Sad day for America
in [Toyota]
|
From: SMS on 30 Mar 2010 19:18 On 30/03/10 7:59 AM, C. E. White wrote: > "Mike Hunter"<Mikehunt2(a)lycos,com> wrote in message > news:4bb0f897$0$19707$ce5e7886(a)news-radius.ptd.net... >> What makes you think a 1984 Explorer, that actually came to market >> in July of 1983, is not a 25 year old model? Even if one only >> drove 15,000 mileage it would have nearly 400,000 miles on the >> odometer. Even a 1989 would have almost 325,000 miles. > > Mike, > > Explorer SUVs weren't introduced until 1990 for the 1991 Model Year. Stop confusing him with facts. He's a Republican.
From: SMS on 30 Mar 2010 19:21 On 29/03/10 5:44 PM, Skeptic(a)MonopolyISP.edu wrote: > The mortgage brokers then packaged the loans and sold them to Wall > Street brokerages/investment banks in some cases under a [similar to] > agency arrangement. After rebundling the mortgages to meet the demands > of their market, Wall Street then sold them to banks, mutual funds, > etc., under circumstances where the purchasers frequently didn't even > know the contents of the tranche they were buying. > > Any affirmative action activity was tiny, at the very beginning, and > certainly not responsible for the debacle. All true, but please stop confusing the tea-baggers with the facts.
From: dr_jeff on 30 Mar 2010 19:40 SMS wrote: > On 30/03/10 7:59 AM, C. E. White wrote: >> "Mike Hunter"<Mikehunt2(a)lycos,com> wrote in message >> news:4bb0f897$0$19707$ce5e7886(a)news-radius.ptd.net... >>> What makes you think a 1984 Explorer, that actually came to market >>> in July of 1983, is not a 25 year old model? Even if one only >>> drove 15,000 mileage it would have nearly 400,000 miles on the >>> odometer. Even a 1989 would have almost 325,000 miles. >> >> Mike, >> >> Explorer SUVs weren't introduced until 1990 for the 1991 Model Year. > > Stop confusing him with facts. He's a Republican. There are many bright Republicans (all of whom are outside this newsgroup).
From: dr_jeff on 30 Mar 2010 19:44 Mike Hunter wrote: > In other words you think it is a good idea for the GOVERNMENT to control > what or where YOU choose to eat, or what YOU choose to buy? Regulate and control are too different things. I don't think it is a good idea that quacks with names like chiropractors, homeopaths and naturopaths can sell their snake oil - unproven and sometimes dangerous treatments. The free-market economy didn't work so well with the mortgages, did it? > How about > where you live or what you say, is that a good idea as well? Try doing a > search of the governments powers in Germany in 1939, dummy You mean the Germany which the US was fighting when my father and three uncles entered the war? The one the claimed my uncle's life? Not all regulation is bad. > You are even more of a lefty loon then I suspected. IF you were still > alive in 2084 you likely would be first in line to buy the book. Do you > realize some of the outrageous things predict in 1984 already have, or soon > will, come to pass....dr_jeff? > "dr_jeff" <utz(a)msu.edu> wrote in message > news:14udnfMiOLYljy_WnZ2dnUVZ_qudnZ2d(a)giganews.com... >> Mike Hunter wrote: >>> Want more government regulations? You have not seen anything yet, wait >>> till the government totally takes over our health care in 2014. >>> >>> It has already begun! The Government that CURRENTLY regulates >>> trans-fats is trying to tax the "sugary" drinks that are killing our >>> children. >> They regulate drugs, requiring that the meet certain purity and >> effectiveness standards. They regulate doctors, teachers and other >> professionals, requiring that they don't have a serious criminal history >> before they can go into the clinic or classroom. What a horror? What's >> next? Requiring that priests don't molest children? And what right does >> the federal government have to make sure that cars are safe? The nerve of >> the government. >> >>> Next will come smoking regulations. One local major employer announced >>> today they will test all new workers for nicotine, if you have it in your >>> system they will not give you a job because it will further increase >>> their health care costs under the new bill. >> That's a local employer taking its health-care costs in its own hands. >> Should we regulate that, too? >> >>> Three major US manufactures are telling us their health care cost will go >>> up by millions of dollars a year, which will lead to higher prices for >>> their products. What next will they not employ any new employees who are >>> overweight? The federal government will start controlling what we eat >>> for the same reasons. Can government control of the use of alcohol be >>> far behind? >> Well, if a business stops hiring fat people, isn't that the business's >> decision? Are you saying we should regulate businesses? >> >> What if it is one of those three major US manufacturers? That would help >> lower their health-care costs. >> >> That alcohol regulation would be good for you and stop your drunken rants. >> >>> Not only will the government be telling you what you can eat, wait to >>> you see what happens to your privilege to DRIVE when they start to >>> restrict driving, or what you can drive to reduce the number injured on >>> killed on our highways. >> Legally, I may not drive a tractor-trailer, school bus or motorcycle. You >> think this is a bad thing? >> >>> I suspect we will see a new "1984" book written called "2084," total >>> government control of the lives of all those still alive at the time. >>> LOL >> Yeah, right. >> >>> "dr_jeff" <utz(a)msu.edu> wrote in message > >>>> There is a big difference between good regulation and stupidity. Banks >>>> encouraged to make loans that can't be repaid is stupidity. >>>> >>>> Jeff >
From: SMS on 30 Mar 2010 19:47
On 30/03/10 4:40 PM, dr_jeff wrote: > SMS wrote: >> On 30/03/10 7:59 AM, C. E. White wrote: >>> "Mike Hunter"<Mikehunt2(a)lycos,com> wrote in message >>> news:4bb0f897$0$19707$ce5e7886(a)news-radius.ptd.net... >>>> What makes you think a 1984 Explorer, that actually came to market >>>> in July of 1983, is not a 25 year old model? Even if one only >>>> drove 15,000 mileage it would have nearly 400,000 miles on the >>>> odometer. Even a 1989 would have almost 325,000 miles. >>> >>> Mike, >>> >>> Explorer SUVs weren't introduced until 1990 for the 1991 Model Year. >> >> Stop confusing him with facts. He's a Republican. > > There are many bright Republicans (all of whom are outside this newsgroup). I met one once, but he became an independent because he didn't like being associated with tea-baggers. |