Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#5771
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycanbemisinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On Wed, 3 Dec 2003, Bill Putney wrote:
> Canada's healthcare system sucks.
I daresay you don't know what you're talking about. I'm an American living
here in Canada, and guess what? Canada's healthcare system is *vastly*
better than the US system in the vast majority of cases. Are there
exceptions? Surely. There's no such thing as perfection. But the Canadian
system does a much better job of handling most of the healthcare needs of
most of the people at a reasonable cost.
DS
> Canada's healthcare system sucks.
I daresay you don't know what you're talking about. I'm an American living
here in Canada, and guess what? Canada's healthcare system is *vastly*
better than the US system in the vast majority of cases. Are there
exceptions? Surely. There's no such thing as perfection. But the Canadian
system does a much better job of handling most of the healthcare needs of
most of the people at a reasonable cost.
DS
#5772
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycanbemisinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On Wed, 3 Dec 2003, Bill Putney wrote:
> Canada's healthcare system sucks.
I daresay you don't know what you're talking about. I'm an American living
here in Canada, and guess what? Canada's healthcare system is *vastly*
better than the US system in the vast majority of cases. Are there
exceptions? Surely. There's no such thing as perfection. But the Canadian
system does a much better job of handling most of the healthcare needs of
most of the people at a reasonable cost.
DS
> Canada's healthcare system sucks.
I daresay you don't know what you're talking about. I'm an American living
here in Canada, and guess what? Canada's healthcare system is *vastly*
better than the US system in the vast majority of cases. Are there
exceptions? Surely. There's no such thing as perfection. But the Canadian
system does a much better job of handling most of the healthcare needs of
most of the people at a reasonable cost.
DS
#5773
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycanbemisinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On Wed, 3 Dec 2003, Bill Putney wrote:
> Canada's healthcare system sucks.
I daresay you don't know what you're talking about. I'm an American living
here in Canada, and guess what? Canada's healthcare system is *vastly*
better than the US system in the vast majority of cases. Are there
exceptions? Surely. There's no such thing as perfection. But the Canadian
system does a much better job of handling most of the healthcare needs of
most of the people at a reasonable cost.
DS
> Canada's healthcare system sucks.
I daresay you don't know what you're talking about. I'm an American living
here in Canada, and guess what? Canada's healthcare system is *vastly*
better than the US system in the vast majority of cases. Are there
exceptions? Surely. There's no such thing as perfection. But the Canadian
system does a much better job of handling most of the healthcare needs of
most of the people at a reasonable cost.
DS
#5774
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycanbemisinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On Wed, 3 Dec 2003, Bill Funk wrote:
> A marriage is whatever it's defined to be, legally. Since a marriage is
> (and would remain, in the US at least) between only 2 people, what
> gender those two people happen to be doesn't affect the marriage of
> other people.
Uh-oh, Bill, now you've done it. I wager by the time I hit "Send" on this
post, one of the usual suspects will play the slippery-slope card and say
"Gay marriage, sure, and what's next? Legal polygamy, legal bestiality,
legal incest"...
DS
> A marriage is whatever it's defined to be, legally. Since a marriage is
> (and would remain, in the US at least) between only 2 people, what
> gender those two people happen to be doesn't affect the marriage of
> other people.
Uh-oh, Bill, now you've done it. I wager by the time I hit "Send" on this
post, one of the usual suspects will play the slippery-slope card and say
"Gay marriage, sure, and what's next? Legal polygamy, legal bestiality,
legal incest"...
DS
#5775
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycanbemisinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On Wed, 3 Dec 2003, Bill Funk wrote:
> A marriage is whatever it's defined to be, legally. Since a marriage is
> (and would remain, in the US at least) between only 2 people, what
> gender those two people happen to be doesn't affect the marriage of
> other people.
Uh-oh, Bill, now you've done it. I wager by the time I hit "Send" on this
post, one of the usual suspects will play the slippery-slope card and say
"Gay marriage, sure, and what's next? Legal polygamy, legal bestiality,
legal incest"...
