Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#5781
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
#5782
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
#5783
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study aboutsafetycanbemisinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
> In article <3FCD3C1D.BE56D712@greg.greg>, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
> >The only sources that appears to have credibility with you is the Sierra Club
> and
> >Consumer Reports. Furthermore your slam against WSJ is false and you cannot
> >substantiate it.
>
> As I said, a newspaper that is avowedly pro-business cannot be considered an
> objective source.
Man, we couldn't make this stuff up.
Wow, Lloyd - you make even the stuff that conservatives know is an
exageration of the what a sterotypical liberal is seem true. If I were
a reasonable liberal, I would be telling you to shut the heck up because
you're making us reasonable ones look foolish.
There was a time not too many years ago when it was almost believable
that your kind were the bastions of human rights issues the world over,
and yet now you hate a decent man so much that you would let your hatred
of him cause you to be apologists and useful idiots for a man who
routinely did such things as have the eyes of a 3 month old baby gouged
out while interrogating the baby's father, put people in tree shredders,
kill and mutilate innocent people and send the body parts home to the
family to be left in front of the house, etc. Your ilk has lost the
claim to being the great supporters of human rights and decency for many
years to come. Your presidential contenders have so confused themselves
about what they pretended to believe is right and wrong that they now
don't know which way to point their peckers.
You elevate above the authority of the U.S. government in our own
country the authority of an organization (the U.N.) that signed
under-the-table agreements with international gay rights organizations
to endorse and support NAMBLA (an organization that promotes and
aggressively fights to legalize pedophilia the world over), only to be
stopped by the U.S. Congress' officially adopting a resolution to stop
paying its dues until its endorsement and support of such organizations
ceased.
And we're supposed to look to you to tell us what's right when it comes
to ethics, morality, and constituionality and set aside what we know to
be right and just and moral. I will take my imperfect principles above
your totally bankrupt sense of right and wrong *ANY* day.
I could go on, but I've said quite enough I think.
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! =-----
#5784
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study aboutsafetycanbemisinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
> In article <3FCD3C1D.BE56D712@greg.greg>, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
> >The only sources that appears to have credibility with you is the Sierra Club
> and
> >Consumer Reports. Furthermore your slam against WSJ is false and you cannot
> >substantiate it.
>
> As I said, a newspaper that is avowedly pro-business cannot be considered an
> objective source.
Man, we couldn't make this stuff up.
Wow, Lloyd - you make even the stuff that conservatives know is an
exageration of the what a sterotypical liberal is seem true. If I were
a reasonable liberal, I would be telling you to shut the heck up because
you're making us reasonable ones look foolish.
There was a time not too many years ago when it was almost believable
that your kind were the bastions of human rights issues the world over,
and yet now you hate a decent man so much that you would let your hatred
of him cause you to be apologists and useful idiots for a man who
routinely did such things as have the eyes of a 3 month old baby gouged
out while interrogating the baby's father, put people in tree shredders,
kill and mutilate innocent people and send the body parts home to the
family to be left in front of the house, etc. Your ilk has lost the
claim to being the great supporters of human rights and decency for many
years to come. Your presidential contenders have so confused themselves
about what they pretended to believe is right and wrong that they now
don't know which way to point their peckers.
You elevate above the authority of the U.S. government in our own
country the authority of an organization (the U.N.) that signed
under-the-table agreements with international gay rights organizations
to endorse and support NAMBLA (an organization that promotes and
aggressively fights to legalize pedophilia the world over), only to be
stopped by the U.S. Congress' officially adopting a resolution to stop
paying its dues until its endorsement and support of such organizations
ceased.
And we're supposed to look to you to tell us what's right when it comes
to ethics, morality, and constituionality and set aside what we know to
be right and just and moral. I will take my imperfect principles above
your totally bankrupt sense of right and wrong *ANY* day.
I could go on, but I've said quite enough I think.
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! =-----
#5785
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study aboutsafetycanbemisinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
> In article <3FCD3C1D.BE56D712@greg.greg>, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
> >The only sources that appears to have credibility with you is the Sierra Club
> and
> >Consumer Reports. Furthermore your slam against WSJ is false and you cannot
> >substantiate it.
