Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
10-21-2003, 09:33 PM
#1551
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Dave C. wrote:
>>Back when station wagons were popular, there were no SUV's (at least not
>>like they are known today with interior A/C and DVD player, etc.) If you
>>could mandate that all SUV production be replaced by station wagon
>>production, you might have something there. But given a choice between
>>a large station wagon and a SUV I think your smoking weed if you seriously
>>believe that a large market segment would give their SUV's up to go to
>>station wagons.
>
>
> You don't have a family, do you. (not a question) -Dave
>
>
Hmmm... better fuel economy, better performance and handling, easier to
load sproggen into and out of back seat and stuff in and out of the
cargo area... yeah, we screwed ourselves with CAFE didn't we. Oh well,
there's always Audi.
I still see old, square full size GM wagons on the road occasionally,
usually as taxis. Surely if SUVs were better suited to such usage,
they'd be used by taxi companies... but all the newer ones are Crown
Vics for the most part...
Remember the days when you could buy a wagon and expect to haul plywood
and tow a trailer with it?
nate
--
remove "horny" from my email address to reply.
>>Back when station wagons were popular, there were no SUV's (at least not
>>like they are known today with interior A/C and DVD player, etc.) If you
>>could mandate that all SUV production be replaced by station wagon
>>production, you might have something there. But given a choice between
>>a large station wagon and a SUV I think your smoking weed if you seriously
>>believe that a large market segment would give their SUV's up to go to
>>station wagons.
>
>
> You don't have a family, do you. (not a question) -Dave
>
>
Hmmm... better fuel economy, better performance and handling, easier to
load sproggen into and out of back seat and stuff in and out of the
cargo area... yeah, we screwed ourselves with CAFE didn't we. Oh well,
there's always Audi.
I still see old, square full size GM wagons on the road occasionally,
usually as taxis. Surely if SUVs were better suited to such usage,
they'd be used by taxi companies... but all the newer ones are Crown
Vics for the most part...
Remember the days when you could buy a wagon and expect to haul plywood
and tow a trailer with it?
nate
--
remove "horny" from my email address to reply.
10-21-2003, 09:33 PM
#1552
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Dave C. wrote:
>>Back when station wagons were popular, there were no SUV's (at least not
>>like they are known today with interior A/C and DVD player, etc.) If you
>>could mandate that all SUV production be replaced by station wagon
>>production, you might have something there. But given a choice between
>>a large station wagon and a SUV I think your smoking weed if you seriously
>>believe that a large market segment would give their SUV's up to go to
>>station wagons.
>
>
> You don't have a family, do you. (not a question) -Dave
>
>
Hmmm... better fuel economy, better performance and handling, easier to
load sproggen into and out of back seat and stuff in and out of the
cargo area... yeah, we screwed ourselves with CAFE didn't we. Oh well,
there's always Audi.
I still see old, square full size GM wagons on the road occasionally,
usually as taxis. Surely if SUVs were better suited to such usage,
they'd be used by taxi companies... but all the newer ones are Crown
Vics for the most part...
Remember the days when you could buy a wagon and expect to haul plywood
and tow a trailer with it?
nate
--
remove "horny" from my email address to reply.
>>Back when station wagons were popular, there were no SUV's (at least not
>>like they are known today with interior A/C and DVD player, etc.) If you
>>could mandate that all SUV production be replaced by station wagon
>>production, you might have something there. But given a choice between
>>a large station wagon and a SUV I think your smoking weed if you seriously
>>believe that a large market segment would give their SUV's up to go to
>>station wagons.
>
>
> You don't have a family, do you. (not a question) -Dave
>
>
Hmmm... better fuel economy, better performance and handling, easier to
load sproggen into and out of back seat and stuff in and out of the
cargo area... yeah, we screwed ourselves with CAFE didn't we. Oh well,
there's always Audi.
I still see old, square full size GM wagons on the road occasionally,
usually as taxis. Surely if SUVs were better suited to such usage,
they'd be used by taxi companies... but all the newer ones are Crown
Vics for the most part...
Remember the days when you could buy a wagon and expect to haul plywood
and tow a trailer with it?
nate
--
remove "horny" from my email address to reply.