DS
> A marriage is whatever it's defined to be, legally. Since a marriage is
> (and would remain, in the US at least) between only 2 people, what
> gender those two people happen to be doesn't affect the marriage of
> other people.
Uh-oh, Bill, now you've done it. I wager by the time I hit "Send" on this
post, one of the usual suspects will play the slippery-slope card and say
"Gay marriage, sure, and what's next? Legal polygamy, legal bestiality,
legal incest"...
DS
#5776
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycanbemisinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On Wed, 3 Dec 2003, Bill Funk wrote:
> A marriage is whatever it's defined to be, legally. Since a marriage is
> (and would remain, in the US at least) between only 2 people, what
> gender those two people happen to be doesn't affect the marriage of
> other people.
Uh-oh, Bill, now you've done it. I wager by the time I hit "Send" on this
post, one of the usual suspects will play the slippery-slope card and say
"Gay marriage, sure, and what's next? Legal polygamy, legal bestiality,
legal incest"...
DS
> A marriage is whatever it's defined to be, legally. Since a marriage is
> (and would remain, in the US at least) between only 2 people, what
> gender those two people happen to be doesn't affect the marriage of
> other people.
Uh-oh, Bill, now you've done it. I wager by the time I hit "Send" on this
post, one of the usual suspects will play the slippery-slope card and say
"Gay marriage, sure, and what's next? Legal polygamy, legal bestiality,
legal incest"...
DS
#5777
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycanbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
> In article <3FCD2A75.F01F5664@kinez.net>,
> Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >>
> >> And yet they cover everybody and most of them have longer life spans and
> less
> >> infant mortality than the US. By any measure, those countries are
> healthier.
> >
> >I can refer you to the parents of childhood cancer victims that would
> >disagree with you.
> >
>
> Heck, you could refer me to Osama bin Laden himself; doesn't make you right.
> Look at the numbers.
>
So much for liberals being the source of all compassion. They're
*PEOPLE* Lloyd - not numbers. Their ------- kids died due to a system
that could not deal with situations that required more than
one-size-fits-all treatment. We lose some too in spite of heroic
measures, but these were due to an incompetent socialistic system.
OK - lets look at the numbers: Find me comparative statistics on the
survival rates of kids between the ages of ten and twenty years old who
had Ewings Sarcoma/PNET and were treated in (1) the U.S., and (2)
Canada. Then lets talk about numbers. Oh - and include in those
statistics the time to diagnosis from the moment the kid became
symptomatic.
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! =-----
#5778
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycanbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
> In article <3FCD2A75.F01F5664@kinez.net>,
> Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >>
> >> And yet they cover everybody and most of them have longer life spans and
> less
> >> infant mortality than the US. By any measure, those countries are
> healthier.
> >
> >I can refer you to the parents of childhood cancer victims that would
> >disagree with you.
> >
>
> Heck, you could refer me to Osama bin Laden himself; doesn't make you right.
> Look at the numbers.
>
So much for liberals being the source of all compassion. They're
*PEOPLE* Lloyd - not numbers. Their ------- kids died due to a system
that could not deal with situations that required more than
one-size-fits-all treatment. We lose some too in spite of heroic
measures, but these were due to an incompetent socialistic system.
OK - lets look at the numbers: Find me comparative statistics on the
survival rates of kids between the ages of ten and twenty years old who
had Ewings Sarcoma/PNET and were treated in (1) the U.S., and (2)
Canada. Then lets talk about numbers. Oh - and include in those
statistics the time to diagnosis from the moment the kid became
symptomatic.
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! =-----
#5779
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycanbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
> In article <3FCD2A75.F01F5664@kinez.net>,
> Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >>
> >> And yet they cover everybody and most of them have longer life spans and
> less
> >> infant mortality than the US. By any measure, those countries are
> healthier.
