Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
> Just like I said - when you have nothing to say, you right-wingers resort
to name-calling. <
Why is it you leftist ******** always think anyone who disagreees with you
is a "right-winger"? No wonder no one takes you seriously any longer.
> > I register as an independent and in '00 I voted for Nader.
> B.S. Nader was well to the left of Gore, and you sound just like a
commercial for Rush or Hannity. <
But, Nader is not part of the Republicrat establishment, is he? Neither was
Perot, who I voted for the previous two elections.
By the way, if you can purge your shallow little leftist mind of all the
Socialist indoctrination you've been fed you'll find that people in the
middle and on the right often have quite well formed positions on matters
that the left has managed to dominate, and ---- UP, for over 50 years.
I hate to challenge your little leftist sensibilities, but Bill Clinton was
not a liberal, he was just a politician wanting more & more power. He was a
HYPOCRITE of the first order.
Al Gore lost becuase he couldn't carry his own State, where he got creamed
because he no longer represented the values of the people who sent him to
Washington in the first place, and because Nader sucked off the Green vote
which he'd not convinced.
> Given the crap the Democrats are putting up as leaders, I'll vote for Bush
this time for sure.
> Uhh-huh. As if there was a chance you'd vote any other way... <
And that's the problem, isn't it Jonesey, too many people, indeed a MAJORITY
of us, don't agree with you and your Socialist buddies! (Get used to being
irrelevant....)
to name-calling. <
Why is it you leftist ******** always think anyone who disagreees with you
is a "right-winger"? No wonder no one takes you seriously any longer.
> > I register as an independent and in '00 I voted for Nader.
> B.S. Nader was well to the left of Gore, and you sound just like a
commercial for Rush or Hannity. <
But, Nader is not part of the Republicrat establishment, is he? Neither was
Perot, who I voted for the previous two elections.
By the way, if you can purge your shallow little leftist mind of all the
Socialist indoctrination you've been fed you'll find that people in the
middle and on the right often have quite well formed positions on matters
that the left has managed to dominate, and ---- UP, for over 50 years.
I hate to challenge your little leftist sensibilities, but Bill Clinton was
not a liberal, he was just a politician wanting more & more power. He was a
HYPOCRITE of the first order.
Al Gore lost becuase he couldn't carry his own State, where he got creamed
because he no longer represented the values of the people who sent him to
Washington in the first place, and because Nader sucked off the Green vote
which he'd not convinced.
> Given the crap the Democrats are putting up as leaders, I'll vote for Bush
this time for sure.
> Uhh-huh. As if there was a chance you'd vote any other way... <
And that's the problem, isn't it Jonesey, too many people, indeed a MAJORITY
of us, don't agree with you and your Socialist buddies! (Get used to being
irrelevant....)
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
> Just like I said - when you have nothing to say, you right-wingers resort
to name-calling. <
Why is it you leftist ******** always think anyone who disagreees with you
is a "right-winger"? No wonder no one takes you seriously any longer.
> > I register as an independent and in '00 I voted for Nader.
> B.S. Nader was well to the left of Gore, and you sound just like a
commercial for Rush or Hannity. <
But, Nader is not part of the Republicrat establishment, is he? Neither was
Perot, who I voted for the previous two elections.
By the way, if you can purge your shallow little leftist mind of all the
Socialist indoctrination you've been fed you'll find that people in the
middle and on the right often have quite well formed positions on matters
that the left has managed to dominate, and ---- UP, for over 50 years.
I hate to challenge your little leftist sensibilities, but Bill Clinton was
not a liberal, he was just a politician wanting more & more power. He was a
HYPOCRITE of the first order.
Al Gore lost becuase he couldn't carry his own State, where he got creamed
because he no longer represented the values of the people who sent him to
Washington in the first place, and because Nader sucked off the Green vote
which he'd not convinced.
> Given the crap the Democrats are putting up as leaders, I'll vote for Bush
this time for sure.
> Uhh-huh. As if there was a chance you'd vote any other way... <
And that's the problem, isn't it Jonesey, too many people, indeed a MAJORITY
of us, don't agree with you and your Socialist buddies! (Get used to being
irrelevant....)
to name-calling. <
Why is it you leftist ******** always think anyone who disagreees with you
is a "right-winger"? No wonder no one takes you seriously any longer.
> > I register as an independent and in '00 I voted for Nader.
> B.S. Nader was well to the left of Gore, and you sound just like a
commercial for Rush or Hannity. <
But, Nader is not part of the Republicrat establishment, is he? Neither was
Perot, who I voted for the previous two elections.
