Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers

  • Thread starter Dianelos Georgoudis
  • Start date
This site contains affiliate links for which LandyZone may be compensated if you make a purchase.
On Thu, 4 Dec 2003, David J. Allen wrote:

> Traditional marriage with it's meaningfulness for families (read children)
> serves a meaningful purpose to the benefit of all of us, which is providing
> a stable place for children to be raised to be production members of
> society. It ADDS to society. Gay marriage does what? It allows gay
> couples the benefits of marriage (inheretence, insurance, etc.) but serves
> no other useful purpose to society. And NO I'm NOT arguing against marriage
> for childless couples.

Well, either you're arguing against marriage for sterile or childless
heterosexuals, or you're being disingenuous and two-faced. Which is it?

> I don't really even buy the argument that there are benefits gay couples
> can't have without marriage.

Oh? So if rights of succession, inheritance, social security, joint tax
filing and so forth aren't benefits, what are they, then?

> To me, it's part of an agenda to normalize gays in society in every way

Maybe that's what they mean when they march through the street hollering
"We're here, we're queer, get used to it."

> When we devalue the family unit then marriage becomes less relevent

Seems to me heterosexuals, with their plus-fifty-percent divorce rate,
have managed to devalue the family unit and trivialize marriage very well
without any assistance from gays.

> This shouldn't be a civil rights argument.

That's exactly what it is, whether you like it or not.

DS

 
Nick N wrote:

> "Steve" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>C. E. White wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Del Rawlins wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>The only equitable solution is for the government to get out of the
>>>>marriage business completely. That ought to **** off everyone equally.
>
>
> or just keep crossposting.
> Please everyone. Stop.
> Nick
>
>

Fine. Exactly who started the crossposting? Which groups are "cross
posted" and which ones belong? Its clearly OT in any group in the "to" line.



 
On Thu, 4 Dec 2003, David J. Allen wrote:

> The issue is not discrimination.

That's exactly what's at issue. When one group of people is systematically
denied specific civil rights others have, that's invidious discrimination.

> Though it's useful for those who support
> gay marriage because of the strategy to make it analogous with civil rights
> for blacks.

Such authorities on the civil rights struggle for blacks as Coretta Scott
King agree with the analogy.

> If we all decide that gay marriage is cool, that's what we'll do and
> we'll live with it and it's consequences. If we discriminate against
> gays when it comes to marriage it's because people believe that the
> basic unit of our society ought to be the family and that it ought to be
> preserved and protected. Not everyone agrees with that. Fine. Vote
> your way.

If the majority is allowed to vote upon whether or not to grant equal
civil rights to minorities, minorities will never be accorded equal
rights. It's been demonstrated again and again and again.

DS

 
Lloyd parker [email protected] started this mess. See
http://tinyurl.com/xrz7 for a look at over 55 thousand messages. To this
day, probably two months later, him and other people are keeping this way OT
thread alive and clogging our newsgroups with THOUSANDS of messages. It is
time to kill this or take it elsewhere!
Lloyd has already being reported to his university and the other people who
keep posting multiple times are also slowly being reported to their
according abuse@ addresses. for example, abuse@mci abuse@umich abuse@rogers
(you know who you are) and a few others. We at Jeep+willys newsgroup are
fed up and fighting back. I would guess many people are going to start
having isp problems unless they quit this abuse. On the other hand, I have
no problem if they just start maybe a yahoo group or someplace they can
argue tell their blue. Steve, I don't know what newsgroup you originate
from but I appreciate your interest and support.
Nick



"Steve" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Nick N wrote:
>
> > "Steve" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >
> >>C. E. White wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Del Rawlins wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>The only equitable solution is for the government to get out of the
> >>>>marriage business completely. That ought to **** off everyone
equally.
> >
> >
> > or just keep crossposting.
> > Please everyone. Stop.
> > Nick
> >
> >
>
> Fine. Exactly who started the crossposting? Which groups are "cross
> posted" and which ones belong? Its clearly OT in any group in the "to"
line.
>
>
>


 
On Thu, 4 Dec 2003, Jeepers wrote:

> Daniel Stern just doesn't get it.
> He Is CROSSPOSTING WITH EACH REPLY!
> STOP! Trim your headers!

