Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#5751
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycanbemisinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
> In article <3FCD2603.3BC69F50@kinez.net>,
> Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net> 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...
You're thinking of a pure democracy without any Consitutional
protections, wherein if 50.0000000001% of the people vote to confiscate
your property, then it's legal for them to do so. Society, under a
constituional republic, can only tax to the degree that their
constitution allows them to. Going beyond that is stealing regardless
of liberals euphemistically calling the unauthorized confiscation
"taxes".
I always knew that your brand of liberal believed that the state had an
unlimited right to my property, but I never thought any were so totally
blind to basic principles as to openly admit that they believed that.
Guess I was wrong.
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! =-----
#5752
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycanbemisinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
> In article <3FCD2603.3BC69F50@kinez.net>,
> Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net> 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...
You're thinking of a pure democracy without any Consitutional
protections, wherein if 50.0000000001% of the people vote to confiscate
your property, then it's legal for them to do so. Society, under a
constituional republic, can only tax to the degree that their
constitution allows them to. Going beyond that is stealing regardless
of liberals euphemistically calling the unauthorized confiscation
"taxes".
I always knew that your brand of liberal believed that the state had an
unlimited right to my property, but I never thought any were so totally
blind to basic principles as to openly admit that they believed that.
Guess I was wrong.
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! =-----
#5753
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycan be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Bill Funk wrote:
>>Oh great, he wants me to absorb his right-wing propaganda.
>>
>>Try this:
>>
>>http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.e.../HealthCare/Co
>>nsumerReports-Sep92.html.gz#Does%20Canada%20Have%20The%20Answer?
>
>
> Consumer Reports???
> You've GOT to be kidding.
>
You know what's really sad? He's not kidding.
>>Oh great, he wants me to absorb his right-wing propaganda.
>>
>>Try this:
>>
>>http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.e.../HealthCare/Co
>>nsumerReports-Sep92.html.gz#Does%20Canada%20Have%20The%20Answer?
>
>
> Consumer Reports???
> You've GOT to be kidding.
>
You know what's really sad? He's not kidding.
#5754
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycan be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Bill Funk wrote:
>>Oh great, he wants me to absorb his right-wing propaganda.
>>
>>Try this:
>>
>>http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.e.../HealthCare/Co
>>nsumerReports-Sep92.html.gz#Does%20Canada%20Have%20The%20Answer?
>
>
> Consumer Reports???
> You've GOT to be kidding.
>
You know what's really sad? He's not kidding.
>>Oh great, he wants me to absorb his right-wing propaganda.
>>
>>Try this:
>>
>>http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.e.../HealthCare/Co
>>nsumerReports-Sep92.html.gz#Does%20Canada%20Have%20The%20Answer?
>
>
> Consumer Reports???
> You've GOT to be kidding.
>
You know what's really sad? He's not kidding.
#5755
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycan be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Bill Funk wrote:
>>Oh great, he wants me to absorb his right-wing propaganda.
>>
>>Try this:
>>
>>http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.e.../HealthCare/Co
>>nsumerReports-Sep92.html.gz#Does%20Canada%20Have%20The%20Answer?
>
>
> Consumer Reports???
> You've GOT to be kidding.
>
You know what's really sad? He's not kidding.
>>Oh great, he wants me to absorb his right-wing propaganda.
>>
>>Try this:
>>
>>http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.e.../HealthCare/Co
>>nsumerReports-Sep92.html.gz#Does%20Canada%20Have%20The%20Answer?
>
>
> Consumer Reports???
> You've GOT to be kidding.
>
You know what's really sad? He's not kidding.
#5756
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On Wed, 03 Dec 03 11:09:23 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:
>In article <3F7CE3E2.B772E342@mindspring.com>,
> "C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>
>>> So are conservatives -- telling people what kind of --- to have, what
>genders
>>> can marry, what a woman can do with her body, etc.
>>
>>It is not just conservatives who oppose the redefinition of "marriage."