By the way, if you can purge your shallow little leftist mind of all the
Socialist indoctrination you've been fed you'll find that people in the
middle and on the right often have quite well formed positions on matters
that the left has managed to dominate, and ---- UP, for over 50 years.
I hate to challenge your little leftist sensibilities, but Bill Clinton was
not a liberal, he was just a politician wanting more & more power. He was a
HYPOCRITE of the first order.
Al Gore lost becuase he couldn't carry his own State, where he got creamed
because he no longer represented the values of the people who sent him to
Washington in the first place, and because Nader sucked off the Green vote
which he'd not convinced.
> Given the crap the Democrats are putting up as leaders, I'll vote for Bush
this time for sure.
> Uhh-huh. As if there was a chance you'd vote any other way... <
And that's the problem, isn't it Jonesey, too many people, indeed a MAJORITY
of us, don't agree with you and your Socialist buddies! (Get used to being
irrelevant....)
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
> Just like I said - when you have nothing to say, you right-wingers resort
to name-calling. <
Why is it you leftist ******** always think anyone who disagreees with you
is a "right-winger"? No wonder no one takes you seriously any longer.
> > I register as an independent and in '00 I voted for Nader.
> B.S. Nader was well to the left of Gore, and you sound just like a
commercial for Rush or Hannity. <
But, Nader is not part of the Republicrat establishment, is he? Neither was
Perot, who I voted for the previous two elections.
By the way, if you can purge your shallow little leftist mind of all the
Socialist indoctrination you've been fed you'll find that people in the
middle and on the right often have quite well formed positions on matters
that the left has managed to dominate, and ---- UP, for over 50 years.
I hate to challenge your little leftist sensibilities, but Bill Clinton was
not a liberal, he was just a politician wanting more & more power. He was a
HYPOCRITE of the first order.
Al Gore lost becuase he couldn't carry his own State, where he got creamed
because he no longer represented the values of the people who sent him to
Washington in the first place, and because Nader sucked off the Green vote
which he'd not convinced.
> Given the crap the Democrats are putting up as leaders, I'll vote for Bush
this time for sure.
> Uhh-huh. As if there was a chance you'd vote any other way... <
And that's the problem, isn't it Jonesey, too many people, indeed a MAJORITY
of us, don't agree with you and your Socialist buddies! (Get used to being
irrelevant....)
to name-calling. <
Why is it you leftist ******** always think anyone who disagreees with you
is a "right-winger"? No wonder no one takes you seriously any longer.
> > I register as an independent and in '00 I voted for Nader.
> B.S. Nader was well to the left of Gore, and you sound just like a
commercial for Rush or Hannity. <
But, Nader is not part of the Republicrat establishment, is he? Neither was
Perot, who I voted for the previous two elections.
By the way, if you can purge your shallow little leftist mind of all the
Socialist indoctrination you've been fed you'll find that people in the
middle and on the right often have quite well formed positions on matters
that the left has managed to dominate, and ---- UP, for over 50 years.
I hate to challenge your little leftist sensibilities, but Bill Clinton was
not a liberal, he was just a politician wanting more & more power. He was a
HYPOCRITE of the first order.
Al Gore lost becuase he couldn't carry his own State, where he got creamed
because he no longer represented the values of the people who sent him to
Washington in the first place, and because Nader sucked off the Green vote
which he'd not convinced.
> Given the crap the Democrats are putting up as leaders, I'll vote for Bush
this time for sure.
> Uhh-huh. As if there was a chance you'd vote any other way... <
And that's the problem, isn't it Jonesey, too many people, indeed a MAJORITY
of us, don't agree with you and your Socialist buddies! (Get used to being
irrelevant....)
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <bo6qne0qts@enews3.newsguy.com>, Gerald G. McGeorge wrote:
>> What it really gets down to is too many people. Not having enough
> resources to go around will IMO constrain human activity earlier than
> anything else. >
>
> Bravo! Who'll be the first gallant politician to suggest population control?
> Not a Democrat (for sure!) or Republican, thye need the votes.
Exactly! They need the votes. The greater the population, the greater
the stress on each individual, (be it from working more to keep the same
standard of living or struggling to get by) the less they are watched
and the easier they can keep their power.
>> What it really gets down to is too many people. Not having enough
> resources to go around will IMO constrain human activity earlier than
> anything else. >
>
> Bravo! Who'll be the first gallant politician to suggest population control?
> Not a Democrat (for sure!) or Republican, thye need the votes.
Exactly! They need the votes. The greater the population, the greater
the stress on each individual, (be it from working more to keep the same
standard of living or struggling to get by) the less they are watched
and the easier they can keep their power.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <bo6qne0qts@enews3.newsguy.com>, Gerald G. McGeorge wrote:
>> What it really gets down to is too many people. Not having enough
> resources to go around will IMO constrain human activity earlier than
> anything else. >
>
> Bravo! Who'll be the first gallant politician to suggest population control?
