Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#1051
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
I don't think so!
http://www.mercedes-benz.com/com/e/h...ros/index.html
;-)
DAS
--
---
NB: To reply directly replace "nospam" with "schmetterling"
---
"Marc" <whineryy@yifan.net> wrote in message
news:l6j4pvoqdoe3n193jjjiqvrj2fm4om3vau@4ax.com...
.................................
>
> That trucks, even those like the ML55 AMG, still handle like trucks.
> ...............................
http://www.mercedes-benz.com/com/e/h...ros/index.html
;-)
DAS
--
---
NB: To reply directly replace "nospam" with "schmetterling"
---
"Marc" <whineryy@yifan.net> wrote in message
news:l6j4pvoqdoe3n193jjjiqvrj2fm4om3vau@4ax.com...
.................................
>
> That trucks, even those like the ML55 AMG, still handle like trucks.
> ...............................
#1052
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Chris Phillipo wrote:
>
> In article <3F931328.B2113D8A@kinez.net>, bputney@kinez.net says...
> >
> > Chris Phillipo wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <3F92C1AC.EC3FA467@kinez.net>, bputney@kinez.net says...
> > > ...By the way, the only one I see trying to
> > > take over numerous other countries like Hitler did, is from Texas.
> >
> > You are delusional if you really think that. I think we just met the
> > criteria for Godwin's law.
>
> When American's stop making this -------- parallel with Hitler I'll stop
> pointing out that US Imperialism is really starting to show through int
> he current administration.
So in one post you explicitly equate Bush with Hitler; your very next
post you say that Americans make -------- parallels to Hitler. I rest
my case (about your being an idiot). My bringing up Hitler was only to
illustrate that in some situations, tyranny has to be faced down and to
do that, unfortunately, blood has to be shed - short term losses
(deaths) for long term gains (fewer deaths over the long haul, plus
freedom for people). If you want to call that a parallel, then OK - but
it is valid, unless in your mind Bush is bad and Osama Bin Laden (9/11)
and Sadam Hussein (swimming pool acid baths; put people into tree
shredders, sometimes head first, sometimes feet first, depending on his
mood, idolized Stalin, etc.) are good. Your call.
Then you were the one who made the, in your words, -------- parallel to
Hitler.
Again - we're well past the Godwin's law criteria here.
> > The proper question to ask is, over the next 2, 20, 30, 40 years how
> > much the numbers *would* have increased had we not taken a stand?
> > Neither you nor I can answer that with any certainty at this point, and
> > we certainly can't afford to sit around doing nothing to wait and find
> > out.
> >
>
> That's not he question to ask at all, because in 2, 20, 30, 40 the
> numbers will increase, there is no question.
And if we sit back and let them rape us, the numbers will go down. I
see. Again, thanks for making my case.
Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
#1053
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Chris Phillipo wrote:
>
> In article <3F931328.B2113D8A@kinez.net>, bputney@kinez.net says...
> >
> > Chris Phillipo wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <3F92C1AC.EC3FA467@kinez.net>, bputney@kinez.net says...
> > > ...By the way, the only one I see trying to
> > > take over numerous other countries like Hitler did, is from Texas.
> >
> > You are delusional if you really think that. I think we just met the
> > criteria for Godwin's law.
>
> When American's stop making this -------- parallel with Hitler I'll stop
> pointing out that US Imperialism is really starting to show through int
> he current administration.
So in one post you explicitly equate Bush with Hitler; your very next
post you say that Americans make -------- parallels to Hitler. I rest
my case (about your being an idiot). My bringing up Hitler was only to
illustrate that in some situations, tyranny has to be faced down and to
do that, unfortunately, blood has to be shed - short term losses
(deaths) for long term gains (fewer deaths over the long haul, plus
freedom for people). If you want to call that a parallel, then OK - but
it is valid, unless in your mind Bush is bad and Osama Bin Laden (9/11)
and Sadam Hussein (swimming pool acid baths; put people into tree
shredders, sometimes head first, sometimes feet first, depending on his
mood, idolized Stalin, etc.) are good. Your call.
