Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers

If you keep going down that train of thought, Lloyd, you'll
inadvertently prove one area in which the rich get gouged on taxes that
100% of the people in the upper middle class and below pay absolutely
nothing - and as someone else pointed out, on property/wealth that taxes
have already been paid on at least once. But so nice to see that you're
being "fair and balanced" on that issue (although unintentionally I'm
sure).

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

 

something like 16 out of 17

something like 1 out of 17. But of course that *1* method would be the
only "correct" one.

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

 

Read what I wrote LP, they counted EVERY vote, not just the proper ones,
EVERY vote, and Bush won by a larger margin than the official vote gave him.
You are wrong once again, which is at least normal for you.
And I saw the ballots in question, they were very simple to use, I've voted
with them myself before, and Chicago used the same ballot in the same
election without a problem.

 

No one minded Gore asking for a recount, he had that right. He did not have
the right to insist on recount after recount until he could find one that
favored him.
Had he bowed out gracefully after the first recount he would have had an
excellent chance of beating Bush in 2004, way he went on though he destroyed
any chance he ever had at winning the Presidency. Sort of like the way you
would do better in debates if you quit after the first reply instead of
digging yourself in deeper with every lie you post.

constitution.

Constitution does not always affect public perception. If you wish to be
seen as honest you find someone publicly recognized as honest.

 

No, they granted the honest recounting, it was only after the Democrates
tried to steal the election that the Republicans asked the SCOTUS for a
ruling.

The Supreme Court of the United States of America, and every intelligent
human being on Earth, which rules you out.
I suggest you take a class, any class. You need to learn something to take
the place of that rattle in your empty head.

 

You've described LP to a T. He knows a little Chemistry, that does not make
him an expert on any of the subjects he claims to know all about. Someday I
really must write Emory a letter concerning our good Doctor Lloyd, let them
in on how much he has damaged their reputation with his bullshit posting.

 

Why do you lie so much LP?
Someday an Asteroid the size of Australia will be on a collision course with
Earth, and you will be the only one on Earth who knows how to deflect it,
but no one will believe you because you've totally destroyed your credibilty
with the lies you post.

 

"Supposed to be" , the key words there. What he knows about science they
teach in kindergarten.

 

"Supposed to be" , the key words there. What he knows about science they
teach in kindergarten.>

Aw, that's being unkind .... third grade maybe!

 

Thanks. I have a feeling we'll disagree, but you ask great questions.....

You're right. Having security over your own self and body is pretty
fundamental and government should be very reluctant in this area. However,
the problem with abortion is with the life of the unborn child. Where do
it's rights to life and self begin? This is what makes abortion a difficult
issue when it comes to government.

Income disparity by itself isn't bad. I don't mind that someone makes
millions and I don't. I just want the opportunity to succeed according to
my desires. Many, many people who make millions are very gifted people and
have "created" wealth and jobs for others by innovation and risk taking.
Without people like that, there wouldn't be a thriving economy. I
appreciate these vital people.

What's bad is wealth for a few in the face of massive poverty. This isn't
the problem in America.

In America, poverty mostly derives from a lack of education and a breakdown
of the family, including divorce and lowered expectations from children.
It's more a social problem than one of economics where there are classes of
people that exploit others.

It's not the governments job to guaruntee equity among the masses (it
shouldn't be). Equity is what communism strives for, but all it really
achieves is the killing off of entrepreneurialism and innovation (wealth
building) making everyone equally poor. Government should do all it can to
get out of the way of those who can succeed and only intervene reluctantly
to prevent abuses.
"transfer of wealth" through taxes.

Like I said before, it isn't the disparity that is bad... it isn't unfair
that someone is rich and I'm not. It is a sign that something is wrong when
there's a lot of poverty in the face of a few rich. I'd look at Mexico and
cringe, not the United States.

The answer is education and jobs. Real jobs (not government jobs or "make
work" jobs). Government can help by allowing business to thrive and not
being to much of a burden (taxes and regulations) and by encouraging
education. Public education has it's flaws, but at least it gets most
people into a position of being able to contribute to society instead of
drain from it.

No it's not!!!!! If one could demand a job from the government, that would
put the government in charge of jobs! Not private enterprises! Government
does not create wealth and jobs, private enterprise does. Government should
only exist (financed) as a byproduct of a societies economic output. It's
the result of jobs, not the source of jobs.

You have to trust that people with free will and opportunity will be
responsible for getting their own jobs.

There's a cost when government establishes a minimum wage. That cost is
jobs. Low paying jobs are important for people in transition (like
students) and important for businesses that need unskilled labor to succeed.

The more uneducated people a country has the more downward pressure there is
on wages. Again, the answer is education.

The problem with universal health care is it is a financial black hole. My
own personal experience with social medicine is that there's such a huge
demand for services that it can bankrupt a nation. So the government
rations care. They minimize, delay or shorten treatment. They resist
paying healthcare workes well. Cost cutting becomes the driving factor in
such a system and while healthcare widens to more people it's quality is
severely compromised.

My experience was that it was great if all you needed was a simple bandage
or aspirin or antibiotics. When you had a serious condition though, you
better run to the private doctor and pay.

Not bad! I think we agree here.