>
> As I said, a newspaper that is avowedly pro-business cannot be considered an
> objective source.
Man, we couldn't make this stuff up.
Wow, Lloyd - you make even the stuff that conservatives know is an
exageration of the what a sterotypical liberal is seem true. If I were
a reasonable liberal, I would be telling you to shut the heck up because
you're making us reasonable ones look foolish.
There was a time not too many years ago when it was almost believable
that your kind were the bastions of human rights issues the world over,
and yet now you hate a decent man so much that you would let your hatred
of him cause you to be apologists and useful idiots for a man who
routinely did such things as have the eyes of a 3 month old baby gouged
out while interrogating the baby's father, put people in tree shredders,
kill and mutilate innocent people and send the body parts home to the
family to be left in front of the house, etc. Your ilk has lost the
claim to being the great supporters of human rights and decency for many
years to come. Your presidential contenders have so confused themselves
about what they pretended to believe is right and wrong that they now
don't know which way to point their peckers.
You elevate above the authority of the U.S. government in our own
country the authority of an organization (the U.N.) that signed
under-the-table agreements with international gay rights organizations
to endorse and support NAMBLA (an organization that promotes and
aggressively fights to legalize pedophilia the world over), only to be
stopped by the U.S. Congress' officially adopting a resolution to stop
paying its dues until its endorsement and support of such organizations
ceased.
And we're supposed to look to you to tell us what's right when it comes
to ethics, morality, and constituionality and set aside what we know to
be right and just and moral. I will take my imperfect principles above
your totally bankrupt sense of right and wrong *ANY* day.
I could go on, but I've said quite enough I think.
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! =-----
#5786
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Are you two sure that it's not you guys that's letting all that high test
gas escape.. Is this Jeep talk????????
"Robert A. Matern" <ramatern@SEND.MEuninetsNO.SPAM.net> wrote in message
news:bqljra$58j$1@ngspool-d02.news.aol.com...
> it's "septic decay" (non-aerated) that occurs without Oxygen...
producing
> Methane!
>
> different bacteria perform the two types of decomposition
>
> aerated: think well-turned compost pile -or- fermentation vat
>
> non-aerated: think outhouse -or- poorly-turned compost pile
>
>
> "Bill Putney" <bputney@kinez.net> wrote in message
> news:3FCBD484.B1CFA8B@kinez.net...
> >
> >
> > Joe wrote:
> >
> > > "Fermentation is, by definition, carried out without oxygen and
> therefore
> > > produces no CO2."
> > > Go back to grade school:
> > > "Alcohol fermentation is done by yeast and some kinds of bacteria. The
> > > "waste" products of this process are ethanol and carbon dioxide (CO2)"
> > > http://biology.clc.uc.edu/courses/bio104/cellresp.htm
> >
> > IIRC, the big concern of the environuts a few (maybe 10 or 15) years ago
> that
> > wanted to put something similar to sealed diapers on cows and other farm
> animals
> > was the release of too much methane into the atmosphere. Wouldn't you
> like to
> > have had the DependsT concession if that had gone thru, z?
> >
> > 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! =-----
>
>
#5787
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Are you two sure that it's not you guys that's letting all that high test
gas escape.. Is this Jeep talk????????
"Robert A. Matern" <ramatern@SEND.MEuninetsNO.SPAM.net> wrote in message
news:bqljra$58j$1@ngspool-d02.news.aol.com...
> it's "septic decay" (non-aerated) that occurs without Oxygen...
producing
> Methane!
>
> different bacteria perform the two types of decomposition
>
> aerated: think well-turned compost pile -or- fermentation vat
>
> non-aerated: think outhouse -or- poorly-turned compost pile
>
>
> "Bill Putney" <bputney@kinez.net> wrote in message
> news:3FCBD484.B1CFA8B@kinez.net...
> >
> >
> > Joe wrote:
> >
> > > "Fermentation is, by definition, carried out without oxygen and
> therefore
> > > produces no CO2."
