Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers

and just incase you were wondering, i still hope you die a slow miserable
death as the cholesterol that wraps your obese heart chokes the life out of
you. i read the atlanta journal online daily hoping to find "obese
homosexual professor dies due to massive blood loss when the gerbil he
shoved up his ass worked the tape from his claws". only a matter of time,
feltcher. <

Tell us how you REALLY feel, Nate!

 

Well, why don't you, like, get emotional about it.

 

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 ...... <

Governments cannot create as many jobs for the same amount of money as the
private sector. As they have no profit motive, the internal waste, etc. goe
unchedcked and money oozes out due to low productivity, patronage, protected
absenteesism, etc.

...... at exactly the same pay as lost in the private sector, how does that
affect the economy? <

Government cannot pay the same salaries as the private sector for the same
number of jons, plus since they produce no goods or services the money they
absorb is merely transfers private sector assets to public sector
liabilities. For the given amount of revenue they produce no profit,
therefore have nothing to reinvest and create new wealth. They must
therefore either cut costs, raise taxes, or print money, devaluing all
revenues to the detrimant of the entire economy. Name the last time before
the Republicans took control in the 90s the liberals govt reduced spending
to balance a budget? That's right NEVER! That's why Carter and his lib
biddies in congress gave us double-digit inflation prining money, which they
then turened in touble didgit unemployment. All that in only 4 short years!

 

1) Politicos get a cut, say 15%
2) You have to set up a department for this, say 30%
3) All government employees belong to unions, another 5%
4) see:3 - Union employees work a little slower, another 20%
5) see:3 - It takes two union members to do the work of 1, another 30%
6) see:3 - Union dues, another 2%
7) Total - 102%.
8) 2% of $1,000,000,000 ===> $20,000,000
9) Marc - please come up with another $20,000,000

 

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.<

Replace "fill" with "waste nearly all" and you unerestand government.

recession. <

Hmm,. I guess that's why Reagan's tax cut more than douled tax revenues back
to the Govt! (Where the Hell did you get YOUR economics degree, McDonalds?)

 

How did Clinton effect the dot.com bubble? <

Why, Al Gore invented the Internet, of course, don't you remember?

 

What does science tell us about prior warming periods? <

Well, it depends what "scientists" you ask. If you ask the greenies, there's
nver been any period of waqrming, the earth and it's atmosphere were in
perfect balance before man and his SUVs came along.

If you ask other scientists, they'll tell you the earth is in a continual,
gradual shift between periods of warming & cooling, caused between
geothermal, solar and magnetic variables. They point to the ice age, and the
creation of massive deserts like the Sahara as proof....Lloyd's scientists
are certain these events were caused by primitives driving gas-guzzling
Hummer SUVs

 

Interesting. Those who propose free choice are fascists. Those who propose
less governmental interference are fascists.
When I look up 'fascist', that's not even close to the definition I get. <

Well, in Lloyd's politically correct, all-must-be-equal world, you wouldn't
have a dictionary to look it up in, nor be literate enough to read it
anyway. That way we can ensure the equality of mankind and the salvation of
the Earth!

(I think Lloyd is runing out of spit, each response is less lucid than the
previous one.)

 

lloyd and i go way back, and we gotta long way to go yet.

 

As I thought you couldn't do it. If I posted a site like that to prove a
point to you, you would dismiss it as right wing garbage because it doesn't
come from a peer reviewed jounal. You should hold yourself to the standards
you demand from others Lloyd, now again, prove it.
BTW, what peer reviewed journals do you read Lloyd, and what articles have
you published in peer reviewed journals?

 

Were you offended? I wasn't. Speak for youself, lest you become a
"Sharpton" of your own.

The only think that got me upset was that he apologized at all to that
prick.

 

Those same sites had "massive" amounts of evidence 25 years ago "proving:"
we were heading into a new ice age.
Thier "opinion" is no more valuable now than it was then.

Reading right-wing web sites and thinking

You reading left wing sites and calling it science is laughable Lloyd.
Learn some real science.

 

I particularly like these two paragraphs:
"'Life on Earth, in general, cannot be sustained above 104 degrees
Fahrenheit,' he said. 'In July of 1995 when temperatures rose to over
104 degrees over a large section of the Midwest, over 600 people died in
Chicago, not to mention the loss of livestock.'"

"One of the problems with global warming is that there will be winners
and losers," Thompson said. "There are 6 billion people who live on this
planet, and there are 2 billion who make less than $300 a year. It's
those people who won't be able to deal with changes in the environment.
If those people are displaced, where will they go and who pays the bill
for them going?"

WHAT an idiot!

The wording in this sentence was also rather telling: "Various global
warming models have predicted an increase in Earth's average temperature
over the next century, ranging from 2.5 degrees Fahrenheit to as high as
10 degrees Fahrenheit". I always am skeptical of people who
pretentiously refer to the Earth as if it were a person saying "Earth"
instead of "the Earth" as any normal person (at least in the U.S.) would
do (these are strangely the same people who say someone is "in
hospital", rather than "in the hospital" - NPR and people from England
say "in hospital" - for the latter, it's normal for their culture - for
U.S. born and raised NPR announcers, it's affectatious.

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

 

Soil absorbs heat. Air absorbs heat. Water absorbs heat. Just making
a statement like "CO2 absorbs heat" tells us nothing.

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

 

Wow - that one came awfully close to the Godwin threshold! 8^)

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

 

A lab rat knows more science than Lloyd.
His feeble rants have clearly demonstrated his ignorance of science.

 

Well, yeah - for one thing, that states can differ in certain areas
according to the will of the people as long as they stay within the
bounds of the Consitituion.

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

 

Have you looked through a telescope lately and seen the Mars, the Saturn,
the Venus, the Jupiter, the Neptune, the Pluto...?

Looks like you're talking out of (the) Uranus.

DS

 

What parker should have wrote, is that CO2 acts to retain heat. It's
a slight, but important difference.