We shouldn't because there's a difference between having a "right" to an
education and it being in the best interest of a country to provide a public
education. Education is so vital as to be the answer to many of societies
ills, so I support public education for the primary and secondary grades
like we have here. But I don't support making education a "right", rather a
public "choice".
"activist", "progressive" judges.

You started out pretty well. What Bush is doing in Iraq has everything to
do with the survival of our nation. Iraq is only murky in the sense that we
have imperfect intelligence on WMD. The overarching purpose though is to
tranform the middle east from dicatorships to democracies. To allow
terrorism to proceed after 9/11, having shown their intent and desire to
acquire nukes and bio/chem weapons would be suicidal on our part. Hardly a
waste of 100's of billions... that would be true only if we cut and run.

As for "tax cuts for the super rich". It's another canard. It's important
to include the rich when cutting taxes. These are the people who create
jobs. Money in the hands of private individuals creates jobs, rich or poor.
Rich people will benefit, dollar-wise, more than people like me. That's ok
with me. They pay way more than I do. The goal is for government not to
take any more money out of the economic engine than they have to to create a
secure environment for business to thrive.

Oh please. This is pure poppycock. There's no conspiracy to shift wealth
to the military industrial complex. The terrorist threat to the west is
real. We can't fight these people with sticks and stones! Conservatives
believe that tax dollar priority should go to defense because our economy
would be nothing without security. Four measley airplanes created an
economic tsunami that will affect our economy for years.

Because it's private property and it's already been taxed. People will
always find a way to prevent the government from taking their property to
distribute to someone else.


The point of this whole discussion has gotten lost in all these issues.
Limited government works. Big government doesn't. All these bleeding heart
issues lead to placing demands of non-producers on producers. They place
drags on the economic engine and disincentivise those who whould otherwise
be willing to risk capital on business ventures.

Being rich is no vice. Not being rich is no calamity. Poverty is, but the
solution to poverty doesn't require "rights".

 

way it was written. Maybe Howard Dean can fix all this after he wins the

Well, according to him:

The biggest lie that people like me tell people like you is, "Elect me
and I'll solve all your problems." The truth is, the future of
America lies in your hands, not mine. - Howard Dean

One man can barely fix a leaky pipe, let alone a country.

America will heal itself. We're just letting Dean along for the ride
because we think he's going to listen to the average guy... instead of
the wealthy few.

 

Ooops, sorry, my bad English. I knew there was something wrong with
that phrase.

OK, maybe the system is not working, but at least everybody should
agree on the goal: that Americans should enjoy universal health care.

I was referring to the case of people trying to use their "rights" to
get a free lunch. That's why I wrote that people should "earn whatever
they get".

It is not money that is being taxed, it is people. After all it is
people who pay taxes, and rich offspring have never paid any taxes on
their parents estate. Even so, Democrats proposed to abolish the tax
for estates of up to 2 million dollars (later 5, 10 or even 100
million), but this was not good enough for the Bush administration,
they had to abolish a tax that mainly affected the already super-rich.
BTW there is no free meal. When you abolish a tax to the super-rich
then the burden is increased for everybody else. After all the total
cost of government has not come down under Bush, on the contrary in
has gone up - so the money must come in, one way or the other.

If we were to insist on the view that money is being taxed, then it
seems to me that money is always taxed several times. When you buy
something with your already taxed income you pay sales tax - again -
and I don't see any conservatives proposing the abolition of the sales
tax (why is that?). When you pay rent, your landlord has to pay taxes
even though the money you give him was already taxed. When you win the
lottery or when you get a gift you have to pay taxes. Oh, you say once
money changes hands it can be taxed again? If so, why not tax
inheritance moneys?

In fact there is no such moral principle as "money should not be taxed
twice". This is only a catchy phrase used to justify tax cuts skewed
to the very rich.

 

I wasn't trying to justify the tax rates. It sounds like Lloyd receives no
benefit for being cheaper to insure than employees with families. All the
companies I'm familiar with did away with that years ago. I've help pay for
my medical insurance premium for years now and it's more expensive if you
have dependents than it is if you're single.

I don't blame you for being frustrated at congress' hand in your pocket.

 

LOL!

 

Actually, Lloyd will nail me for one thing I said. I don't think FL state
law specfies how to count ballots. I think each county specifies it's own
method. The point isn't lost though. None of that matters to Dems who hope
the battle cry of "Remember Florida 2000!" will swoop them to victory in
2004. Political reality isn't what "is", it's what's perceived. Dems have
taken that to a new low. Clinton was very good at it.

 

I actually was infering Greenspan, but didn't make it clear. And Lloyd
already has blamed it on Bush. His argument says Wall Streets anticipation
of a Bush presidency is what caused the market decline. We all know how
Democrats are good for business and Republicans are bad for business :-D

They love those higher taxes and tougher regulations and product liability
lawsuits!

Oh, and some of us remember 4 years of Carter and 8 years of Reagan.

 

Or how much time he spends posting on usenet during work hours.

 

http://www.agriculture.purdue.edu/aganswers/2002/2-14_Ohio_Peanuts.html

 

It's been around 280 ppm for half a million years; now it's up to 350 ppm in
the last 120 years.

Yes. Have you?

 

Science tells up CO2 absorbs heat, science tells us the earth is warming,
science tells us CO2 has increased along with temperature, science tells us
human activities produce CO2.