B

Brandon Sommerville

Guest

• Dec 5, 2003

• #2,241

On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 16:56:21 GMT, "David J. Allen"
<dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:

>Now the "subsidies" come in the form of "loans". No, this battle is still
>being waged.

Didn't Chrysler do 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.

 

B

Brandon Sommerville

Guest

• Dec 5, 2003

• #2,242

On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 17:33:26 GMT, "David J. Allen"
<dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:

>Having a little trouble understanding the argument Lloyd? Let me clarify.
>The gay activist agenda is to redefine and rebuild our whole social
>structure to abstract out distinction between sexual preference.

You keep mentioning this point. Why is this a problem?

>In doing
>so, it has to redefine marriage from what it's been to what they want it to
>be. The method used is to call the "benefits" of marriage "civil rights".
>The error is that the benefits of marriage aren't there because society
>thinks marrieds are more deserving or more equal or more anything to the
>exclusion of unmarrieds. They are there to protect and nurture families,
>especially those with a single wage earner and dependents. Marriage
>wouldn't be something that the government would have an interest in
>protecting otherwise. That's the point.

So gay families with either adopted kids or kids from prior
relationships don't count?
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail

Definition of "Lottery":
Millions of stupid people contributing
to make one stupid person look smart.

 

Z

z

Guest

• Dec 5, 2003

• #2,243

Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote in message news:<4tgpsv0qjj3fk9mq5t2goiuibmpnu8k64r@4ax.com>...
> On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 05:17:32 GMT, "David J. Allen"
> <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >Reminds me of my experience in a country a few years ago that had "free"
> >(i.e., rationed) medical care for all. The demand for care outstripped the
> >supply and the only people who got decent medical care were the people with
> >money, who could pay for a private doctor. Everyone else had to go wait in
> >line at the clinic and hope for decent care.
>
> Well, Hillary's solution would have fixed that; any doctor caught
> giving care outside the approved system would be liable to legal
> prosecution, with penalties including fines, jail time & loss of
> license.
> A true utopia.

Better now. Only doctors doing 'Partial Birth Abortions', whatever
those may be, get fines, jail time & loss of license. Much better.

 

B

Brandon Sommerville

Guest

• Dec 5, 2003

• #2,244

On Fri, 5 Dec 2003 11:22:53 -0500, "Douglas A. Shrader"
<dshrader@nospam.com> wrote:

>My Dad was a Veteran Lloyd, he died because the VA cared more about slashing
>costs than providing quality care. Easier, and cheaper, to make an off the
>shoulder diagnosis than to run expensive tests. When he was admitted for
>pnuemonia they finally decided to run some test to see what was causing it
>and found he was riddled with cancer, which any good hospital would have
>detected years earlier. He died 8 days later, at home, even though he begged
>them to let him stay in the hospital. Hospital beds cost money, and they had
>to cut costs, so a dying man was sent home. That is the kind of low quality,
>one kind treats all health system you want Lloyd, and it stinks. Now shut up
>and stop posting your lies and crap on this or any group.

Sounds like the result of a health care system run on a for profit
basis.
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail

Definition of "Lottery":
Millions of stupid people contributing
to make one stupid person look smart.

 

D

Daniel J. Stern

Guest

• Dec 5, 2003

• #2,245

On Fri, 5 Dec 2003, Bill Putney wrote:

> The point is simple and clear - you want to re-define the word
> "marriage" to excercise what you feel are your rights. So why can't
> others do the same.

Because in my direction, it removes a denial of equal treatment under the
law that is currently applied to one specific group of people, WITHOUT
affecting or taking away from those who are currently not denied. In your
direction, it codifies the denial towards the specific group, for no
articulable reason more concrete than your alleged discomfort.

DS

 

D

Daniel J. Stern

Guest

• Dec 5, 2003

• #2,246

On Fri, 5 Dec 2003, David J. Allen wrote:

> childless couples don't add to society in that manner.
> When they die, that's it. That's not to say they don't contribute to
> society, of course they can and do. But that's not the issue here.

That's the only option for this argument...unless you're being
disingenuous about it.

> Well, I think you're right in the sense that gays shouldn't have to walk
> down the street in fear of being attacked by gay bashers or have to go into
> a gay section in a restaurant and such.