Dear Pot:

Yes, I am.

<signed>

Kettle

 
On Thu, 4 Dec 2003 13:16:23 -0500, "The Ancient One"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>And yet the exodus from Canada to the US for treatment continues unabaited.
>To be so bad here it is amazing that so many come here from so many
>countries, giving up free care for prompt, high quality care here. You get
>reallly sick there, you get a tumor that requires immediate surgery, but the
>system is over budget and you're put on a six to twelve month waiting list,
>and then we'll see how fast you come running to America for immediate
>treatment.

It's not quite that simple. If you need a procedure, they evaluate
how urgent it is. If it's extremely urgent you get bumped to the top
of the list. If it's not so urgent, you get on the waiting list and
get done after others who have been waiting longer are processed. If
you don't want to wait and can afford it, you go to somewhere that you
can pay for the procedure, which is down south. A great system if
you're wealthy.

I know that no matter what happens, if I blow out my knee I'm going to
get an MRI. It may take 8 weeks, but I'll get it and it won't cost me
anything extra. Can you say the same thing?
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail

Definition of "Lottery":
Millions of stupid people contributing
to make one stupid person look smart.
 
On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 19:21:36 GMT, "David J. Allen"
<dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:

>Traditional marriage with it's meaningfulness for families (read children)
>serves a meaningful purpose to the benefit of all of us, which is providing
>a stable place for children to be raised to be production members of
>society. It ADDS to society. Gay marriage does what? It allows gay
>couples the benefits of marriage (inheretence, insurance, etc.) but serves
>no other useful purpose to society. And NO I'm NOT arguing against marriage
>for childless couples.

Well, it's either primarily for the children or its not. How does a
childless couple add to society?

>I don't really even buy the argument that there are benefits gay couples
>can't have without marriage. To me, it's part of an agenda to normalize
>gays in society in every way, that being the end, not that there's an end or
>purpose for gay marriage itself. When we devalue the family unit then
>marriage becomes less relevent and it doesn't really matter who or what you
>marry and the argument devolves to "rights" rather than benefit to society.
>This shouldn't be a civil rights argument.

What's wrong with normalizing gays in society? As long as they care
for each other, how does that devalue the family unit? I think that
an abusive hetero person does a hell of a lot more to devalue marriage
than a gay couple does.
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail

Definition of "Lottery":
Millions of stupid people contributing
to make one stupid person look smart.
 
On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 19:35:42 GMT, "David J. Allen"
<dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:

>
>"vlj" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> "C. E. White" <[email protected]> sez:
>> <snip>
>> >It is not a marriage. <snip>
>>
>> Marriage started out as a property rite of ancient societies. It was then
>> co-opted by the church(es). Then governments got into the act when the
>> church was no longer one in the same as the government.
>>
>> Sticking to a dogmatic ritual that had its roots in protection of property
>> and bloodlines when the involved had little say or choice in the matter and
>> then foist that definition on everyone at large in today's society is most
>> medieval ...
>>
>
>Sounds like the first lecture in Feminism 101. Talk about dogma! The
>purpose of marriage, even to patriarchal societies, is still vital for the
>purpose of raising children.

So what if one of members of the couple is sterile? Should they be
prevented from marrying?
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail

Definition of "Lottery":
Millions of stupid people contributing
to make one stupid person look smart.
 
On Thu, 4 Dec 2003 13:59:59 -0500, "The Ancient One"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"Brandon Sommerville" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Thu, 4 Dec 2003 11:49:02 -0500, "The Ancient One"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> >"Daniel J. Stern" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> >news:p[email protected]...
>>
>> >> Mine is based on getting very suddenly struck down with a large and lodged
>> >> kidney stone at 4 in the morning while in Toronto. Extremely painful, but
>> >> not life threatening. I was diagnosed, treated, operated upon and
>> >> prescribed suitable meds in a fast, efficient, capable, thorough manner.
>> >
>> >You were lucky they still had money in the budget at that time, otherwise
>> >you would have been placed on a waiting list.
>>
>> Have you ever been to Canada?
>
>Yes I have. I also have friends in Canada, England, Scotland, Japan and
>Germany, and I have discussed their "free" healthcare with them many times.