10-21-2003, 09:46 PM
#1553
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Approximately 10/21/03 18:24, Nate Nagel uttered for posterity:
> C. E. White wrote:
>
>>
>> Nate Nagel wrote:
>>
>>
>>>An SUV performing the same unsafe maneuver is far more hazardous to
>>>surrounding traffic. Surely even you can see that?
>>
>>
>> No, I can't see it. This is the sort of drivel the anti-SUV crowd routinely repeats.
>> Continulaly repeating an opinion does not make it a fact. PROVE IT!
>>
>> Ed
>>
>
> They're heavier and don't handle as well. The conclusion should be obvious.
When the facts are not first correct, the conclusions drawn can come only
from one's rectum.
>
> I'm actually repressing the urge to launch into an Aunt Judy-esque rant
> at this point. This frightens me. Why are concepts so obvious to
> anyone with any grasp of physics or driving dynamics apparently so
> obscure to the general public?
>
> *bangs head on desk*
Harder please.
>
> nate
>
--
My governor can kick your governor's ***
> C. E. White wrote:
>
>>
>> Nate Nagel wrote:
>>
>>
>>>An SUV performing the same unsafe maneuver is far more hazardous to
>>>surrounding traffic. Surely even you can see that?
>>
>>
>> No, I can't see it. This is the sort of drivel the anti-SUV crowd routinely repeats.
>> Continulaly repeating an opinion does not make it a fact. PROVE IT!
>>
>> Ed
>>
>
> They're heavier and don't handle as well. The conclusion should be obvious.
When the facts are not first correct, the conclusions drawn can come only
from one's rectum.
>
> I'm actually repressing the urge to launch into an Aunt Judy-esque rant
> at this point. This frightens me. Why are concepts so obvious to
> anyone with any grasp of physics or driving dynamics apparently so
> obscure to the general public?
>
> *bangs head on desk*
Harder please.
>
> nate
>
--
My governor can kick your governor's ***
10-21-2003, 09:46 PM
#1554
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Approximately 10/21/03 18:24, Nate Nagel uttered for posterity:
> C. E. White wrote:
>
>>
>> Nate Nagel wrote:
>>
>>
>>>An SUV performing the same unsafe maneuver is far more hazardous to
>>>surrounding traffic. Surely even you can see that?
>>
>>
>> No, I can't see it. This is the sort of drivel the anti-SUV crowd routinely repeats.
>> Continulaly repeating an opinion does not make it a fact. PROVE IT!
>>
>> Ed
>>
>
> They're heavier and don't handle as well. The conclusion should be obvious.
When the facts are not first correct, the conclusions drawn can come only
from one's rectum.
>
> I'm actually repressing the urge to launch into an Aunt Judy-esque rant
> at this point. This frightens me. Why are concepts so obvious to
> anyone with any grasp of physics or driving dynamics apparently so
> obscure to the general public?
>
> *bangs head on desk*
Harder please.
>
> nate
>
--
My governor can kick your governor's ***
> C. E. White wrote:
>
>>
>> Nate Nagel wrote:
>>
>>
>>>An SUV performing the same unsafe maneuver is far more hazardous to
>>>surrounding traffic. Surely even you can see that?
>>
>>
>> No, I can't see it. This is the sort of drivel the anti-SUV crowd routinely repeats.
>> Continulaly repeating an opinion does not make it a fact. PROVE IT!
>>
>> Ed
>>
>
> They're heavier and don't handle as well. The conclusion should be obvious.
When the facts are not first correct, the conclusions drawn can come only
from one's rectum.
>
> I'm actually repressing the urge to launch into an Aunt Judy-esque rant
> at this point. This frightens me. Why are concepts so obvious to
> anyone with any grasp of physics or driving dynamics apparently so
> obscure to the general public?
>
> *bangs head on desk*
Harder please.
>
> nate
>
--
My governor can kick your governor's ***
10-21-2003, 09:46 PM
#1555
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Approximately 10/21/03 18:24, Nate Nagel uttered for posterity:
> C. E. White wrote:
>
>>
>> Nate Nagel wrote:
>>
>>
>>>An SUV performing the same unsafe maneuver is far more hazardous to
>>>surrounding traffic. Surely even you can see that?
>>
>>
>> No, I can't see it. This is the sort of drivel the anti-SUV crowd routinely repeats.
>> Continulaly repeating an opinion does not make it a fact. PROVE IT!
