Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers

Thanks for defining "TROLL" for us all...

 

In other words you have no response and attack me by claiming I am
'lying' but not defining about what. Lame Lloyd.

You accepted that the democrats were bought by the chinese via campaign
donations a couple posts ago with your 'but there wasn't a spy' response.

 

Sure, the Republicans hire Chinese spies. You can never tell when you'll
need one.

Oh please. You love to ascribe simpleton causes to such grand problems. As
if turning left instead of right would have brought us to peace in the
middle east... were it just for this one act of supporting the Shah. I can
argue that had Reagan or Bush been in office instead of Carter during the
Iranian Hostage Crisis that history would have played much differently in
the middle east (for the better).

 

In other words, you've lost yet another argument Lloyd. You would save
yourself a world of embarassment if you just stopped replying on subjects
you know nothing about, your old "he's lying" routine fools no one but you.

 

SNIP YOUR FUCKING POSTS!
<snip>

 

Urban myth. A Sudanese man claimed he could deliver bin Laden. Turned
out he couldn't. <

Don't you wish that was the truth??!!

Bush will soon drive the Demo-Losers WILD when his campaign, already well
funded, actually gets in gear. I can't wait to see the Demo-Coward weasels
respond to their pacifist, tyrant-coddling, failed tax & spend cronyism
record. Get used to your Demo-heros losing and being increasingly
irrelevant, Parker.

 

As if the republicans driving up spending with a war, rebuilding another
country or two, and a huge new entitlement program so ford, GM, and
others can drop their drug coverage for retirees is better? six of one,
half a dozen of the other.

 

Bravo to you once again, David!

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

 

Sorry, but the very people who bring you that sort of information are
concerned about manmade CO2 additions, so they must have a perspective
that armchair critics are quick to dismiss.

Ironically, speeding contributes to CO2 buildup by lowering gas
mileage, even in the most efficient cars. Anyone who drives 90 MPH
regularly (in any vehicle) is wasting fuel and pumping out more CO2
than they ought to. With so many drivers speeding, slowing down alone
could cause a notable drop in CO2 output.

If you are inclined to tell me that speeding doesn't reduce
efficiency, read this first:
http://auto.howstuffworks.com/question477.htm

C.T.

 

Ironically, speeding contributes to CO2 buildup by lowering gas
mileage, even in the most efficient cars. Anyone who drives 90 MPH regularly
(in any vehicle) is wasting fuel and pumping out more CO2 than they ought
to. With so many drivers speeding, slowing down alone could cause a notable
drop in CO2 output.<

By reducing sexual acivity, indeed, by embracing celibacy, humans will
exhale less C02, thereby saving the ice caps. All radical green zealots are
therefore to completely refrain from any form of sex in the interests of
saving the planet.

 

Parker demands info from the NOAA be used. I proved him wrong with
NOAA data. If you have better data, then present it.

Everything you do is about your idiotic drive slower than carl crusade.
Well Carl, I'll consider your fuel economy arguement to drive slower on the
interstate when you start driving 55mph to save fuel and lead by example.

Nice rule-of-thumb page. That neglects a whole host of factors.
Why don't you pick up a real automotive text sometime and gain
a real understanding. Better yet, why do *YOU* drive at least 10mph
faster than the 40-60mph recommended by your cite?

And if it wasn't for LLB's like you blocking the passing lane forcing
other drivers to brake and accelerate fuel consumption would go
down as well.

So carl, when you stop blocking other people, get in the right most
lane and drive 55mph, I'll consider your arguements as worthy when
you follow them yourself. Until then, it's just your selfish notion
that you own the roads and nobody should go faster than you and nothing
else.

 

While we are finger pointing, the US was also quite aggressive in using the
first nuclear bomb. We too were agressive in third world countries, Vietnam,
Korea, Afgan. Is not necessary wrong what we did, but just to point out that
both sides were aggressive. It is war after all.

The real phobia is world wide totalitarianism. That is a valid fear, and it
is to be avoided at all cost. The US did the right thing in preventing the
world from going into a totalitarian society. The US policy is good. Is the
propaganda that is troubling.
There is a difference between communism and the police state. The phobia of
communism is the result of propaganda. As in all wars, there are propaganda
to rally the people. The communism concept should be looked at in light of
its own merit. Just to say there is no merit is to ignorance.

