countries with crappy water have
cars that are more earth tones. It would be a mistake to conclude that
having blue cars makes for clean water or a good economy (but could in
some way be a result).

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! =-----
 

"Gerald G. McGeorge" wrote:
>
> Danish solar scientists Friz-Christensen & Lassen developed a perfect
> correlation between solar activity and earth temps going back hundreds of
> years. Their conclusion? Solar factors are by far the greatest factor in
> earth temps, and the warming trend noted since the early 80's perfectly
> parallels an increase in solar activity. Conversely, the cooling period that
> preceded it paralleled a similar low point in solar activity.
>
> Unfortunately the Socialist green elitists have tried to quash publication
> of these and other similar findings because it debunks their social
> revisionist agenda. The Discovery Science channel did an entire program on
> this subject, fascinating.

But how could that be!!! A true scientist (such as LP) would never
ignore true science!! Would they?

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! =-----
 


Marc wrote:
>
> "Steve Stone" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >What is a liberal these daze ?
> >
> A "liberal" is anyone that thinks that corporations should be held liable
> for their illegal actions. A "liberal" is someone that thinks that what a
> person does in their own home alone or with consenting adults is only the
> business of those present.

Ohhh - please! Don't get me started!

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! =-----
 
In article <[email protected]>, Marc wrote:
> "Steve Stone" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>What is a liberal these daze ?
>>
> A "liberal" is anyone that thinks that corporations should be held liable
> for their illegal actions. A "liberal" is someone that thinks that what a
> person does in their own home alone or with consenting adults is only the
> business of those present.

The left (aka 'Liberals') want to get into the people's homes in an even
more sinister thought police style rather than the simple view screen
model of the 'right'. But either way it's sliced, it's 1984.


 
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
46K
Alibro
Alibro
Back
Top