"Roger Blake" <rogblake10@iname10.com> wrote in message
news:slrnc7em7v.mab.rogblake10@unix2.netaxs.com...
> >I'm not sure that I understand what you mean by "progressives."
>
> It is how many liberals like to refer to themselves these days.
>
> --
> Roger Blake
> (Subtract 10 for email.)

I like to refer to them as ********.
But that's just me

~KJ~

 

"Mike Smith" <mike_UNDERSCORE_smith@acm.DOT.org> wrote in message
news:107esumhcmng297@news.supernews.com...
> So now the opinion of George Graves as to "the good of the country" is
> going to become our basis for making laws? There are other people who
> think "the good of the country" would be best served by getting rid of
> all the Jews. Should we listen to them, too?
>
> --
> Mike Smith

Yes, you should listen to everyone. That is the point - of the people, for
the people, by the people. Neofascists are people too ya know!

~KJ~

 

I have driven a few Lincoln LSs and it seemed that they had poor breaking
power. I felt at slower speeds that the engine was going to over power the
brakes have you ever noticed this.


<StonyMason@mailcity.com> wrote in message
news:4078377C.8B8C3A26@mailcity.com...
> I've done much better with the Lincoln. I saved a lot of
> money since I started buying Lincoln LS's than when I was
> buying Lexus'. Have you ever actually owned a Lexus V8 or
> a Lincoln LS V8?
>
>
> mike hunt
>
>
>
>
> Tha Ghee wrote:
> >
> > <MajorDome@mailcity.com> wrote in message
> > news:40743199.5178DA04@mailcity.com...
> > > You certainly are entitle to your opinion but the discussion was
> > > ALL about fuel mileage. I'll bet you drive a Toyota because you
> > > have obviously never driven a Lincoln LS if you think the Camry
> > > is more nimble. Secondly I don't know were you get your opinion
> > > about the handling of the Mustang GT but in the past few years
> > > I've owned both the Solara and the Mustang GT convertibles and
> > > I'll take the 2004 GT any day of the week for handling at speed
> > > over the FWD 2004 Solara.
> > >
> > >
> > > mike hunt
> > >
> > is the LS nimble enough to avoid the rack and poor resale value??

 

The published braking distance, 60 to 0 is 121 feet, better
than average. I.E. comparable BMW is 128 feet. Just for the
record NO engine can ever overpower the braking system on any
vehicle.


mike hunt



Corey Scheich wrote:
>
> I have driven a few Lincoln LSs and it seemed that they had poor breaking
> power. I felt at slower speeds that the engine was going to over power the
> brakes have you ever noticed this.
>
> <StonyMason@mailcity.com> wrote in message
> news:4078377C.8B8C3A26@mailcity.com...
> > I've done much better with the Lincoln. I saved a lot of
> > money since I started buying Lincoln LS's than when I was
> > buying Lexus'. Have you ever actually owned a Lexus V8 or
> > a Lincoln LS V8?
> >
> >
> > mike hunt
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Tha Ghee wrote:
> > >
> > > <MajorDome@mailcity.com> wrote in message
> > > news:40743199.5178DA04@mailcity.com...
> > > > You certainly are entitle to your opinion but the discussion was
> > > > ALL about fuel mileage. I'll bet you drive a Toyota because you
> > > > have obviously never driven a Lincoln LS if you think the Camry
> > > > is more nimble. Secondly I don't know were you get your opinion
> > > > about the handling of the Mustang GT but in the past few years
> > > > I've owned both the Solara and the Mustang GT convertibles and
> > > > I'll take the 2004 GT any day of the week for handling at speed
> > > > over the FWD 2004 Solara.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > mike hunt
> > > >
> > > is the LS nimble enough to avoid the rack and poor resale value??

 

On Fri, 09 Apr 2004 12:14:20 -0400, Mike Smith
<mike_UNDERSCORE_smith@acm.DOT.org> puked:

>Roger Blake wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 09 Apr 2004 00:57:59 GMT, George Graves <gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>
>>>it. I think the US should close the gates on immigration, and start a
>>>zero-population-growth program NOW.
>>
>>
>> Which provision of the U.S. Constitution were you planning to distort
>> in order to support such a program? Or have "progressives" reached the
>> point where they don't even give thought to a triviality such as
>> the supreme law of the land when concocting their schemes?
>
>Indeed. In fact, one could argue that the right of the people to be
>"secure in their homes and persons", which is enshrined in the Bill of
>Rights, could be construed as a guarantee of the right to reproduce.
>
>Of course, that's not to say that such rights should necessarily be free
>of concomitant responsibilities. For instance, why do we give people a
>tax *break* for having children? The police have to protect those
>children, the armed forces defends those children, etc. It seems to me
>that parents should pay a *tax* on children, rather than get money
>*back*. And who knows, maybe this would have the effect of making a few
>would-be parents think twice about having that first, or second, child.
>(or third, or fourth, etc...)

That won't work, but we could sterilize anyone on the public dole.
That seems fair...
--
lab~rat >
Do you want polite or do you want sincere?

 

KJ wrote:

> Your kidding right? When your about to blow your load, are you thinking
> about taxes?

Dare I suggest that one might want to consider the ramifications of
irresponsible sexual behavior *before* "your about to blow your load",
or is that just too much to expect? And if one chooses *not* to
exercise such judgment, why is it inappropriate to hold them financially
responsible after the fact, instead of giving them a tax break, at my
expense?

--
Mike Smith

 

those little tikes often grow up to be tax payers themselves

Mike Smith wrote:
> KJ wrote:
>
>> Your kidding right? When your about to blow your load, are you thinking
>> about taxes?
>
>
> Dare I suggest that one might want to consider the ramifications of
> irresponsible sexual behavior *before* "your about to blow your load",
> or is that just too much to expect? And if one chooses *not* to
> exercise such judgment, why is it inappropriate to hold them financially
> responsible after the fact, instead of giving them a tax break, at my
> expense?
>
> --
> Mike Smith
>

 

I'm not saying the tax would be wrong. I'm also not saying that you
shouldn't think of the envitable before hand. I'm saying that it wont, just
like it doesn't work in China. Not to mention, I personally think it's
mostly religion's fault, Roman Catholics in particular.
So in other words, sure more money for the Gov but just as many pukes in the
world - and more people under the IRS's gun 'cuzin they cn't efford dem dar
cheyelz. - problem not fixed.

~KJ~

"Mike Smith" <mike_UNDERSCORE_smith@acm.DOT.org> wrote in message
news:107m0l6dvvd21f8@news.supernews.com...
> KJ wrote:
>
> > Your kidding right? When your about to blow your load, are you thinking
> > about taxes?
>
> Dare I suggest that one might want to consider the ramifications of
> irresponsible sexual behavior *before* "your about to blow your load",
> or is that just too much to expect? And if one chooses *not* to
> exercise such judgment, why is it inappropriate to hold them financially
> responsible after the fact, instead of giving them a tax break, at my
> expense?
>
> --
> Mike Smith
>

 

"Fred Flintstone" <fred@bedrock.com> wrote in message
news:407B05CA.7040309@bedrock.com...
> those little tikes often grow up to be tax payers themselves

And why should I care?

~KJ~

 

KJ wrote:

> I'm not saying the tax would be wrong. I'm also not saying that you
> shouldn't think of the envitable before hand. I'm saying that it wont, just
> like it doesn't work in China.

I don't care whether or not it "works". I'm not the one out to reduce
the population. I'm just a little tired of subsidizing other people's
children.

--
Mike Smith