>>Any reasonable person should oppose this sort of reckless redefinition
>>of a long established legal / social / religious institution. If same
>>--- couples want to form a long term commitment to each other, I think
>>that is fine. If they feel they need a governmental sanction to this
>>commitment, then pass a law that creates a new class of civil union. But
>>trying to call this a "marriage" is an insult to millions of American
>>and serves no useful purpose.
>>
>
>But why should government institutionalize discrimination? OK, no religion
>should be required to perform or recognize a marriage not in keeping with its
>creed (doesn't the catholic church not recognize marriages by divorced
>people?), but why should government discriminate?
>
>>Ed
The government discriminates all the time:
Affirmative action.
Seperate bathrooms.
Voting age.
Drinking age.
And on and on.
Discrimination per se is not wrong; it's how it's applied that can be
wrong.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
wrote:
>In article <3F7CE3E2.B772E342@mindspring.com>,
> "C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>
>>> So are conservatives -- telling people what kind of --- to have, what
>genders
>>> can marry, what a woman can do with her body, etc.
>>
>>It is not just conservatives who oppose the redefinition of "marriage."
>>Any reasonable person should oppose this sort of reckless redefinition
>>of a long established legal / social / religious institution. If same
>>--- couples want to form a long term commitment to each other, I think
>>that is fine. If they feel they need a governmental sanction to this
>>commitment, then pass a law that creates a new class of civil union. But
>>trying to call this a "marriage" is an insult to millions of American
>>and serves no useful purpose.
>>
>
>But why should government institutionalize discrimination? OK, no religion
>should be required to perform or recognize a marriage not in keeping with its
>creed (doesn't the catholic church not recognize marriages by divorced
>people?), but why should government discriminate?
>
>>Ed
The government discriminates all the time:
Affirmative action.
Seperate bathrooms.
Voting age.
Drinking age.
And on and on.
Discrimination per se is not wrong; it's how it's applied that can be
wrong.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
#5757
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On Wed, 03 Dec 03 11:09:23 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:
>In article <3F7CE3E2.B772E342@mindspring.com>,
> "C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>
>>> So are conservatives -- telling people what kind of --- to have, what
>genders
>>> can marry, what a woman can do with her body, etc.
>>
>>It is not just conservatives who oppose the redefinition of "marriage."
>>Any reasonable person should oppose this sort of reckless redefinition
>>of a long established legal / social / religious institution. If same
>>--- couples want to form a long term commitment to each other, I think
>>that is fine. If they feel they need a governmental sanction to this
>>commitment, then pass a law that creates a new class of civil union. But
>>trying to call this a "marriage" is an insult to millions of American
>>and serves no useful purpose.
>>
>
>But why should government institutionalize discrimination? OK, no religion
>should be required to perform or recognize a marriage not in keeping with its
>creed (doesn't the catholic church not recognize marriages by divorced
>people?), but why should government discriminate?
>
>>Ed
The government discriminates all the time:
Affirmative action.
Seperate bathrooms.
Voting age.
Drinking age.
And on and on.
Discrimination per se is not wrong; it's how it's applied that can be
wrong.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
wrote:
>In article <3F7CE3E2.B772E342@mindspring.com>,
> "C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>
>>> So are conservatives -- telling people what kind of --- to have, what
>genders
>>> can marry, what a woman can do with her body, etc.
>>
>>It is not just conservatives who oppose the redefinition of "marriage."
>>Any reasonable person should oppose this sort of reckless redefinition
>>of a long established legal / social / religious institution. If same
>>--- couples want to form a long term commitment to each other, I think
>>that is fine. If they feel they need a governmental sanction to this
>>commitment, then pass a law that creates a new class of civil union. But
>>trying to call this a "marriage" is an insult to millions of American
>>and serves no useful purpose.
>>
>
>But why should government institutionalize discrimination? OK, no religion
>should be required to perform or recognize a marriage not in keeping with its
>creed (doesn't the catholic church not recognize marriages by divorced
>people?), but why should government discriminate?
>
>>Ed
The government discriminates all the time:
Affirmative action.
Seperate bathrooms.
Voting age.
Drinking age.
And on and on.