Then you were the one who made the, in your words, -------- parallel to
Hitler.
Again - we're well past the Godwin's law criteria here.
> > The proper question to ask is, over the next 2, 20, 30, 40 years how
> > much the numbers *would* have increased had we not taken a stand?
> > Neither you nor I can answer that with any certainty at this point, and
> > we certainly can't afford to sit around doing nothing to wait and find
> > out.
> >
>
> That's not he question to ask at all, because in 2, 20, 30, 40 the
> numbers will increase, there is no question.
And if we sit back and let them rape us, the numbers will go down. I
see. Again, thanks for making my case.
Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
#1054
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Chris Phillipo wrote:
>
> In article <3F931328.B2113D8A@kinez.net>, bputney@kinez.net says...
> >
> > Chris Phillipo wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <3F92C1AC.EC3FA467@kinez.net>, bputney@kinez.net says...
> > > ...By the way, the only one I see trying to
> > > take over numerous other countries like Hitler did, is from Texas.
> >
> > You are delusional if you really think that. I think we just met the
> > criteria for Godwin's law.
>
> When American's stop making this -------- parallel with Hitler I'll stop
> pointing out that US Imperialism is really starting to show through int
> he current administration.
So in one post you explicitly equate Bush with Hitler; your very next
post you say that Americans make -------- parallels to Hitler. I rest
my case (about your being an idiot). My bringing up Hitler was only to
illustrate that in some situations, tyranny has to be faced down and to
do that, unfortunately, blood has to be shed - short term losses
(deaths) for long term gains (fewer deaths over the long haul, plus
freedom for people). If you want to call that a parallel, then OK - but
it is valid, unless in your mind Bush is bad and Osama Bin Laden (9/11)
and Sadam Hussein (swimming pool acid baths; put people into tree
shredders, sometimes head first, sometimes feet first, depending on his
mood, idolized Stalin, etc.) are good. Your call.
Then you were the one who made the, in your words, -------- parallel to
Hitler.
Again - we're well past the Godwin's law criteria here.
> > The proper question to ask is, over the next 2, 20, 30, 40 years how
> > much the numbers *would* have increased had we not taken a stand?
> > Neither you nor I can answer that with any certainty at this point, and
> > we certainly can't afford to sit around doing nothing to wait and find
> > out.
> >
>
> That's not he question to ask at all, because in 2, 20, 30, 40 the
> numbers will increase, there is no question.
And if we sit back and let them rape us, the numbers will go down. I
see. Again, thanks for making my case.
Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
#1055
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Lisa Horton wrote:
>
> Bill Putney wrote:
> >
> > Dave Milne wrote:
> > >
> > > I'd rather incompetents were banned full stop.
> >
> > Repeating what I put in another post, the liberals would *never* allow
> > that. Can't you hear their reasoning now: "By keeping an incompetent
> > driver off the road, you would in effect be punishing his/her innocent
> > children. Therefore it would be better to let the incompetent parents
> > continue to drive without restriction. A few more people might be
> > killed as a result, but at least the innocent children would not be
> > punished."
> >
>
> Nonsense. I'm definitely liberal, or beyond, and I strongly support
> tougher licensing requirements.
I was just pointing out one more typical liberal logic dilemma (of which
there are countless). This particular one is similar to the one about
ending the welfare state (you know - the one about: "We have to continue
rewarding women who continue having numerous children out of wedlock who
can't afford them but who don't have self-control because if we don't
their innocent children will suffer").
Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
#1056
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Lisa Horton wrote:
>
> Bill Putney wrote:
> >
> > Dave Milne wrote:
> > >
> > > I'd rather incompetents were banned full stop.
> >
> > Repeating what I put in another post, the liberals would *never* allow
> > that. Can't you hear their reasoning now: "By keeping an incompetent
> > driver off the road, you would in effect be punishing his/her innocent
> > children. Therefore it would be better to let the incompetent parents
> > continue to drive without restriction. A few more people might be
> > killed as a result, but at least the innocent children would not be
> > punished."