It's just that your picture of Canadian health care is so divorced
from the reality of living here that I have to wonder.
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail

Definition of "Lottery":
Millions of stupid people contributing
to make one stupid person look smart.
 
On Thu, 4 Dec 2003 14:25:36 -0500, "The Ancient One"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Government control of healthcare results in poorer healthcare than private
>control, but then you knew that already.

Poorer health care for the elite maybe, but as one of the huddled
masses, I'm grateful that I don't have to worry about a decision
between seeing the doctor and making my mortgage payments.
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail

Definition of "Lottery":
Millions of stupid people contributing
to make one stupid person look smart.
 
Please stop abusing groups with your cross posts.

Mike

Brandon Sommerville wrote:
>
> On Thu, 4 Dec 2003 13:59:59 -0500, "The Ancient One"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Brandon Sommerville" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >> On Thu, 4 Dec 2003 11:49:02 -0500, "The Ancient One"
> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >"Daniel J. Stern" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> >news:p[email protected]...
> >>
> >> >> Mine is based on getting very suddenly struck down with a large and lodged
> >> >> kidney stone at 4 in the morning while in Toronto. Extremely painful, but
> >> >> not life threatening. I was diagnosed, treated, operated upon and
> >> >> prescribed suitable meds in a fast, efficient, capable, thorough manner.
> >> >
> >> >You were lucky they still had money in the budget at that time, otherwise
> >> >you would have been placed on a waiting list.
> >>
> >> Have you ever been to Canada?
> >
> >Yes I have. I also have friends in Canada, England, Scotland, Japan and
> >Germany, and I have discussed their "free" healthcare with them many times.
>
> It's just that your picture of Canadian health care is so divorced
> from the reality of living here that I have to wonder.
> --
> Brandon Sommerville
> remove ".gov" to e-mail
>
> Definition of "Lottery":
> Millions of stupid people contributing
> to make one stupid person look smart.
 
Please stop abusing groups with your cross posts.

Mike

Brandon Sommerville wrote:
>
> On Thu, 4 Dec 2003 13:16:23 -0500, "The Ancient One"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >And yet the exodus from Canada to the US for treatment continues unabaited.
> >To be so bad here it is amazing that so many come here from so many
> >countries, giving up free care for prompt, high quality care here. You get
> >reallly sick there, you get a tumor that requires immediate surgery, but the
> >system is over budget and you're put on a six to twelve month waiting list,
> >and then we'll see how fast you come running to America for immediate
> >treatment.
>
> It's not quite that simple. If you need a procedure, they evaluate
> how urgent it is. If it's extremely urgent you get bumped to the top
> of the list. If it's not so urgent, you get on the waiting list and
> get done after others who have been waiting longer are processed. If
> you don't want to wait and can afford it, you go to somewhere that you
> can pay for the procedure, which is down south. A great system if
> you're wealthy.
>
> I know that no matter what happens, if I blow out my knee I'm going to
> get an MRI. It may take 8 weeks, but I'll get it and it won't cost me
> anything extra. Can you say the same thing?
> --
> Brandon Sommerville
> remove ".gov" to e-mail
>
> Definition of "Lottery":
> Millions of stupid people contributing
> to make one stupid person look smart.
 
