Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers

creamed because he no longer represented the values of the people who sent
him to Washington in the first place, and because Nader sucked off the Green
vote which he'd not convinced. > >

stupid. <

Well, a lot of them voted for Perot, which is why Clinton won in '92.
Clinton never received as many votes as Gore or Bush did in '00 for that
matter. That simple fact weas forgotten by the delusional leftists.

happened was all the liberals out there talked themselves into believing
that "it's only I that is voting for Nader, everyone else is voting for Gore
so I'm free to vote my conscience without helping Bush" Then when the
results of the
general election came in all the liberal fuckups that voted for Nader
realized they outsmarted themselves and realized they had just set the
entire Democratic party back 20 years. That is why nobody is taking them
seriously now. >

Well, no, but I see your point. No one is taking them seriously because
they've done the typical political knee-jerk of turning to their radicals
for "leadership", appointing whiners like Daschle & Pelosi as leaders and
cranking on their old "tax & spend, cut & run" themes. Anyone with memory
remembers the mess they got us into when the liberals controlled the govt.,
and anyone with a paycheck knows it's not the rich that get screwed on
taxes, it's the poor slobs who actually try to hold & job & raise a family
that get to pay for every idiotic leftist patronage-centered program.

 

So don't build houses near forests that are supposed to be preserved.

 

Because it's not a peer-reviewed scientific journal. You know, the kind real
scientists publish in.

 

Oh - you mean like in California where they are protecting the
environment by not allowing the forests to be maintained properly - like
you said - "The onus of proof should be born by the ones who may be
destroying the environment not by the ones who try to protect it".
Meanwhile, 20 people die, lives are destroyed, and 2000 houses are lost
(not to mention the damage to the environment). Thank you to those who
are "protecting our environment" but who curiously seem to be doing the
most damage.

How about first proving that you aren't going to throw everything out of
balance and create an even worse nightmare by your efforts to tweak
things that you have no way of understanding to adequate depth the full
ramifications.

Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")

 

Those don't contribute directly to my cost to an employer, Social Security Taxes
do. When my employer is figuring the total cost of keeping me around, he doesn't
just include my salary, he also includes those pesky SS taxes. And self employed
people (like farmers) have to pay both sides of the tax. The way it set up was
always a scam to prevent people from realizing they were paying 15% to Social
Security. I am not even opposed to SS, and I don't even mind paying the tax, I do
hate the tricks employed by the government to make it seem as if it is a bargain
(it isn't, unless you were born before 1940).

I am hardly a "right-winger" but then sometimes it seems anybody to the right of
Mao is a right-winger to you. I don't doubt the need for taxes. I don't mind the
government paying for lots of necessary services. I do mind the hidden taxes. I do
mind the multiple layers of bureaucracy (for instance why do we need local, state,
and federal departments of education?). I do worry that people who don't have my
best interest at heart have hijacked the tax code and are using it as a social
engineering tool. I do mind that a very large percentage of the money that I send
to the various government entities is wasted. I think if more people understood
exactly how much money they paid in direct, indirect, and hidden taxes they might
demand a little more accountability from the governments that take the money and
spend it. Lots of lower income people think they don't have to worry about taxes
since their income taxes are low or non-existent. However, in reality they are
paying a lot of taxes in the form of sales taxes, tolls, gas taxes, hidden taxes
buried in the cost of things they buy, real estate taxes hidden in rent, etc.,
etc., etc.

Regards,

Ed White

 

His state also doesn't have a lot of electoral votes, and let's keep
in mind that this was a national election. Of course, if I were in his
shoes, I imkagine it would be nice to win my own state, but in a
national election I'd have to put my effort into winning states with
more electoral votes. To explain further, in 2000 TN had 11 votes,
while CA had 54 (and may gain more in the future as the population
grows, BTW). Gore won CA. I assume he put more effort into CA, and for
an obvious reason, that would be the smart thing to do.

Would winning TN have made the difference for Gore? Yes, because it
was such a tight election, with Dubya winning by only 4 electoral
votes. See:

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/results/index.ev.html

Actually, if Gore had carried Hawaii or Idaho or Rhode Island, he'd
have won the electoral vote. It doesn't really matter where the
electoral votes come from in a national election, although I agree it
seems kinda nice if a candidate carries his home state.

This is a fallacy. (BTW, I didn't vote Green, but might do so in the
future. If they're on the ballot, then it's my vote and my choice to
use my vote as I see fit.) When a party loses, such as the Democratic
Party, then they have to take responsibility. The votes were there for
to be earned by any party, and had the Democrats or Republicans earned
more votes, the election wouldn't have been such a squeaker.

As the following points out, "Greens have no power to steal votes from
Democratic candidates, because no candidate owns anyone's vote":

http://gpus.org/organize/spoiled.html

BTW, most Americans disagree with the idea of Green votes helping
Bush, according to USA Today. See:

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1022-11.htm

Both the Democrats and Republicans had the chance to win any of the
votes that were counted. Both failed to make much a strong showing
over the other. That's their problem and it's their responsibility to
run stronger Presidential candidates and better campaigns in 2004. If
one candidate can do that, then they'll earn enough votes to win
decisively.