>>
>> Ed
>>
>
> They're heavier and don't handle as well. The conclusion should be obvious.
When the facts are not first correct, the conclusions drawn can come only
from one's rectum.
>
> I'm actually repressing the urge to launch into an Aunt Judy-esque rant
> at this point. This frightens me. Why are concepts so obvious to
> anyone with any grasp of physics or driving dynamics apparently so
> obscure to the general public?
>
> *bangs head on desk*
Harder please.
>
> nate
>
--
My governor can kick your governor's ***
> C. E. White wrote:
>
>>
>> Nate Nagel wrote:
>>
>>
>>>An SUV performing the same unsafe maneuver is far more hazardous to
>>>surrounding traffic. Surely even you can see that?
>>
>>
>> No, I can't see it. This is the sort of drivel the anti-SUV crowd routinely repeats.
>> Continulaly repeating an opinion does not make it a fact. PROVE IT!
>>
>> Ed
>>
>
> They're heavier and don't handle as well. The conclusion should be obvious.
When the facts are not first correct, the conclusions drawn can come only
from one's rectum.
>
> I'm actually repressing the urge to launch into an Aunt Judy-esque rant
> at this point. This frightens me. Why are concepts so obvious to
> anyone with any grasp of physics or driving dynamics apparently so
> obscure to the general public?
>
> *bangs head on desk*
Harder please.
>
> nate
>
--
My governor can kick your governor's ***
10-21-2003, 09:59 PM
#1556
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Interesting. The best president ever was not a liberal (Reagan)... Much
like Unions, Liberals were useful at one time. Now their time has passed
and they won't die off quietly...
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bn3gb2$ipg$5@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <hf0lb.7706$W16.412@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.n et>,
> "Joe" <jo_ratner@NOSPAM.yahoo.com> wrote:
> >Lloyd,
> >Are you a Lliberal?
>
> Yep, like Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and all the other founding
fathers.
> Like John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, FDR, and all the other great
presidents.
> Like Jesus and Ghandi, for that matter.
>
> >LLOL
> >
> >"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
> >news:bn1eq2$d15$2@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> >> In article <gcc8pv89e67ac5f9qmmmfesoqbih6vd168@4ax.com>,
> >> Bill Funk <bfunk33@qwest.net> wrote:
> >> >On Mon, 20 Oct 03 11:33:12 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
> >> >wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>>When CAFE standards were dreampt up, it was thought that trucks were
> >not a
> >> >>>significant part of the automotive population, trucks were used for
> >work,
> >> >>>not play.
> >> >>
> >> >>And we should have adjusted CAFE for trucks as they started being
used
> >as
> >> cars
> >> >>are used.
> >> >
> >> >And what would the buyers have done then?
> >> >Gone to >8000lb trucks?
> >> >
> >> >You don't seem to want to let others do what they see as needed,
> >>
> >> No, there always have to be limitations, for the good of society.
> >>
> >> >instead wanting to decide for everyone what they should have.
> >> >Why should you get to do that?
> >> >Maybe you should look into moving to China or Cuba, where your talents
> >> >may actually be in demand. They are really into deciding how the
> >> >people should live there.
> >> >
> >> So you'd let people drive vehicles that pollute?
> >
> >
like Unions, Liberals were useful at one time. Now their time has passed
and they won't die off quietly...
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bn3gb2$ipg$5@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <hf0lb.7706$W16.412@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.n et>,
> "Joe" <jo_ratner@NOSPAM.yahoo.com> wrote:
> >Lloyd,
> >Are you a Lliberal?
>
> Yep, like Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and all the other founding
fathers.
> Like John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, FDR, and all the other great
presidents.
> Like Jesus and Ghandi, for that matter.
>
> >LLOL
> >
> >"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
> >news:bn1eq2$d15$2@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> >> In article <gcc8pv89e67ac5f9qmmmfesoqbih6vd168@4ax.com>,
> >> Bill Funk <bfunk33@qwest.net> wrote:
> >> >On Mon, 20 Oct 03 11:33:12 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
> >> >wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>>When CAFE standards were dreampt up, it was thought that trucks were
> >not a
> >> >>>significant part of the automotive population, trucks were used for
> >work,
> >> >>>not play.
> >> >>
> >> >>And we should have adjusted CAFE for trucks as they started being
used
> >as
> >> cars
> >> >>are used.