Gracious, how magnanimous and progressive of you.

> But I think it's a mistake to equate the rights and responsibilities of
> marriage to civil rights

The rights and responsibilities of marriage are codified, granted and
enforced by society. That, by definition, makes them civil rights and
civil responsibilities. Some people believe there are additional rights
and responsibilities codified, granted and enforced by their god; these
are separate from the civil rights and civil responsibilities.

> From an insitution to protect and nurture our future generations to a
> benefits bonanza.

....except for childless couples, who are just an exception to the rule and
therefore don't really change the principle UNLESS they happen to be
childless GAY couples, in which case they're a dealbreaker.

Here's a nice 1/2" wrench to throw into the works: Gay couples WITH
children.

> Heck, the benefits of marriage aren't even "rights" for straights.
> It's a choice we make as a society for the benefit of society to treat
> marriage as we do.

You've just defined "civil rights".

> I don't suppose there's anything in the constitution that says people
> have rights to the benefits of marriage.

Not all civil rights flow from the Constitution. And of those that do, not
all of them are individually enumerated in the Constitution.

DS

 

M

Mike Romain

Guest

• Dec 5, 2003

• #2,247

Jenn Wasdyke wrote:
>
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> Mike Romain wrote:
>
> > Please stop abusing groups with your cross posts.
>
> Pot. Kettle. Black.

I am not a psychic so I don't know which group all the cross posts are
coming from.

Mike

 

D

Daniel J. Stern

Guest

• Dec 5, 2003

• #2,248

On Fri, 5 Dec 2003, David J. Allen wrote:

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

> I don't suppose Clarence Thomas would qualify as a civil rights
> authority. Would he?

Well, let's see. What are Coretta Scott King's qualifications as an
authority on the civil rights struggle for blacks? Her credentials, her
track record and experience and that of her late husband.

What are Clarence Thomas' qualifications? The color of his skin...?

DS

 

D

David J. Allen

Guest

• Dec 5, 2003

• #2,249

"Brandon Sommerville" <grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote in message
news:dec265a9d8c5cf0fe2add7ae9b9955db@news.teranews.com...
> On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 07:41:30 GMT, "David J. Allen"
> <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Brandon Sommerville" <grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote in message
> >news:baf3ab2b7dbcae98ef52c7fe65881671@news.teranews.com...
> >> On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 19:35:42 GMT, "David J. Allen"
> >> <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >> >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?
> >
> >That situation doesn't change the argument. The institution of marriage
> >serves society in that it produces productive members of society. It's a
> >productive enterprise. Childless marriage doesn't change that
perspective
> >at all. They represent exceptions to the point of marriage, but don't
> >detract from it.
>
> So view gay marriage as a marriage with one sterile member. How can
> one "detract" from marriage these days? With a 50% divorce rate it
> seems that hetero couples have done a pretty bang up job detracting
> from it on their own. Perhaps gay couples could show us how to live
> together happily for an extended period.
>

By giving it's benefits civil rights status.

> >Gay marriage, from it's onset and by definition, won't
> >produce children and shifts the point of marriage from children and
family
> >to gaining marriage benefits (tax, inheritence, insurance, etc.), which
> >doesn't require marriage.
>
> It's the nature of a capitalist society that you're so proud of.
>

No, the search for "rights" to benefits is strictly a left wing thing. The
further left you go the more anti-capitalist.

> >To me, it seems part of a gay agenda to normalize homosexuality in our
> >society.
>
> What's wrong with normalizing homosexuality? Is it better that we
> beat them when we find them? Have a good old round of gay bashing?
>

Depends on what you mean by "normalize". By redefining our social
institutions to abstract out any notion of sexual preference? That kind of
normalization is not good. Normalizing the application of true civil rights
and protection under the law is good.

Liberals have a hard time unloading certain terms, i.e., "discrimination"
and now "normal". These words don't carry notions of good and bad by
themselves. "Normalizing" something is not by nature good or bad.

You engineers out there will understand this. I'm doubtful about chemists
though.

 

M

Mike Romain

Guest

• Dec 5, 2003

• #2,250

I define abuse as posting off topic bull **** to a newsgroup that has a
Charter.