On Thu, 04 Dec 03 10:19:48 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
> Bill Funk <[email protected]> wrote:
>>On Wed, 03 Dec 03 10:56:52 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>>You're free to pay for their healthcare any time you want. But what
>>>>idiot believes that they have the right to reach into my pocket and take
>>>>what is mine (it's called stealing). So - really - who is preventing
>>>>you and anyone who feels that way from paying for the treatment of these
>>>>people? You have that right, as do I - but by freedom of will - not by
>>>>confiscation.
>>>>
>>>
>>>It's called living in a society. Society has the right to compel you to pay
>>>taxes, and it's the height of idiocy to call it stealing or theft. If you
>>>don't want to live in a society, you can leave. Nobody's keeping you here.
>>
>>That assumes that all taxes are for legimitate purposes.
>>And that's hardly the case.
>>
>And you get to decide that? Sorry, that would be anarchy. In our society,
>our elected government decides that.

And you obviously think that makes them OK.
You might not agree (that's your right), but I do in fact get to
decide if taxes are all used for legimitate purposes. It's part living
in a democratic republic.
Do *YOU* think all taxes go for legimate purposes?

--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
 
Please stop abusing groups with your cross posts.

Mike

Brandon Sommerville wrote:
>
> On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 19:35:42 GMT, "David J. Allen"
> <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"vlj" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >> "C. E. White" <[email protected]> sez:
> >> <snip>
> >> >It is not a marriage. <snip>
> >>
> >> Marriage started out as a property rite of ancient societies. It was then
> >> co-opted by the church(es). Then governments got into the act when the
> >> church was no longer one in the same as the government.
> >>
> >> Sticking to a dogmatic ritual that had its roots in protection of property
> >> and bloodlines when the involved had little say or choice in the matter and
> >> then foist that definition on everyone at large in today's society is most
> >> medieval ...
> >>
> >
> >Sounds like the first lecture in Feminism 101. Talk about dogma! The
> >purpose of marriage, even to patriarchal societies, is still vital for the
> >purpose of raising children.
>
> So what if one of members of the couple is sterile? Should they be
> prevented from marrying?
> --
> Brandon Sommerville
> remove ".gov" to e-mail
>
> Definition of "Lottery":
> Millions of stupid people contributing
> to make one stupid person look smart.
 
Please stop abusing groups with your cross posts.

Mike

Brandon Sommerville wrote:
>
> On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 19:21:36 GMT, "David J. Allen"
> <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >Traditional marriage with it's meaningfulness for families (read children)
> >serves a meaningful purpose to the benefit of all of us, which is providing
> >a stable place for children to be raised to be production members of
> >society. It ADDS to society. Gay marriage does what? It allows gay
> >couples the benefits of marriage (inheretence, insurance, etc.) but serves
> >no other useful purpose to society. And NO I'm NOT arguing against marriage
> >for childless couples.
>
> Well, it's either primarily for the children or its not. How does a
> childless couple add to society?
>
> >I don't really even buy the argument that there are benefits gay couples
> >can't have without marriage. To me, it's part of an agenda to normalize
> >gays in society in every way, that being the end, not that there's an end or
> >purpose for gay marriage itself. When we devalue the family unit then
> >marriage becomes less relevent and it doesn't really matter who or what you
> >marry and the argument devolves to "rights" rather than benefit to society.
> >This shouldn't be a civil rights argument.
>
> What's wrong with normalizing gays in society? As long as they care
> for each other, how does that devalue the family unit? I think that
> an abusive hetero person does a hell of a lot more to devalue marriage
> than a gay couple does.
> --
> Brandon Sommerville
> remove ".gov" to e-mail
>
> Definition of "Lottery":
> Millions of stupid people contributing
> to make one stupid person look smart.
 


Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "C. E. White" <[email protected]> wrote:

> >And? Why is it that some groups (psudeo-liberals is my term for them) always
> what
> >to create laws they like out of thin air through judicial action and ignore
> >legitimate ,if distasteful, laws because they don't like them. There is a
> process
> >for adding and removing laws. If insisting that these procedures be followed
> >makes me a conservative, then I guess I am guilty. Unfortunately, most of the
> >people I know who claim to be conservatives don't agree with many of my
> ideas, so
> >I guess I am lost in the wilderness.
> >
> >Ed
> >
> How is letting people do what they want in the privacy of their home with
> another consenting adult "creating laws"? That's something any conservative
> or libertarian should want the government to stay out of.