You have just given a text book definition of communism. Your last line
about punishment does not necessary follow prior statments. Yes, factors of
production are owned by the government in a communistic society. The
government would pay the people wage. Does that equate to a police state.
NO, no and no.
Consider these statements:
The government owns the military which has more than enough power to squash
the people like an ant. The president is head of the military. The
government owns the police which has surveilance capability to listen in on
any conversation. The government owns all the record which keeps track of
where each person lives, how much they make, and what they talked about in
newsgroups.
THEREFORE, this country must be a totalitarian state. Wrong.
You must agree government ownership of military is more powerful than
factories. Military can easily bomb the factories. So why is it not
totalitarianism. It is because of checks and balance, and most importantly,
the power of the people to vote. Checks and balance and power to vote are
not exclusive to a capitalistic society. A country with communistic economy
can have the same thing. A major country like that does not currently
exist. But, it does not mean it cannot exist. I am sure there are minor
countries that are communistic with voting power. Propaganda would have you
believe that it cannot exist, so you never even consider the possibility. I
dare you to think outside of the box.

Yes, you must give stern warning to anyone who "throw the world socialistic
around". It is a sacrilege to "throw" such an evil word around. That
sinister word is to be used with utmost care least you applied it to the
wrong case. Gasp! God help you if you used the word "socialistic" wrong.
Instant burnt at the stake and hell for you.
This is exactly what I meant by phobia of socialism.

I would say a society that use heavy taxation to redistribute wealth so that
eveyone is equal is closer to socialism than capitalism. It might be missing
the part about government ownership of all factories, but the concept is
socialistic. Realisticly, there can never be pure socialism just like there
can never be pure capitalism or pure democracy. Living in an theoretical
world is not practical, and no country can do it. Is all a matter of degree,
and doctrination that is followed.

To be sure, there would have to be some reward structure to motivate people.
Money is a good motivator, but not necessary the best. Some people will have
to make more than other up to a certain point. I would say 16 to 1 highest
to lowest paid worker wealth ratio like Ben and Jerry's Ice Cream
Corporation. Problem with unlimited wealth is people do everything to make
more money even at the cost of the environment and the wellfare of the
nation as a whole. Look at Enron. After a certain level, just because a
person makes more money does not mean society as a whole benifit. Look at
Bill Gates and the Microsoft monopoly. We are still using computers that
crash, and are vulnerable to attacks.

No, I have not been under a rock. You must have been living under a rock if
you must use personal attacks. It does not take a genius to see that there
are more underclass people than the wealthy. Just go to the local DMV. How
many poor people do you see there. For everyone that works in an air
conditioned office, how many are there that works at low paying jobs. Look
at the statistic. The bottom 40% of the US population owns only .2% of the
total wealth. The bottom 60% owns 5% of the wealth. Now you tell me where is
the middle class? Go read my post again. Yes, middle class do carry the most
vote currently because the poor do not vote. I said WHEN the underclass
learns to vote, there will be no contest.

This is too far from the 4x4 topic.
To bring it back somewhat, I will say driving a bigger than necessary truck
harms the society as a whole. It is a show of wealth. If people are going to
show their wealth, please, just buy some expensive wine or go to an
expensive resturant or something rather than using up natural resource.

 

Another fool with 3rd grade reading skills, I see.

 

I wish you wouldn't get your "facts" from right-wing propaganda sources.

 

Let's see, change of 76 ppm in 6000 years (per that source). Now we've seen
an increase of the same magnitude in 120 years. Do you think there's no
difference?

 

OK, "needing to perform for those funds." That's your lie. Happy?

Sure, if it's passing a bill, or in the case of Bush, giving multi-billion
contracts without bids. But you're accusing Clinton of providing secret
defense info.

 

You can't even quote correctly. Honesty problem lloyd?

As can be seen, there is no lie here. But you knew that, your
claim is just to divert away from an issue you've lost the debate
on. Those who take money to run for office do need to perform for their
contributors or they won't get more money. This is a simple fact of
politics in the USA.

Parker has no response.

 

Have you read the book "War's End" by Maj gen Charles W. Sweeney,
(USAF Ret.)? This guy flew with both the Hiroshima and Nagasaki
missions and laid out a pretty good case for why we needed to use
nuclear weapons. Personally, I wouldn't call us "quite aggressive"
given the situation at the time.

Matt
99 V-10 Super Duty, Super Cab 4x4