Discrimination per se is not wrong; it's how it's applied that can be
wrong.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
#5758
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On Wed, 03 Dec 03 11:09:23 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:
>In article <3F7CE3E2.B772E342@mindspring.com>,
> "C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>
>>> So are conservatives -- telling people what kind of --- to have, what
>genders
>>> can marry, what a woman can do with her body, etc.
>>
>>It is not just conservatives who oppose the redefinition of "marriage."
>>Any reasonable person should oppose this sort of reckless redefinition
>>of a long established legal / social / religious institution. If same
>>--- couples want to form a long term commitment to each other, I think
>>that is fine. If they feel they need a governmental sanction to this
>>commitment, then pass a law that creates a new class of civil union. But
>>trying to call this a "marriage" is an insult to millions of American
>>and serves no useful purpose.
>>
>
>But why should government institutionalize discrimination? OK, no religion
>should be required to perform or recognize a marriage not in keeping with its
>creed (doesn't the catholic church not recognize marriages by divorced
>people?), but why should government discriminate?
>
>>Ed
The government discriminates all the time:
Affirmative action.
Seperate bathrooms.
Voting age.
Drinking age.
And on and on.
Discrimination per se is not wrong; it's how it's applied that can be
wrong.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
wrote:
>In article <3F7CE3E2.B772E342@mindspring.com>,
> "C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>
>>> So are conservatives -- telling people what kind of --- to have, what
>genders
>>> can marry, what a woman can do with her body, etc.
>>
>>It is not just conservatives who oppose the redefinition of "marriage."
>>Any reasonable person should oppose this sort of reckless redefinition
>>of a long established legal / social / religious institution. If same
>>--- couples want to form a long term commitment to each other, I think
>>that is fine. If they feel they need a governmental sanction to this
>>commitment, then pass a law that creates a new class of civil union. But
>>trying to call this a "marriage" is an insult to millions of American
>>and serves no useful purpose.
>>
>
>But why should government institutionalize discrimination? OK, no religion
>should be required to perform or recognize a marriage not in keeping with its
>creed (doesn't the catholic church not recognize marriages by divorced
>people?), but why should government discriminate?
>
>>Ed
The government discriminates all the time:
Affirmative action.
Seperate bathrooms.
Voting age.
Drinking age.
And on and on.
Discrimination per se is not wrong; it's how it's applied that can be
wrong.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
#5759
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety canbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 18:21:10 GMT, Brandon Sommerville
<grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote:
>On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 13:00:25 -0500, "C. E. White"
><cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>
>>> But why should government institutionalize discrimination? OK, no religion
>>> should be required to perform or recognize a marriage not in keeping with its
>>> creed (doesn't the catholic church not recognize marriages by divorced
>>> people?), but why should government discriminate?
>>
>>I am not suggesting that the government institutionalize discrimination. Marriage
>>is a union between a man and a woman. It is not a same --- union. If there are
>>particular laws related to the term "marriage" that make "marriages" beneficial
>>and same --- unions feel they deserve these benefits, then change the law, or
>>have the law ruled unconstitutional. Don't try to circumvent the process by
>>redefining the word.
>
>This confuses me greatly. If two men or two women want to be joined
>as a family in a marriage, how does it detract from your marriage?
It doesn't.
Marriage, in our culture (Judeo/Christian) has been historically
defined by the religious society, and then codified by the
governments.
This is why the idea of gay marriage rankles so much.
In today's society, though, a "church wedding" means little more than
a marriage in front of a JP. Just look at current divorce rates: 50%.
Obviously, there's little 'sacred' about marriage in the US anymore.
And, of course, being married by "Elvis" sure adds a lot to the whole
thing. :-/
Being married in front of a JP in an office is strictly a legal
matter. As long as the rules are followed, the marriage is legal.
Changing the rules, then, isn't that big a deal.
Of course, Churches would still be able to say, "Not here."
In my opinion, of course.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
<grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote:
>On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 13:00:25 -0500, "C. E. White"
><cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>
>>> But why should government institutionalize discrimination? OK, no religion
>>> should be required to perform or recognize a marriage not in keeping with its
>>> creed (doesn't the catholic church not recognize marriages by divorced
>>> people?), but why should government discriminate?