> Not a Democrat (for sure!) or Republican, thye need the votes.
Exactly! They need the votes. The greater the population, the greater
the stress on each individual, (be it from working more to keep the same
standard of living or struggling to get by) the less they are watched
and the easier they can keep their power.
>> What it really gets down to is too many people. Not having enough
> resources to go around will IMO constrain human activity earlier than
> anything else. >
>
> Bravo! Who'll be the first gallant politician to suggest population control?
> Not a Democrat (for sure!) or Republican, thye need the votes.
Exactly! They need the votes. The greater the population, the greater
the stress on each individual, (be it from working more to keep the same
standard of living or struggling to get by) the less they are watched
and the easier they can keep their power.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <bo6qne0qts@enews3.newsguy.com>, Gerald G. McGeorge wrote:
>> What it really gets down to is too many people. Not having enough
> resources to go around will IMO constrain human activity earlier than
> anything else. >
>
> Bravo! Who'll be the first gallant politician to suggest population control?
> Not a Democrat (for sure!) or Republican, thye need the votes.
Exactly! They need the votes. The greater the population, the greater
the stress on each individual, (be it from working more to keep the same
standard of living or struggling to get by) the less they are watched
and the easier they can keep their power.
>> What it really gets down to is too many people. Not having enough
> resources to go around will IMO constrain human activity earlier than
> anything else. >
>
> Bravo! Who'll be the first gallant politician to suggest population control?
> Not a Democrat (for sure!) or Republican, thye need the votes.
Exactly! They need the votes. The greater the population, the greater
the stress on each individual, (be it from working more to keep the same
standard of living or struggling to get by) the less they are watched
and the easier they can keep their power.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
That's very funny. Seriously, I laughed. No, I wasn't that crazy. First of
all my Horizon wasn't worth the gas in the tank. Secondly, I had the weight
distributed evenly. The car in the link looks like it has over 1000 pounds.
To the other readers: have a laugh http://www.visi.com/~timf/Stupid.jpg
"TJim" <jim@ranlet.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:Z9Gdnc_MGfn17D-iRVn-sg@comcast.com...
> Like this?
> http://www.visi.com/~timf/Stupid.jpg
>
> --
> Jim
>
> "Phil Breau" <phil@breau.com> wrote in message
> news:1pnob.129452$h61.4116@news01.bloor.is.net.cab le.rogers.com...
> > Large SUV's are great for bad drivers. It will lessen the likelihood of
> > being fatally injured WHEN you get in an accident.
> > Read this article
> > http://www.divisiontwo.com/articles/parttimemom1.htm
> > I used my '89 Horizon as an SUV. True story: I put 4 6x6 16' long
timbers
> on
> > the roof racks. Weighed 500 pounds. Racks were rated for 100 pounds max.
> > Let's see you do that with your precious Hummer that you bought with the
> > inheritance money mommy and daddy left you with.
> >
> > Real men don't drive SUV's.
> >
> > "P e t e F a g e r l i n" <pete@petefagerlin.com> wrote in message
> > news:gb50pvg4cfcc9m1di3lvgsdf2aj3mfj0rg@4ax.com...
> > > On 17 Oct 2003 08:52:47 -0700, dianelos@tecapro.com (Dianelos
> > > Georgoudis) wrote:
> > >
> > > >If you care about your personal safety then, clearly, the best
> > > >strategy is not to use a SUV but to use a mid-size or large passenger
> > > >car.
> > >
> > > I care not only about my safety, but the safety of my family, so I
> > > bought a very safe SUV.
> > >
> > > Go figure.
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
all my Horizon wasn't worth the gas in the tank. Secondly, I had the weight
distributed evenly. The car in the link looks like it has over 1000 pounds.
To the other readers: have a laugh http://www.visi.com/~timf/Stupid.jpg
"TJim" <jim@ranlet.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:Z9Gdnc_MGfn17D-iRVn-sg@comcast.com...
> Like this?
> http://www.visi.com/~timf/Stupid.jpg
>
> --
> Jim
>
> "Phil Breau" <phil@breau.com> wrote in message
> news:1pnob.129452$h61.4116@news01.bloor.is.net.cab le.rogers.com...
> > Large SUV's are great for bad drivers. It will lessen the likelihood of
> > being fatally injured WHEN you get in an accident.
> > Read this article
> > http://www.divisiontwo.com/articles/parttimemom1.htm
> > I used my '89 Horizon as an SUV. True story: I put 4 6x6 16' long
timbers
> on
> > the roof racks. Weighed 500 pounds. Racks were rated for 100 pounds max.