> > > Go back to grade school:
> > > "Alcohol fermentation is done by yeast and some kinds of bacteria. The
> > > "waste" products of this process are ethanol and carbon dioxide (CO2)"
> > > http://biology.clc.uc.edu/courses/bio104/cellresp.htm
> >
> > IIRC, the big concern of the environuts a few (maybe 10 or 15) years ago
> that
> > wanted to put something similar to sealed diapers on cows and other farm
> animals
> > was the release of too much methane into the atmosphere. Wouldn't you
> like to
> > have had the DependsT concession if that had gone thru, z?
> >
> > 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! =-----
>
>
#5788
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Are you two sure that it's not you guys that's letting all that high test
gas escape.. Is this Jeep talk????????
"Robert A. Matern" <ramatern@SEND.MEuninetsNO.SPAM.net> wrote in message
news:bqljra$58j$1@ngspool-d02.news.aol.com...
> it's "septic decay" (non-aerated) that occurs without Oxygen...
producing
> Methane!
>
> different bacteria perform the two types of decomposition
>
> aerated: think well-turned compost pile -or- fermentation vat
>
> non-aerated: think outhouse -or- poorly-turned compost pile
>
>
> "Bill Putney" <bputney@kinez.net> wrote in message
> news:3FCBD484.B1CFA8B@kinez.net...
> >
> >
> > Joe wrote:
> >
> > > "Fermentation is, by definition, carried out without oxygen and
> therefore
> > > produces no CO2."
> > > Go back to grade school:
> > > "Alcohol fermentation is done by yeast and some kinds of bacteria. The
> > > "waste" products of this process are ethanol and carbon dioxide (CO2)"
> > > http://biology.clc.uc.edu/courses/bio104/cellresp.htm
> >
> > IIRC, the big concern of the environuts a few (maybe 10 or 15) years ago
> that
> > wanted to put something similar to sealed diapers on cows and other farm
> animals
> > was the release of too much methane into the atmosphere. Wouldn't you
> like to
> > have had the DependsT concession if that had gone thru, z?
> >
> > 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! =-----
>
>
#5789
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycanbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
"Daniel J. Stern" <dastern@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:Pine.SOL.4.44.0312031922420.21202-100000@alumni.engin.umich.edu...
> 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
I had exposure to both the UKs socialized medicine and Canadian health
care....run away! A Brit friend was visiting our offices in the States and
took a run up to Toronto to see the Company's Canadian operations. While
there she got the unmistakable signs of appendicitis. The Canadians basicaly
forced her onto a plane to get her over the border to the USA, telling her
she wanted NOTHING to do with the Canadian health care system. EMS met her
at the airport, rushed her to the hospital where she had an emergency
appendectomy within minutes of arrival. She then convalesced for four days
"in hospital", as the Brits would say.
She claimed she'd never received better care, that in the UK she'd have
likely ruptured before they got around to treating her, which might have
been days later. The only way to get health care "on demand" there would be
to have either deep pockets, or as most folks do, private health insurance.
I could go on, but before you think having the Govt. run health care would
be better than what we have, think again. Yeah, our system sucks, but not as
much as the others suck!
#5790
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycanbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
"Daniel J. Stern" <dastern@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:Pine.SOL.4.44.0312031922420.21202-100000@alumni.engin.umich.edu...
> 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
I had exposure to both the UKs socialized medicine and Canadian health
care....run away! A Brit friend was visiting our offices in the States and
took a run up to Toronto to see the Company's Canadian operations. While
there she got the unmistakable signs of appendicitis. The Canadians basicaly
forced her onto a plane to get her over the border to the USA, telling her
she wanted NOTHING to do with the Canadian health care system. EMS met her
at the airport, rushed her to the hospital where she had an emergency
appendectomy within minutes of arrival. She then convalesced for four days
"in hospital", as the Brits would say.
She claimed she'd never received better care, that in the UK she'd have
likely ruptured before they got around to treating her, which might have
been days later. The only way to get health care "on demand" there would be
to have either deep pockets, or as most folks do, private health insurance.
I could go on, but before you think having the Govt. run health care would
be better than what we have, think again. Yeah, our system sucks, but not as
much as the others suck!