> >> >
> >> >And what would the buyers have done then?
> >> >Gone to >8000lb trucks?
> >> >
> >> >You don't seem to want to let others do what they see as needed,
> >>
> >> No, there always have to be limitations, for the good of society.
> >>
> >> >instead wanting to decide for everyone what they should have.
> >> >Why should you get to do that?
> >> >Maybe you should look into moving to China or Cuba, where your talents
> >> >may actually be in demand. They are really into deciding how the
> >> >people should live there.
> >> >
> >> So you'd let people drive vehicles that pollute?
> >
> >
10-21-2003, 09:59 PM
#1557
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Interesting. The best president ever was not a liberal (Reagan)... Much
like Unions, Liberals were useful at one time. Now their time has passed
and they won't die off quietly...
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bn3gb2$ipg$5@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <hf0lb.7706$W16.412@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.n et>,
> "Joe" <jo_ratner@NOSPAM.yahoo.com> wrote:
> >Lloyd,
> >Are you a Lliberal?
>
> Yep, like Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and all the other founding
fathers.
> Like John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, FDR, and all the other great
presidents.
> Like Jesus and Ghandi, for that matter.
>
> >LLOL
> >
> >"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
> >news:bn1eq2$d15$2@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> >> In article <gcc8pv89e67ac5f9qmmmfesoqbih6vd168@4ax.com>,
> >> Bill Funk <bfunk33@qwest.net> wrote:
> >> >On Mon, 20 Oct 03 11:33:12 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
> >> >wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>>When CAFE standards were dreampt up, it was thought that trucks were
> >not a
> >> >>>significant part of the automotive population, trucks were used for
> >work,
> >> >>>not play.
> >> >>
> >> >>And we should have adjusted CAFE for trucks as they started being
used
> >as
> >> cars
> >> >>are used.
> >> >
> >> >And what would the buyers have done then?
> >> >Gone to >8000lb trucks?
> >> >
> >> >You don't seem to want to let others do what they see as needed,
> >>
> >> No, there always have to be limitations, for the good of society.
> >>
> >> >instead wanting to decide for everyone what they should have.
> >> >Why should you get to do that?
> >> >Maybe you should look into moving to China or Cuba, where your talents
> >> >may actually be in demand. They are really into deciding how the
> >> >people should live there.
> >> >
> >> So you'd let people drive vehicles that pollute?
> >
> >
like Unions, Liberals were useful at one time. Now their time has passed
and they won't die off quietly...
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bn3gb2$ipg$5@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <hf0lb.7706$W16.412@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.n et>,
> "Joe" <jo_ratner@NOSPAM.yahoo.com> wrote:
> >Lloyd,
> >Are you a Lliberal?
>
> Yep, like Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and all the other founding
fathers.
> Like John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, FDR, and all the other great
presidents.
> Like Jesus and Ghandi, for that matter.
>
> >LLOL
> >
> >"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
> >news:bn1eq2$d15$2@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> >> In article <gcc8pv89e67ac5f9qmmmfesoqbih6vd168@4ax.com>,
> >> Bill Funk <bfunk33@qwest.net> wrote:
> >> >On Mon, 20 Oct 03 11:33:12 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
> >> >wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>>When CAFE standards were dreampt up, it was thought that trucks were
> >not a
> >> >>>significant part of the automotive population, trucks were used for
> >work,
> >> >>>not play.
> >> >>
> >> >>And we should have adjusted CAFE for trucks as they started being
used
> >as
> >> cars
> >> >>are used.
> >> >
> >> >And what would the buyers have done then?
> >> >Gone to >8000lb trucks?
> >> >
> >> >You don't seem to want to let others do what they see as needed,
> >>
> >> No, there always have to be limitations, for the good of society.
> >>
> >> >instead wanting to decide for everyone what they should have.
> >> >Why should you get to do that?
> >> >Maybe you should look into moving to China or Cuba, where your talents
> >> >may actually be in demand. They are really into deciding how the
> >> >people should live there.
> >> >
> >> So you'd let people drive vehicles that pollute?
> >
> >
10-21-2003, 09:59 PM
#1558
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Interesting. The best president ever was not a liberal (Reagan)... Much
like Unions, Liberals were useful at one time. Now their time has passed
and they won't die off quietly...