> >
>
> Nonsense. I'm definitely liberal, or beyond, and I strongly support
> tougher licensing requirements.
I was just pointing out one more typical liberal logic dilemma (of which
there are countless). This particular one is similar to the one about
ending the welfare state (you know - the one about: "We have to continue
rewarding women who continue having numerous children out of wedlock who
can't afford them but who don't have self-control because if we don't
their innocent children will suffer").
Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
#1057
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Lisa Horton wrote:
>
> Bill Putney wrote:
> >
> > Dave Milne wrote:
> > >
> > > I'd rather incompetents were banned full stop.
> >
> > Repeating what I put in another post, the liberals would *never* allow
> > that. Can't you hear their reasoning now: "By keeping an incompetent
> > driver off the road, you would in effect be punishing his/her innocent
> > children. Therefore it would be better to let the incompetent parents
> > continue to drive without restriction. A few more people might be
> > killed as a result, but at least the innocent children would not be
> > punished."
> >
>
> Nonsense. I'm definitely liberal, or beyond, and I strongly support
> tougher licensing requirements.
I was just pointing out one more typical liberal logic dilemma (of which
there are countless). This particular one is similar to the one about
ending the welfare state (you know - the one about: "We have to continue
rewarding women who continue having numerous children out of wedlock who
can't afford them but who don't have self-control because if we don't
their innocent children will suffer").
Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
#1058
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <7djkb.1999$np1.894@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.n et>,
"Dave C." <spammersdie@slowlyandpainfully.com> wrote:
>>
>> And the simple solution is to raise the truck CAFE, as the car CAFE has
>been
>> several times, or better yet, to have one CAFE for both cars and trucks.
>>
>>
>
>I think you meant lower, didn't you? -Dave
>
>
No, raise the truck CAFE -- it's not ridiculously low.
"Dave C." <spammersdie@slowlyandpainfully.com> wrote:
>>
>> And the simple solution is to raise the truck CAFE, as the car CAFE has
>been
>> several times, or better yet, to have one CAFE for both cars and trucks.
>>
>>
>
>I think you meant lower, didn't you? -Dave
>
>
No, raise the truck CAFE -- it's not ridiculously low.
#1059
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <7djkb.1999$np1.894@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.n et>,
"Dave C." <spammersdie@slowlyandpainfully.com> wrote:
>>
>> And the simple solution is to raise the truck CAFE, as the car CAFE has
>been
>> several times, or better yet, to have one CAFE for both cars and trucks.
>>
>>
>
>I think you meant lower, didn't you? -Dave
>
>
No, raise the truck CAFE -- it's not ridiculously low.
"Dave C." <spammersdie@slowlyandpainfully.com> wrote:
>>
>> And the simple solution is to raise the truck CAFE, as the car CAFE has
>been
>> several times, or better yet, to have one CAFE for both cars and trucks.
>>
>>
>
>I think you meant lower, didn't you? -Dave
>
>
No, raise the truck CAFE -- it's not ridiculously low.
#1060
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <7djkb.1999$np1.894@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.n et>,
"Dave C." <spammersdie@slowlyandpainfully.com> wrote:
>>
>> And the simple solution is to raise the truck CAFE, as the car CAFE has
>been
>> several times, or better yet, to have one CAFE for both cars and trucks.
>>
>>
>
>I think you meant lower, didn't you? -Dave
>
>
No, raise the truck CAFE -- it's not ridiculously low.
"Dave C." <spammersdie@slowlyandpainfully.com> wrote:
>>
>> And the simple solution is to raise the truck CAFE, as the car CAFE has
>been
>> several times, or better yet, to have one CAFE for both cars and trucks.
>>
>>
>
>I think you meant lower, didn't you? -Dave
>
>
No, raise the truck CAFE -- it's not ridiculously low.