No netcop here, I haven't reported anyone to their abuse department yet.

If you read your terms of service with your ISP, you will find that
constantly posting off topic crap to a newsgroup with a charter is
breaking your TOS agreement.

That is abuse.

Mike

Jenn Wasdyke wrote:
>
> How do you define abuse? You yourself quoted an entire message to add a line which
> had nothing to do with what you quoted. When were you elected netcop?
>
> Mike Romain wrote:
>
> > Please stop abusing groups with your cross posts.
> >
> > Mike
> >
> > Bill Putney wrote:
> > >
> > > Lloyd Parker wrote:

 

D

Daniel J. Stern

Guest

• Dec 5, 2003

• #2,251

On Fri, 5 Dec 2003, C. E. White wrote:

> Lloyd Parker wrote:

>> How about this? Marriage is a religious ceremony, performed by a
>> church; the government doesn't use the term "marriage" at all but
>> "civil unions" for all recognizied unions of 2 adults and grants the
>> same benefits to all of them.

> Sure, I can live with that.

Same here.

Now Lloyd, CEW and I have agreed on something, so I need to grab up some
canned food and bottled water and head into the fallout shelter. End times
are doubtless nigh.

DS

 

S

Steve

Guest

• Dec 5, 2003

• #2,252

Brandon Sommerville wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Dec 2003 14:25:36 -0500, "The Ancient One"
> <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> 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.

Typical liberal hyperbole.

The problem is removal of CHOICE from the individual. You don't have to
be elite to get great healthcare in the US. And in a health crisis, you
have the ability to draw on savings or give up other purchases IF
getting immediate top-quality care is a priority for you as an
individual. Or you can wait longer or opt for lower levels of treatment
if its not a priority for you.

 

D

Dan Gates

Guest

• Dec 5, 2003

• #2,253

Mike Romain wrote:
> Jenn Wasdyke wrote:
>
>>x-no-archive: yes
>>
>>Mike Romain wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Please stop abusing groups with your cross posts.
>>
>>Pot. Kettle. Black.
>
>
> I am not a psychic so I don't know which group all the cross posts are
> coming from.
>
> Mike


Us too mike, hence, we continue to respond to all of these people.

Dan

 

D

Daniel J. Stern

Guest

• Dec 5, 2003

• #2,254

On Fri, 5 Dec 2003, Steve wrote:

> The problem is removal of CHOICE from the individual.

Where are you getting this? I've noticed no such absence of individual
choice here in Canada. I picked my own General Practitioner based on
recommendations from friends and my own research. Picked my own dentist
the same way. When I got hit with a kidney stone, I picked the hospital to
go to (made a bad choice that day, the ER had a heavy load when I happened
to come in -- but it was MY choice). I picked the doctor to operate and
remove the kidney stone. Where is this alleged removal of CHOICE from the
individual in Canada you keep going on about from clear down in Texas?

> You don't have to be elite to get great healthcare in the US.

You have to be able to afford health insurance. Many Americans can't.

> And in a health crisis, you have the ability to draw on savings or give
> up other purchases IF getting immediate top-quality care is a priority
> for you as an individual.

Same here in Canada.

> Or you can wait longer or opt for lower levels of treatment

Same here in Canada.


DS

 

D

Dan Gates

Guest

• Dec 5, 2003

• #2,255

Steve wrote:
> Brandon Sommerville wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 4 Dec 2003 14:25:36 -0500, "The Ancient One"
>> <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> 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.
>
>
> Typical liberal hyperbole.
>
> The problem is removal of CHOICE from the individual. You don't have to
> be elite to get great healthcare in the US. And in a health crisis, you
> have the ability to draw on savings or give up other purchases IF
> getting immediate top-quality care is a priority for you as an
> individual. Or you can wait longer or opt for lower levels of treatment
> if its not a priority for you.
>


Yes, I know, giving up food and heat is a great way to speed your
recovery from your quadruple coronary bypass!!

Dan

 

B

Brandon Sommerville

Guest

• Dec 5, 2003

• #2,256

On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 18:18:29 GMT, "David J. Allen"
<dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>
>"Brandon Sommerville" <grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote in message
>news:dec265a9d8c5cf0fe2add7ae9b9955db@news.teranews.com...