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bn3gb2$ipg$5@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <hf0lb.7706$W16.412@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.n et>,
> "Joe" <jo_ratner@NOSPAM.yahoo.com> wrote:
> >Lloyd,
> >Are you a Lliberal?
>
> Yep, like Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and all the other founding
fathers.
> Like John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, FDR, and all the other great
presidents.
> Like Jesus and Ghandi, for that matter.
>
> >LLOL
> >
> >"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
> >news:bn1eq2$d15$2@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> >> In article <gcc8pv89e67ac5f9qmmmfesoqbih6vd168@4ax.com>,
> >> Bill Funk <bfunk33@qwest.net> wrote:
> >> >On Mon, 20 Oct 03 11:33:12 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
> >> >wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>>When CAFE standards were dreampt up, it was thought that trucks were
> >not a
> >> >>>significant part of the automotive population, trucks were used for
> >work,
> >> >>>not play.
> >> >>
> >> >>And we should have adjusted CAFE for trucks as they started being
used
> >as
> >> cars
> >> >>are used.
> >> >
> >> >And what would the buyers have done then?
> >> >Gone to >8000lb trucks?
> >> >
> >> >You don't seem to want to let others do what they see as needed,
> >>
> >> No, there always have to be limitations, for the good of society.
> >>
> >> >instead wanting to decide for everyone what they should have.
> >> >Why should you get to do that?
> >> >Maybe you should look into moving to China or Cuba, where your talents
> >> >may actually be in demand. They are really into deciding how the
> >> >people should live there.
> >> >
> >> So you'd let people drive vehicles that pollute?
> >
> >
like Unions, Liberals were useful at one time. Now their time has passed
and they won't die off quietly...
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bn3gb2$ipg$5@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <hf0lb.7706$W16.412@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.n et>,
> "Joe" <jo_ratner@NOSPAM.yahoo.com> wrote:
> >Lloyd,
> >Are you a Lliberal?
>
> Yep, like Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and all the other founding
fathers.
> Like John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, FDR, and all the other great
presidents.
> Like Jesus and Ghandi, for that matter.
>
> >LLOL
> >
> >"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
> >news:bn1eq2$d15$2@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> >> In article <gcc8pv89e67ac5f9qmmmfesoqbih6vd168@4ax.com>,
> >> Bill Funk <bfunk33@qwest.net> wrote:
> >> >On Mon, 20 Oct 03 11:33:12 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
> >> >wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>>When CAFE standards were dreampt up, it was thought that trucks were
> >not a
> >> >>>significant part of the automotive population, trucks were used for
> >work,
> >> >>>not play.
> >> >>
> >> >>And we should have adjusted CAFE for trucks as they started being
used
> >as
> >> cars
> >> >>are used.
> >> >
> >> >And what would the buyers have done then?
> >> >Gone to >8000lb trucks?
> >> >
> >> >You don't seem to want to let others do what they see as needed,
> >>
> >> No, there always have to be limitations, for the good of society.
> >>
> >> >instead wanting to decide for everyone what they should have.
> >> >Why should you get to do that?
> >> >Maybe you should look into moving to China or Cuba, where your talents
> >> >may actually be in demand. They are really into deciding how the
> >> >people should live there.
> >> >
> >> So you'd let people drive vehicles that pollute?
> >
> >
10-21-2003, 10:01 PM
#1559
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Brent,
Do not confront a liberal with facts... it confuses them.
Joe
"Brent P" <tetraethyllead@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Utjlb.606952$cF.273281@rwcrnsc53...
> In article <bn3gb2$ipg$5@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
> > In article <hf0lb.7706$W16.412@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.n et>,
> > "Joe" <jo_ratner@NOSPAM.yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>Lloyd,
> >>Are you a Lliberal?
> >
> > Yep, like Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and all the other founding
fathers.
>
> I don't think so. You'd call pratically everything on this page
> "right-wing-something-or-the-other" I am sure:
>
> http://www.gmu.edu/departments/econo...es/wisdom.html
> I think the first one speaks against a great number of things from the
> democrat party in the last oh 70 years:
>
> "When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will
> herald the end of the republic." -- Benjamin Franklin
>
> And if not that, I am sure these founding father quotes would really
> get your panties in a bunch:
>
> http://www.gmu.edu/departments/econo...otes/arms.html
>
> Having read your writings over the years, as well as learned a fair
> amount about the "founding fathers" I see no agreement.
