Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers

The Brady Bill and assault weapons ban are a joke, if you actually got
out

You forget that the government doesn't have the power to prohibit the right
of people to bear arms. Just because bad things happen with guns doesn't
mean the government has the power to prohibit them.

 

You're right. With the unnatural extinguishing of forest fires by man,
we're doing our best to replace this lost source of CO2. We were doing a
darn poor job of it until the SUV!

 

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%.

 

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'.

 

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.

 

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 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.

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.

 

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!

 

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!

 

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!)

 

Ok. I'll hold you to that.

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.

 

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.

 

I agree. Lloyd is a conservatives best friend. He illustrates everything
wrong about modern liberalism.

 

Very nice!

 

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.

 

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!

 

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....