> > Let's see you do that with your precious Hummer that you bought with the
> > inheritance money mommy and daddy left you with.
> >
> > Real men don't drive SUV's.
> >
> > "P e t e F a g e r l i n" <pete@petefagerlin.com> wrote in message
> > news:gb50pvg4cfcc9m1di3lvgsdf2aj3mfj0rg@4ax.com...
> > > On 17 Oct 2003 08:52:47 -0700, dianelos@tecapro.com (Dianelos
> > > Georgoudis) wrote:
> > >
> > > >If you care about your personal safety then, clearly, the best
> > > >strategy is not to use a SUV but to use a mid-size or large passenger
> > > >car.
> > >
> > > I care not only about my safety, but the safety of my family, so I
> > > bought a very safe SUV.
> > >
> > > Go figure.
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
That's very funny. Seriously, I laughed. No, I wasn't that crazy. First of
all my Horizon wasn't worth the gas in the tank. Secondly, I had the weight
distributed evenly. The car in the link looks like it has over 1000 pounds.
To the other readers: have a laugh http://www.visi.com/~timf/Stupid.jpg
"TJim" <jim@ranlet.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:Z9Gdnc_MGfn17D-iRVn-sg@comcast.com...
> Like this?
> http://www.visi.com/~timf/Stupid.jpg
>
> --
> Jim
>
> "Phil Breau" <phil@breau.com> wrote in message
> news:1pnob.129452$h61.4116@news01.bloor.is.net.cab le.rogers.com...
> > Large SUV's are great for bad drivers. It will lessen the likelihood of
> > being fatally injured WHEN you get in an accident.
> > Read this article
> > http://www.divisiontwo.com/articles/parttimemom1.htm
> > I used my '89 Horizon as an SUV. True story: I put 4 6x6 16' long
timbers
> on
> > the roof racks. Weighed 500 pounds. Racks were rated for 100 pounds max.
> > Let's see you do that with your precious Hummer that you bought with the
> > inheritance money mommy and daddy left you with.
> >
> > Real men don't drive SUV's.
> >
> > "P e t e F a g e r l i n" <pete@petefagerlin.com> wrote in message
> > news:gb50pvg4cfcc9m1di3lvgsdf2aj3mfj0rg@4ax.com...
> > > On 17 Oct 2003 08:52:47 -0700, dianelos@tecapro.com (Dianelos
> > > Georgoudis) wrote:
> > >
> > > >If you care about your personal safety then, clearly, the best
> > > >strategy is not to use a SUV but to use a mid-size or large passenger
> > > >car.
> > >
> > > I care not only about my safety, but the safety of my family, so I
> > > bought a very safe SUV.
> > >
> > > Go figure.
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
all my Horizon wasn't worth the gas in the tank. Secondly, I had the weight
distributed evenly. The car in the link looks like it has over 1000 pounds.
To the other readers: have a laugh http://www.visi.com/~timf/Stupid.jpg
"TJim" <jim@ranlet.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:Z9Gdnc_MGfn17D-iRVn-sg@comcast.com...
> Like this?
> http://www.visi.com/~timf/Stupid.jpg
>
> --
> Jim
>
> "Phil Breau" <phil@breau.com> wrote in message
> news:1pnob.129452$h61.4116@news01.bloor.is.net.cab le.rogers.com...
> > Large SUV's are great for bad drivers. It will lessen the likelihood of
> > being fatally injured WHEN you get in an accident.
> > Read this article
> > http://www.divisiontwo.com/articles/parttimemom1.htm
> > I used my '89 Horizon as an SUV. True story: I put 4 6x6 16' long
timbers
> on
> > the roof racks. Weighed 500 pounds. Racks were rated for 100 pounds max.
> > Let's see you do that with your precious Hummer that you bought with the
> > inheritance money mommy and daddy left you with.
> >
> > Real men don't drive SUV's.
> >
> > "P e t e F a g e r l i n" <pete@petefagerlin.com> wrote in message
> > news:gb50pvg4cfcc9m1di3lvgsdf2aj3mfj0rg@4ax.com...
> > > On 17 Oct 2003 08:52:47 -0700, dianelos@tecapro.com (Dianelos
> > > Georgoudis) wrote:
> > >
> > > >If you care about your personal safety then, clearly, the best
> > > >strategy is not to use a SUV but to use a mid-size or large passenger
> > > >car.
> > >
> > > I care not only about my safety, but the safety of my family, so I
> > > bought a very safe SUV.
> > >
> > > Go figure.
> > >
> >
> >
>
>