>> So view gay marriage as a marriage with one sterile member. How can
>> one "detract" from marriage these days? With a 50% divorce rate it
>> seems that hetero couples have done a pretty bang up job detracting
>> from it on their own. Perhaps gay couples could show us how to live
>> together happily for an extended period.
>>
>By giving it's benefits civil rights status.

Again, what's wrong with this?

>> >Gay marriage, from it's onset and by definition, won't
>> >produce children and shifts the point of marriage from children and family
>> >to gaining marriage benefits (tax, inheritence, insurance, etc.), which
>> >doesn't require marriage.
>>
>> It's the nature of a capitalist society that you're so proud of.
>
>No, the search for "rights" to benefits is strictly a left wing thing. The
>further left you go the more anti-capitalist.

And the right wants to limit who gets these benefits, right?

>> >To me, it seems part of a gay agenda to normalize homosexuality in our
>> >society.
>>
>> What's wrong with normalizing homosexuality? Is it better that we
>> beat them when we find them? Have a good old round of gay bashing?
>
>Depends on what you mean by "normalize". By redefining our social
>institutions to abstract out any notion of sexual preference? That kind of
>normalization is not good.

Why is this not good? Hell, 50 yrs ago the idea of a woman working
outside the home was a bad thing. The idea of a woman executive was
unthinkable, yet here we are today.

>Normalizing the application of true civil rights
>and protection under the law is good.

What do you consider to be true civil rights?
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail

Definition of "Lottery":
Millions of stupid people contributing
to make one stupid person look smart.

 

D

David J. Allen

Guest

• Dec 5, 2003

• #2,257

"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bqq95b$ikt$15@puck.cc.emory.edu...

> >> None of them has the jurisdiction to interpret the US constitution.
> >>
> >
> >You're hopeless Lloyd. Rights reserved to the states and to the people
can
> >be decided upon by the states and the people. No interpretation of the
US
> >constitution is required for those to be decided upon.
>
> Who decides if a right is reserved to the states or to the people? Since
it's
> in the US constitution, the federal courts must.
>

People and states just do what they do. They don't need a ruling or
permission from the federal government. If someone disagrees they can sue
in federal court. That's what I mean.


> >> >The arguments for and against Sodomy laws and Adultery laws each have
merit.
> >>
> >> Sure, so did those against integration. To bigots.
> >
> >There you go again. You just can't accept pro/con argument based on
> >principle.
> >
>
> I didn't realize there were pro arguments for discrimination and bigotry.
>

For a "scientist", you fail to honor your profession. You *should* know
better. Generic discrimination only comes labeled as "bad" in your strange
world. As far as bigotry goes, it's only in that strange world that
adultery is a civil right.


> >>
> >> >Government intrusion in personal matters is a matter of great concern
to be
> >> >sure. Yet, the effect of adultery on families, children, cost to
society is
> >> >huge.
> >>
> >> Are you saying you cannot commit adultery except by sodomy? And even
if so,
> >> why was sodomy between unmarried people illegal? In fact, most of the
sodomy
> >> laws were only enforced for gays (thus unmarried people).
> >>
> >
> >No, sodomy was not part of my comment above. It was all about adultery.
>
> Why, in a discussion about gays? They can't marry, so they can't commit
> adultery.
>

Well, for gays they can have all the sex they want and it won't be adultery.
Doesn't change the fact that people saw a social benefit to outlawing
adultery with real pro/con sides to such a debate.

> >
> >I don't know. I imagine local governments were anxious that their cities
> >and towns not become a gathering place for gays.
>
> And if they decided this about, say, Jews?
>

If you paid attention you would have noticed that I didn't make a judgment
on anti-sodomy laws in that statement. Just an observation.

Frankly, I don't understand sodomy law history. So I guessed. I suspect
they were based on a couple of notions. Communities were more homogenous in
our history and the application of natural law as opposed to civil law made
sense in those communities. Before applications of the 14th amendment had a
chance to take effect, individual states and communites were free to
discriminate in any number of ways to protect their way of life.

I don't see much of a pro in a pro/con argument on anti-sodomy laws.
Perhaps a states rights argument.

