Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#5831
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycanbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <3FCE24B9.F73BD5C0@mindspring.com>,
"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.
Once marriage was defined in this country as a union between a man and woman
of the same race too.
>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.
>
>Ed
>
>
"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.
Once marriage was defined in this country as a union between a man and woman
of the same race too.
>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.
>
>Ed
>
>
#5832
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycanbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <3FCE24B9.F73BD5C0@mindspring.com>,
"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.
Once marriage was defined in this country as a union between a man and woman
of the same race too.
>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.
>
>Ed
>
>
"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.
Once marriage was defined in this country as a union between a man and woman
of the same race too.
>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.
>
>Ed
>
>
#5833
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycanbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <3FCE24B9.F73BD5C0@mindspring.com>,
"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.
Once marriage was defined in this country as a union between a man and woman
of the same race too.
>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.
>
>Ed
>
>
"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.
Once marriage was defined in this country as a union between a man and woman
of the same race too.
>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.
>
>Ed
>
>
#5834
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <iNpzb.2062$WT6.190@twister.socal.rr.com>,
"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:bql30g$c29$28@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> In article <uXnzb.211214$Dw6.768125@attbi_s02>,
>> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>> >In article <bql0h3$c29$4@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> >> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>> >>>In article <bqit3e$of5$1@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> >>>> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>> >>>>>In article <bqinb6$him$8@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> >
>> >>>>>> Yeah, it'd be terrible if everybody were covered and we spent less
>on
>> health
>> >>>>>> care, as Europe, Canada, and Japan do, wouldn't it? Terrible for
>> insurance
>> >>>>>> companies, drug companies, HMOs, etc, that is.
>> >
>> >>>>>How would we spend "less on health care" ? Instead of paying for
>health
>> >>>>>insurance we would pay *AT LEAST* that much in additional taxes.
>> >
>> >>>> Why is it, then, that every western European nation, plus Canada and
>> Japan,
>> >>>> spend less per capita on health care than the US yet still cover
>> everybody?
>> >
>> >>>Answer a question with a question. How does your state run health care
>> >>>system cost less than the current private one?
>> >
>> >> Because all the examples we have of state-run health care say it would.
>> >> Economy of scale, negotiation for lower prices, preventative care
>instead
>> of
>> >> waiting until the person becomes sick -- all these and other factors.
>> >
>> >So your answer is we would save money through the reduced quality of
>care.
>> >I suggest you gain some experience with how government price controls
>> >have a negative impact on care, at least with regards to how it works
>> >in the USA.
>> >
>> >
>> Again, I refer you to all the data which shows people in Canada and
>western
>> Europe are healthier and live longer.
>
>The Europeans and Canadians choose to tax themsleves to provide cradle to
>grave care for health care. It's a choice they make. Good for them.
Yet they pass less for health care then we do. Sounds like a win-win
situation to me.
>There's a price they pay for that. There's far less innovation and change
>in Europe than there is in the US. They tend to stick with the status quo.
What does that mean? There are plenty of innovations. Airbus now is outdoing
Boeing in orders, for example. Why? Innovative ideas.
>In the US, the competitive juices among companies are often too much for
>European companies. Airbus was subsidized for years to support foreign
>sales.
And the US refusing to buy any military hardware from Airbus isn't a form of
subsidy to Boeing?
Besides, if the gov't pays for health care instead of the employer, that's
reducing the costs to the employer.
>Another example is telecommunications. Nokia has struggled with
>CDMA technology in the US because of the constant change and forward
>movement in technology here. Europe would be happy to stay with GSM as a
>universal standard while US companies are pushing the technological
>envelope. Is the most efficient? Maybe not, but it's the price we pay for
>innovation and new technologies. High energy competition is dollar driven
>(oh, how evil.... the greed!). The European model severely dampens that
>energy. You can see the desparation to bring in outside money in Europe;
>like government subsidies, their selling of weapons systems (France,
>Germany) to ANYONE (read Saddam Hussein), willingness to accept despotism in
>exchange for lucrative trade deals (do you really think France opposed the
>war on "moral" grounds?).
>
>
Yet you can see autos in Europe that get 40 mpg. Ones that go 200+ mph. You
can see high-speed rail we can only dream of here.
"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:bql30g$c29$28@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> In article <uXnzb.211214$Dw6.768125@attbi_s02>,
>> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>> >In article <bql0h3$c29$4@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> >> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>> >>>In article <bqit3e$of5$1@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> >>>> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>> >>>>>In article <bqinb6$him$8@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> >
>> >>>>>> Yeah, it'd be terrible if everybody were covered and we spent less
>on
>> health
>> >>>>>> care, as Europe, Canada, and Japan do, wouldn't it? Terrible for
>> insurance
>> >>>>>> companies, drug companies, HMOs, etc, that is.
>> >
>> >>>>>How would we spend "less on health care" ? Instead of paying for
>health
>> >>>>>insurance we would pay *AT LEAST* that much in additional taxes.