Heard a story on the radio today about a gentleman in Germany who
advertises for people to volunteer to be tied to a slab or bed or
something and slowly cut to death with a knife and literally eaten piece
by piece - apparently some sexual thrill involved. He has killed at
least one volunteer that way and video taped it while the volunteer kept
encouraging him to keep cuttin' and eatin' - some others he cut loose
and let go when they changed their minds in the middle of the process -
what a kind man. They say the man has no problem getting volunteers for
it- there's apparently a couple hundred or more that chat regularly on
the internet about it and there's a waiting list. So i guess it's OK
because it's two consenting adults in the privacy of one of their
homes. Didn't know you were such an absolute libertarian, Parker.

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! =-----
 
On Thu, 04 Dec 03 10:09:39 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:

>What does that mean? There are plenty of innovations. Airbus now is outdoing
>Boeing in orders, for example. Why? Innovative ideas.

Sure.
Like Britain, France & Germany giving economic incentives (money) to
their airlines to buy Airbus.
That's on top of the economic incentives those governments gave to
Airbus (subsidies) to help Airbus products.
Boeing doesn't get such help. They have to sell their products on
merit.

--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
 
On Thu, 04 Dec 03 10:09:39 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:

>Besides, if the gov't pays for health care instead of the employer, that's
>reducing the costs to the employer.

I guess taxes don't count as a cost.

--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
 
On Thu, 04 Dec 03 10:04:32 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] (John Mielke) wrote:
>>On Wed, 03 Dec 03 10:54:53 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In article <[email protected]>,
>>> Bill Funk <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>On Tue, 02 Dec 03 15:37:02 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker)
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>In article <Us5zb.282500$275.1000782@attbi_s53>,
>>>>> [email protected] (Brent P) wrote:
>>>>>>In article <[email protected]>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yeah, it'd be terrible if everybody were covered and we spent less on
>>>>>health
>>>>>>> care, as Europe, Canada, and Japan do, wouldn't it? Terrible for
>>>insurance
>>>>>>> companies, drug companies, HMOs, etc, that is.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>How would we spend "less on health care" ? Instead of paying for health
>>>>>>insurance we would pay *AT LEAST* that much in additional taxes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>Why is it, then, that every western European nation, plus Canada and
>Japan,
>>>>>spend less per capita on health care than the US yet still cover
>everybody?
>>>>
>>>>Lloyd, you might want to do a Google search on the keywords:
>>>>canadian health care problems
>>>>This would let you see reality instead of the utopia your liberal
>>>>friends promise.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Oh great, he wants me to absorb his right-wing propaganda.
>>>
>>>Try this:
>>>
>>>http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/user/clamen/misc/politics/HealthCare/
>Co
>>>nsumerReports-Sep92.html.gz#Does%20Canada%20Have%20The%20Answer?
>>
>>
>>So now a simple google search is "right-wing propaganda"? Every one
>>of 2,280,000 pages is right wing? No wonder people have such a low
>>opinion of you.
>
>If you cite right-web web sites, and medical-insurance-drug industry sites,
>then, yes, they're propaganda. Consumer Reports analyzed the health care
>situation from a consumer's point of view.

I didn't cite anything.
I simply advised you to do a Google search.
You really need to stop seeing yourself as being persecuted. Reality
would be a nice change. Do you really think Google is dominated by
right-wingers?

--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

S
Defenders Vs Insurers tomfoolery
Replies
1
Views
4K
lightning
lightning
300bhp/ton
Driven: New Defender - On & Off Road. Is it a Pretender?
2 3
Replies
50
Views
9K
Squonker
S
P
Range Rover P38 EKA and BeCM Lockout
Replies
6
Views
5K
Doolinjames
D
natas
Hurricane Dorian survivor.
Replies
8
Views
2K
ProjectX
ProjectX
Alibro
How to recondition a VCU yourself.
15 16 17
Replies
325
Views
53K
Alibro
Alibro
Back
Top