>
> Oh, and as far as JFK is concerned, funny how if you listen to JFK's
> speeches (recorded) keeping current views in mind, his talking about using
> tax cuts to stimulate the economy, etc etc you'd think he was a
> republican.....
>
>
>
Do not confront a liberal with facts... it confuses them.
Joe
"Brent P" <tetraethyllead@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Utjlb.606952$cF.273281@rwcrnsc53...
> In article <bn3gb2$ipg$5@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
> > In article <hf0lb.7706$W16.412@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.n et>,
> > "Joe" <jo_ratner@NOSPAM.yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>Lloyd,
> >>Are you a Lliberal?
> >
> > Yep, like Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and all the other founding
fathers.
>
> I don't think so. You'd call pratically everything on this page
> "right-wing-something-or-the-other" I am sure:
>
> http://www.gmu.edu/departments/econo...es/wisdom.html
> I think the first one speaks against a great number of things from the
> democrat party in the last oh 70 years:
>
> "When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will
> herald the end of the republic." -- Benjamin Franklin
>
> And if not that, I am sure these founding father quotes would really
> get your panties in a bunch:
>
> http://www.gmu.edu/departments/econo...otes/arms.html
>
> Having read your writings over the years, as well as learned a fair
> amount about the "founding fathers" I see no agreement.
>
> Oh, and as far as JFK is concerned, funny how if you listen to JFK's
> speeches (recorded) keeping current views in mind, his talking about using
> tax cuts to stimulate the economy, etc etc you'd think he was a
> republican.....
>
>
>
10-21-2003, 10:01 PM
#1560
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Brent,
Do not confront a liberal with facts... it confuses them.
Joe
"Brent P" <tetraethyllead@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Utjlb.606952$cF.273281@rwcrnsc53...
> In article <bn3gb2$ipg$5@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
> > In article <hf0lb.7706$W16.412@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.n et>,
> > "Joe" <jo_ratner@NOSPAM.yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>Lloyd,
> >>Are you a Lliberal?
> >
> > Yep, like Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and all the other founding
fathers.
>
> I don't think so. You'd call pratically everything on this page
> "right-wing-something-or-the-other" I am sure:
>
> http://www.gmu.edu/departments/econo...es/wisdom.html
> I think the first one speaks against a great number of things from the
> democrat party in the last oh 70 years:
>
> "When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will
> herald the end of the republic." -- Benjamin Franklin
>
> And if not that, I am sure these founding father quotes would really
> get your panties in a bunch:
>
> http://www.gmu.edu/departments/econo...otes/arms.html
>
> Having read your writings over the years, as well as learned a fair
> amount about the "founding fathers" I see no agreement.
>
> Oh, and as far as JFK is concerned, funny how if you listen to JFK's
> speeches (recorded) keeping current views in mind, his talking about using
> tax cuts to stimulate the economy, etc etc you'd think he was a
> republican.....
>
>
>
Do not confront a liberal with facts... it confuses them.
Joe
"Brent P" <tetraethyllead@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Utjlb.606952$cF.273281@rwcrnsc53...
> In article <bn3gb2$ipg$5@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
> > In article <hf0lb.7706$W16.412@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.n et>,
> > "Joe" <jo_ratner@NOSPAM.yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>Lloyd,
> >>Are you a Lliberal?
> >
> > Yep, like Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and all the other founding
fathers.
>
> I don't think so. You'd call pratically everything on this page
> "right-wing-something-or-the-other" I am sure:
>
> http://www.gmu.edu/departments/econo...es/wisdom.html
> I think the first one speaks against a great number of things from the
> democrat party in the last oh 70 years:
>
> "When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will
> herald the end of the republic." -- Benjamin Franklin
>
> And if not that, I am sure these founding father quotes would really
> get your panties in a bunch:
>
> http://www.gmu.edu/departments/econo...otes/arms.html
>
> Having read your writings over the years, as well as learned a fair
> amount about the "founding fathers" I see no agreement.
>
> Oh, and as far as JFK is concerned, funny how if you listen to JFK's
> speeches (recorded) keeping current views in mind, his talking about using
> tax cuts to stimulate the economy, etc etc you'd think he was a
> republican.....
>
>
>