 

M

Matthew Russotto

Guest

• Dec 5, 2003

• #2,258

In article <7dc396f584336d32b246a944411c15de@news.teranews.com>,
Brandon Sommerville <grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote:
>
>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?

Not exactly. In my case (hip rather than knee, but same idea), it was
same day (first MRI) and later in the week (second MRI) and it still
didn't cost me anything extra. There was no urgency in the medical
sense. The more complex MRA did take a month, because it had to be
scheduled with both the radiology department and the MRI center. No
rationing involved.

--
Matthew T. Russotto mrussotto@speakeasy.net
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue." But extreme restriction of liberty in pursuit of
a modicum of security is a very expensive vice.

 

B

Brandon Sommerville

Guest

• Dec 5, 2003

• #2,259

On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 17:51:49 GMT, "David J. Allen"
<dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:

>
>"Brandon Sommerville" <grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote in message
>news:2cb41897b60a5d6def9afaec7df1f2da@news.teranews.com...
>> On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 09:32:10 GMT, "David J. Allen"
>> <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>> A childless couple will contribute to society exactly the same way
>> that a gay couple will. I've known many childless couples that I use
>> as an example of how to live my life since they were some of the most
>> loving couples that I know. They have contributed significantly to
>> the families and friends that they have associated with. I know
>> several gay couples who fall into this same category.
>>
>I did try to point out that this wasn't the issue. The fact that people
>contribute to society by their good will and good works isn't what we're
>talking about.

Hey, you're the one that brought up the child raising aspect of
marriage, not me.

>> Marriage isn't a benefits bonanza, that's what divorce is for! Given
>> the casual nature people are approaching marriage with these days it
>> doesn't appear to have a lot of value, does it?
>>
>
>There's no doubt about that. But the existence of people like that doesn't
>mean the institution is dead or meaningless. There's plenty of people out
>there who don't fit that description.

Yeah, about half of them if the stats are correct!

>> What it boils down to is this: If someone wants to take marriage
>> seriously, they will. If they don't, they won't. Allowing gays the
>> right to be legally married doesn't detract at all from the ability of
>> those who wish to take marriage seriously to do so.
>
>Individually? No. Heck I don't even know who's legally married or not on my
>street. For all I know the little old lady down the street with all her
>cats... oh never mind. But it DOES matter how we as a society in general
>regard marriage and family and how we treat the institution. Redefining
>marriage to fit the gay activist agenda opens a door to others similarly
>agendized. After all, would "civil rights" apply only to traditional
>straights and traditional gays?

What will happen when we give women the right to vote? Or allow them
to work outside the home? Imagine how negatively that will affect
society! Oh, wait, I'm getting my decades mixed up.

The way I see it, all we're allowing is two people who love each other
who happen to be of the same sex to enjoy the same legal status as you
and your wife. That's it.
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail

Definition of "Lottery":
Millions of stupid people contributing
to make one stupid person look smart.

 

B

Brandon Sommerville

Guest

• Dec 5, 2003

• #2,260

On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 12:43:29 -0600, Steve <no@spam.thanks> wrote:

>Brandon Sommerville wrote:
>> On Thu, 4 Dec 2003 14:25:36 -0500, "The Ancient One"
>> <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> 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.
>
>Typical liberal hyperbole.

Well, seeing as I'm not a liberal, that's quite a shot. I am,
however, far from wealthy, though I'm working on that.

>The problem is removal of CHOICE from the individual.

Not really. It frequently adds to your choices if your choice is "can
I afford to go see the doctor or not".

>You don't have to
>be elite to get great healthcare in the US.

No, you just have to have money.

>And in a health crisis, you
>have the ability to draw on savings or give up other purchases IF
>getting immediate top-quality care is a priority for you as an
>individual.

In a crisis here I go to my doctor (or the clinic if it's outside his
normal hours) and follow his recommendations, which include immediate
action by a specialist if it is so required.

>Or you can wait longer or opt for lower levels of treatment
>if its not a priority for you.

You can always pay for more care here, if you want a chiropractor or
you want to go to some sort of therapist or something along those
lines. What you *don't* get is the right to skip to the head of the
line because you've got more disposable income if you need or want a
non-critical procedure.
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail

Definition of "Lottery":
Millions of stupid people contributing
to make one stupid person look smart.