> >
> >I can refer you to the parents of childhood cancer victims that would
> >disagree with you.
> >
>
> Heck, you could refer me to Osama bin Laden himself; doesn't make you right.
> Look at the numbers.
>
So much for liberals being the source of all compassion. They're
*PEOPLE* Lloyd - not numbers. Their ------- kids died due to a system
that could not deal with situations that required more than
one-size-fits-all treatment. We lose some too in spite of heroic
measures, but these were due to an incompetent socialistic system.
OK - lets look at the numbers: Find me comparative statistics on the
survival rates of kids between the ages of ten and twenty years old who
had Ewings Sarcoma/PNET and were treated in (1) the U.S., and (2)
Canada. Then lets talk about numbers. Oh - and include in those
statistics the time to diagnosis from the moment the kid became
symptomatic.
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! =-----
#5780
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study aboutsafetycanbemisinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On Wed, 3 Dec 2003, C. E. White wrote:
> I don't think the people who wrote the laws regarding marriage intended
> to cover same --- unions, and I don't like the idea that we can just
> arbitrarily expand the legal meaning because some people like the idea.
> If I can't count on the consistent meaning of words in a legal sense,
> how can I trust the laws the words describe?
OH! I understand your objection now.
So, what are the new words for "Speeding"? There'd be one from 1987 and
one from 1995. Prior to 1987, "Speeding" meant going faster than 55 mph.
Between 1987 and 1995, there'd have to be some new word, since the
national speed limit was raised to 65 mph, so obviously the old word --
"speeding" -- wouldn't apply. And then in '95, the national speed limit
was abolished, so whatever word was used to mean "exceeding 65 mph"
between 1987 and 1995 would have been rendered useless, so you'd need
another new word. You can't just change the law so the word means
something else, after all, right?
And what about "obscenity"?! Heck, under your philosophy that word
would've been rendered obsolete and required replacement practically every
week since 1620!
Let's see, some other examples? Sure, how about "DOT legal headlamp
system"? Prior to 1957, it meant two 7" round sealed beam units under
NHTSA, indivisible, with tungsten and glass for all, to the exclusion of
all others. From '57 to '73 it meant two 7" round sealed beam units *or*
four 5.75" round ones, to the exclusion of all others. From '73-'75 it
meant two 7" rounds, *or* four 5.75" rounds, *or* two 200mm x 142mm
rectangulars, to the exclusion of all others. From '75-'83 it meant two 7"
rounds *or* four 5.75" rounds *or* two 200mm x 142mm rectangulars *or*
four 165mm x 100mm rectangulars, to the exclusion of all others. From
'83-'86 it meant...you get the point.
In each of these examples, and many others besides, the scope and
definition of what is covered by a legal term have changed, expanded
and/or contracted simply by dint of a change, deletion or reinterpretation
of an existing law and/or the introduction of a new one.
Humanity is considerably more adaptible than you give us credit for, as it
seems, for in every such case we've managed to get along just fine.
Nobody's been confused about what "speeding" means, nobody's been confused
about what is or isn't a "DOT legal headlamp". So, the assertion that
Bad Things<tm> will happen if gays are allowed to get Married<tm> because
it will render the term legally confusing, contains no merit upon which to
stand.
The only logical conclusion, therefore, is that this objection to the
application of the word "marriage" to same---- unions is a false front for
something else. What else? Well, it could be a dislike of homosexuals, a
plain case of snobbery, religious fervor, "I got mine, Jack, so ----
you"...or a combination of the above.
> What do you mean by "repeating a dogmatic statement?"
"Marriage is between a man and a woman. Marriage is between a man and a
woman. Marriage is between a man and a woman. Marriage is between a man
and a woman."
> I just wants legal terms to have a consistent understandable meaning.
Then you're sorta ----ed, see above. Legal terms' meanings shift and drift
all day, every day. Can't keep up? That makes one of you. The rest of us
are doing just fine.