>>
>>I am not suggesting that the government institutionalize discrimination. Marriage
>>is a union between a man and a woman. It is not a same --- union. If there are
>>particular laws related to the term "marriage" that make "marriages" beneficial
>>and same --- unions feel they deserve these benefits, then change the law, or
>>have the law ruled unconstitutional. Don't try to circumvent the process by
>>redefining the word.
>
>This confuses me greatly. If two men or two women want to be joined
>as a family in a marriage, how does it detract from your marriage?
It doesn't.
Marriage, in our culture (Judeo/Christian) has been historically
defined by the religious society, and then codified by the
governments.
This is why the idea of gay marriage rankles so much.
In today's society, though, a "church wedding" means little more than
a marriage in front of a JP. Just look at current divorce rates: 50%.
Obviously, there's little 'sacred' about marriage in the US anymore.
And, of course, being married by "Elvis" sure adds a lot to the whole
thing. :-/
Being married in front of a JP in an office is strictly a legal
matter. As long as the rules are followed, the marriage is legal.
Changing the rules, then, isn't that big a deal.
Of course, Churches would still be able to say, "Not here."
In my opinion, of course.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
#5760
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety canbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 18:21:10 GMT, Brandon Sommerville
<grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote:
>On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 13:00:25 -0500, "C. E. White"
><cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>
>>> But why should government institutionalize discrimination? OK, no religion
>>> should be required to perform or recognize a marriage not in keeping with its
>>> creed (doesn't the catholic church not recognize marriages by divorced
>>> people?), but why should government discriminate?
>>
>>I am not suggesting that the government institutionalize discrimination. Marriage
>>is a union between a man and a woman. It is not a same --- union. If there are
>>particular laws related to the term "marriage" that make "marriages" beneficial
>>and same --- unions feel they deserve these benefits, then change the law, or
>>have the law ruled unconstitutional. Don't try to circumvent the process by
>>redefining the word.
>
>This confuses me greatly. If two men or two women want to be joined
>as a family in a marriage, how does it detract from your marriage?
It doesn't.
Marriage, in our culture (Judeo/Christian) has been historically
defined by the religious society, and then codified by the
governments.
This is why the idea of gay marriage rankles so much.
In today's society, though, a "church wedding" means little more than
a marriage in front of a JP. Just look at current divorce rates: 50%.
Obviously, there's little 'sacred' about marriage in the US anymore.
And, of course, being married by "Elvis" sure adds a lot to the whole
thing. :-/
Being married in front of a JP in an office is strictly a legal
matter. As long as the rules are followed, the marriage is legal.
Changing the rules, then, isn't that big a deal.
Of course, Churches would still be able to say, "Not here."
In my opinion, of course.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
<grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote:
>On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 13:00:25 -0500, "C. E. White"
><cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>
>>> But why should government institutionalize discrimination? OK, no religion
>>> should be required to perform or recognize a marriage not in keeping with its
>>> creed (doesn't the catholic church not recognize marriages by divorced
>>> people?), but why should government discriminate?
>>
>>I am not suggesting that the government institutionalize discrimination. Marriage
>>is a union between a man and a woman. It is not a same --- union. If there are
>>particular laws related to the term "marriage" that make "marriages" beneficial
>>and same --- unions feel they deserve these benefits, then change the law, or
>>have the law ruled unconstitutional. Don't try to circumvent the process by
>>redefining the word.
>
>This confuses me greatly. If two men or two women want to be joined
>as a family in a marriage, how does it detract from your marriage?
It doesn't.
Marriage, in our culture (Judeo/Christian) has been historically
defined by the religious society, and then codified by the
governments.
This is why the idea of gay marriage rankles so much.
In today's society, though, a "church wedding" means little more than
a marriage in front of a JP. Just look at current divorce rates: 50%.
Obviously, there's little 'sacred' about marriage in the US anymore.
And, of course, being married by "Elvis" sure adds a lot to the whole
thing. :-/
Being married in front of a JP in an office is strictly a legal
matter. As long as the rules are followed, the marriage is legal.
Changing the rules, then, isn't that big a deal.
Of course, Churches would still be able to say, "Not here."
In my opinion, of course.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"