If people vote Green, OK by me. If that's where the voters go, then
both the Democrats and Republicans, if they're smart, will head after
those voters and try to earn the votes of the Greens.

BTW, I found all of the above info and URLs just by spending a minute
or two searching. Anyone seeking more info could do the same.

It'll be interesting to see what happens in CA in 2004, now that
they've elected a moderate Republican as governor. Maybe Bush soften
rethink his positions to win the CA vote. It's also possble that
voting for Schwarzenegger is a thumbing-your-nose vote that won't mean
much in the long run for either party. CA's one of the 37
weak-governor states and he may have little effect on CA and its
politics.

 

beelzebubba

LOL!

No matter what anyone's opinions are now, I think all can see that
Bush didn't run a strong-enough campaign in 2000 and he'll have his
work cut out for him when the election is held (almost exactly, BTW)
in only a year from now. Assuming the Democrats run a strong campaign,
Bush could easily have a rough time next year. Assuming he wins, I
don't expect a big win.

 

That's fine in an uninhabited environment. But if you're building
housing developments in a freakin' desert, you'd better do some human
intervention on nature's natural tendencies so as not to lose lives and
houses. Fact is the enviro-regulations would not let them even clear
out the pine trees that died from an infestation of beatles - and that
contributed greatly to these latest fires. Nor would they allow
clearing of trees from around at-risk houses. Use some common sense!

Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")

 

It's true that had Nader dropped out that Gore may have won. However, you
can't ignore the fact that the most significant impact of Nader running was
getting people out to vote that wouldn't otherwise have voted. The Greens
may be leftists, but they don't love the Democrats.

 

Bush did too! Of course, I'm talking about electoral votes.... the only
ones that mean anything constitutionally.

You're still clutching onto the old "popular vote" complaint Lloyd. We
didn't have a popular vote. There wasn't a popular election, so there's no
popular vote. Counting up the aggregate of individual state votes and
calling it a "popular vote" doesn't make it so. We've had this argument
before and you always ignore this pertinent fact.

 

"Clinton received more votes than any of his opponents. Bush did not.
That's the fact, dumbass."
Not electorial college votes DUMBASS... you live in the USA... this is not a
pure democracy it's a republic.

 

The right-winger's response to everything is to call names. No wonder
they always look foolish in debates.

Then you have to add all the taxes paid on all the goods and services
you buy as well. Anybody can engineer any figure that suits their
argument. Which means you're just another right-wing sheep who has
swallowed the rightist propaganda hook, line and sinker.

Everyone who is "liberal" with the facts. So, if the shoe fits...

[lying with statistics and namecalling snipped]

No amount of sophistry makes your argument valid. Try again with
someone who actually believes that Hannity or Limbaugh are anything
more than entertainers.

 

Since you spout the GOP party line, you are a right-winger. Q.E.D.

But thanks for proving my point.

 

Nature doesn't extinguish fires started by lightening (or native Americans
before Columbus). Nature would be perfectly happy to let all of Southern
California burn once in a while. This would effectively remove all the dead
trees and brush.

Ed

 

"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.

 

Wrong on two counts.

1) Nature often uses cataclysm, like big fires.
2) Big fires are encouraged when the critters (humans) aren't allowed
to consume the deadwood and are going about puting out alot of the fires.

 

hey why don't you two funboys get a room and quit arguing over usenet?
for christ's sake.

 

The right-winger's response to everything is to call names. No wonder
they always look foolish in debates.
[/QUOTE]
What a strange comment! It's the strategy of the LEFT to attach "names" to
conservatives.... "right-winger", "rascist", "greedy", "hate filled". If
you don't like name calling, go have a talk with Lloyd and try to talk some
sense into him. When he loses on points of argument, he always resorts to
name calling. And that includes calling someone a "right-winger".

Conservatives don't look foolish in debates. Poor debaters of any stripe
do. Conservative ideas have dones very well in the competition of ideas and
they do very well in debates. I'll tell you whose ideas don't do well in
detabes; Green party. They go so far outside of the values of most
Americans that it's easy to see why they only garner 2% support.

 

I didn't mention those because they don't need the standard of living
to be lowered in the USA to achieve. The control of the left, puting
people on the dole, controling the schools, etc does require that people
be economically unable to do anything but turn to the government.

But yes, there are forces in the republican party that seek control too,
but they are dominated and held in check by those seeking money.

My goal is a society of where people have lost this need to control
others. Unachievable, but the goal none the less.

 

You didn't comment on the journal article URL I posted earlier. You know,
the one that shows there were statistical errors in Mann. Why not
parker? You've also neglected to reply to every branch of this thread
where I replied to you in favor of this tired old snipe? Affraid Parker?

Do you have something that shows that the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory
is not a "real" scientific organization Dr. Parker? Affraid to prove your
assertions?

And what about you parker, still using consumer reports and road and
track over engineering journals? Are you affraid to read engineering
journals parker?

Parker knows the truth, knows he cannot argue or dismiss my statement
so he pulls this lame debate tatic. Hey llyod go have a smoke in a pure
oxygen environment.