> I don't like the idea of laws being molded into a new shape by adjusting
> the meaning of words.
You'd prefer pointing and grunting? Or perhaps some mathematics-based
system, or a legal system based on musical notes or tints and hues?
> > Fifty years ago, your type was saying "The laws related to the institution
> > of marriage were set in place with the understanding that a marriage was a
> > union between members of the same race."
>
> I think you missed the mark here. At the time and places these sort of
> believes were held, separate laws were passed prohibiting such unions.
....exactly as the Defense of Marriage act has been passed prohibiting such
unions, yes. That's one very strong parallel.
> The definition of "marriage" was not adjusted to exclude such unions.
That is exactly what anti-miscegenation laws did.
> The "right way" is to pass laws recognizing civil unions and endowing
> them with the rights and benefits that lawmakers agree on.
Bzzt. The "right way" is for all married Americans to have the same
responsibilities and rights, period. Not for one specific group to have
whatever table scraps lawmakers "agree on" throwing them.
> I suppose you could pass laws explicitly redefining the legal meaning of
> the word "marriage" to include same --- union, but this seems needlessly
> provocative.
The majority frequently feels provoked, put upon, abused or otherwise
wronged when their exclusive privileges are extended to others not like
them. A nominally democratic and free society is a provocative place.
> Of course maybe that is the whole objective of those who want to change
> the legal definition of marriage to include same --- unions.
<eyeroll> Yeah, that's it. They're doing it *expressly because they know
it pisses you off*. They're fighting expensive legal battles *just to get
your goat*.
> I have no desire to discriminate again people of the same --- who love
> each other
This claim, in light of your other assertions in this and other posts, is
not believable. It's apparent you *do* wish to engage in exactly this sort
of discrimination -- you just won't admit it, apparently. Don't feel
lonely, Ed, this has been going on for a very long time. Those who argued
vehemently in favor of keeping anti-miscegenation laws considered
themselves enlightened and unprejudiced. After all, they didn't seek to
*enslave* blacks, as their horrid, ignorant, cruel and hateful forebears
had done. No. They just sought to maintain God's natural law by
prohibiting the mixing of the races, that's all. Just as folks like you
swear you're not predjudiced or hateful. Not like your horrid, ignorant,
cruel and hateful forebears who rounded up gays and threw them in
institutions, "treated" them with electroshock, or simply stoned them to
death. No. You just seek to maintain God's natural law, etc. etc. etc.
DS
> I don't think the people who wrote the laws regarding marriage intended
> to cover same --- unions, and I don't like the idea that we can just
> arbitrarily expand the legal meaning because some people like the idea.
> If I can't count on the consistent meaning of words in a legal sense,
> how can I trust the laws the words describe?
OH! I understand your objection now.
So, what are the new words for "Speeding"? There'd be one from 1987 and
one from 1995. Prior to 1987, "Speeding" meant going faster than 55 mph.
Between 1987 and 1995, there'd have to be some new word, since the
national speed limit was raised to 65 mph, so obviously the old word --
"speeding" -- wouldn't apply. And then in '95, the national speed limit
was abolished, so whatever word was used to mean "exceeding 65 mph"
between 1987 and 1995 would have been rendered useless, so you'd need
another new word. You can't just change the law so the word means
something else, after all, right?
And what about "obscenity"?! Heck, under your philosophy that word
would've been rendered obsolete and required replacement practically every
week since 1620!
Let's see, some other examples? Sure, how about "DOT legal headlamp
system"? Prior to 1957, it meant two 7" round sealed beam units under
NHTSA, indivisible, with tungsten and glass for all, to the exclusion of
all others. From '57 to '73 it meant two 7" round sealed beam units *or*
four 5.75" round ones, to the exclusion of all others. From '73-'75 it
meant two 7" rounds, *or* four 5.75" rounds, *or* two 200mm x 142mm
rectangulars, to the exclusion of all others. From '75-'83 it meant two 7"
rounds *or* four 5.75" rounds *or* two 200mm x 142mm rectangulars *or*
four 165mm x 100mm rectangulars, to the exclusion of all others. From
'83-'86 it meant...you get the point.
In each of these examples, and many others besides, the scope and
definition of what is covered by a legal term have changed, expanded
and/or contracted simply by dint of a change, deletion or reinterpretation
of an existing law and/or the introduction of a new one.
Humanity is considerably more adaptible than you give us credit for, as it
seems, for in every such case we've managed to get along just fine.
Nobody's been confused about what "speeding" means, nobody's been confused
about what is or isn't a "DOT legal headlamp". So, the assertion that
Bad Things<tm> will happen if gays are allowed to get Married<tm> because
it will render the term legally confusing, contains no merit upon which to
stand.
The only logical conclusion, therefore, is that this objection to the
application of the word "marriage" to same---- unions is a false front for
something else. What else? Well, it could be a dislike of homosexuals, a
plain case of snobbery, religious fervor, "I got mine, Jack, so ----
you"...or a combination of the above.
> What do you mean by "repeating a dogmatic statement?"
"Marriage is between a man and a woman. Marriage is between a man and a
woman. Marriage is between a man and a woman. Marriage is between a man
and a woman."
> I just wants legal terms to have a consistent understandable meaning.
Then you're sorta ----ed, see above. Legal terms' meanings shift and drift
all day, every day. Can't keep up? That makes one of you. The rest of us
are doing just fine.
> I don't like the idea of laws being molded into a new shape by adjusting
> the meaning of words.
You'd prefer pointing and grunting? Or perhaps some mathematics-based
system, or a legal system based on musical notes or tints and hues?
> > Fifty years ago, your type was saying "The laws related to the institution
> > of marriage were set in place with the understanding that a marriage was a
> > union between members of the same race."
>
> I think you missed the mark here. At the time and places these sort of
> believes were held, separate laws were passed prohibiting such unions.
....exactly as the Defense of Marriage act has been passed prohibiting such
unions, yes. That's one very strong parallel.
> The definition of "marriage" was not adjusted to exclude such unions.
That is exactly what anti-miscegenation laws did.
> The "right way" is to pass laws recognizing civil unions and endowing
> them with the rights and benefits that lawmakers agree on.
Bzzt. The "right way" is for all married Americans to have the same
responsibilities and rights, period. Not for one specific group to have
whatever table scraps lawmakers "agree on" throwing them.
> I suppose you could pass laws explicitly redefining the legal meaning of
> the word "marriage" to include same --- union, but this seems needlessly
> provocative.
The majority frequently feels provoked, put upon, abused or otherwise
wronged when their exclusive privileges are extended to others not like
them. A nominally democratic and free society is a provocative place.
> Of course maybe that is the whole objective of those who want to change
> the legal definition of marriage to include same --- unions.
<eyeroll> Yeah, that's it. They're doing it *expressly because they know
it pisses you off*. They're fighting expensive legal battles *just to get
your goat*.
> I have no desire to discriminate again people of the same --- who love
> each other
This claim, in light of your other assertions in this and other posts, is
not believable. It's apparent you *do* wish to engage in exactly this sort
of discrimination -- you just won't admit it, apparently. Don't feel
lonely, Ed, this has been going on for a very long time. Those who argued
vehemently in favor of keeping anti-miscegenation laws considered
themselves enlightened and unprejudiced. After all, they didn't seek to
*enslave* blacks, as their horrid, ignorant, cruel and hateful forebears
had done. No. They just sought to maintain God's natural law by
prohibiting the mixing of the races, that's all. Just as folks like you
swear you're not predjudiced or hateful. Not like your horrid, ignorant,
cruel and hateful forebears who rounded up gays and threw them in
institutions, "treated" them with electroshock, or simply stoned them to
death. No. You just seek to maintain God's natural law, etc. etc. etc.
DS