>> >
>> >>>> Why is it, then, that every western European nation, plus Canada and
>> Japan,
>> >>>> spend less per capita on health care than the US yet still cover
>> everybody?
>> >
>> >>>Answer a question with a question. How does your state run health care
>> >>>system cost less than the current private one?
>> >
>> >> Because all the examples we have of state-run health care say it would.
>> >> Economy of scale, negotiation for lower prices, preventative care
>instead
>> of
>> >> waiting until the person becomes sick -- all these and other factors.
>> >
>> >So your answer is we would save money through the reduced quality of
>care.
>> >I suggest you gain some experience with how government price controls
>> >have a negative impact on care, at least with regards to how it works
>> >in the USA.
>> >
>> >
>> Again, I refer you to all the data which shows people in Canada and
>western
>> Europe are healthier and live longer.
>
>The Europeans and Canadians choose to tax themsleves to provide cradle to
>grave care for health care. It's a choice they make. Good for them.
Yet they pass less for health care then we do. Sounds like a win-win
situation to me.
>There's a price they pay for that. There's far less innovation and change
>in Europe than there is in the US. They tend to stick with the status quo.
What does that mean? There are plenty of innovations. Airbus now is outdoing
Boeing in orders, for example. Why? Innovative ideas.
>In the US, the competitive juices among companies are often too much for
>European companies. Airbus was subsidized for years to support foreign
>sales.
And the US refusing to buy any military hardware from Airbus isn't a form of
subsidy to Boeing?
Besides, if the gov't pays for health care instead of the employer, that's
reducing the costs to the employer.
>Another example is telecommunications. Nokia has struggled with
>CDMA technology in the US because of the constant change and forward
>movement in technology here. Europe would be happy to stay with GSM as a
>universal standard while US companies are pushing the technological
>envelope. Is the most efficient? Maybe not, but it's the price we pay for
>innovation and new technologies. High energy competition is dollar driven
>(oh, how evil.... the greed!). The European model severely dampens that
>energy. You can see the desparation to bring in outside money in Europe;
>like government subsidies, their selling of weapons systems (France,
>Germany) to ANYONE (read Saddam Hussein), willingness to accept despotism in
>exchange for lucrative trade deals (do you really think France opposed the
>war on "moral" grounds?).
>
>
Yet you can see autos in Europe that get 40 mpg. Ones that go 200+ mph. You
can see high-speed rail we can only dream of here.
#5835
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <iNpzb.2062$WT6.190@twister.socal.rr.com>,
"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:bql30g$c29$28@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> In article <uXnzb.211214$Dw6.768125@attbi_s02>,
>> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>> >In article <bql0h3$c29$4@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> >> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>> >>>In article <bqit3e$of5$1@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> >>>> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>> >>>>>In article <bqinb6$him$8@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> >
>> >>>>>> Yeah, it'd be terrible if everybody were covered and we spent less
>on
>> health
>> >>>>>> care, as Europe, Canada, and Japan do, wouldn't it? Terrible for
>> insurance
>> >>>>>> companies, drug companies, HMOs, etc, that is.
>> >
>> >>>>>How would we spend "less on health care" ? Instead of paying for
>health
>> >>>>>insurance we would pay *AT LEAST* that much in additional taxes.
>> >
>> >>>> Why is it, then, that every western European nation, plus Canada and
>> Japan,
>> >>>> spend less per capita on health care than the US yet still cover
>> everybody?
>> >
>> >>>Answer a question with a question. How does your state run health care
>> >>>system cost less than the current private one?
>> >
>> >> Because all the examples we have of state-run health care say it would.
>> >> Economy of scale, negotiation for lower prices, preventative care
>instead
>> of
>> >> waiting until the person becomes sick -- all these and other factors.
>> >
>> >So your answer is we would save money through the reduced quality of
>care.
>> >I suggest you gain some experience with how government price controls
>> >have a negative impact on care, at least with regards to how it works
>> >in the USA.
>> >
>> >
>> Again, I refer you to all the data which shows people in Canada and
>western
>> Europe are healthier and live longer.
>
>The Europeans and Canadians choose to tax themsleves to provide cradle to
>grave care for health care. It's a choice they make. Good for them.
Yet they pass less for health care then we do. Sounds like a win-win
situation to me.
>There's a price they pay for that. There's far less innovation and change
>in Europe than there is in the US. They tend to stick with the status quo.
What does that mean? There are plenty of innovations. Airbus now is outdoing
Boeing in orders, for example. Why? Innovative ideas.
>In the US, the competitive juices among companies are often too much for
>European companies. Airbus was subsidized for years to support foreign
>sales.
And the US refusing to buy any military hardware from Airbus isn't a form of
subsidy to Boeing?
Besides, if the gov't pays for health care instead of the employer, that's
reducing the costs to the employer.
>Another example is telecommunications. Nokia has struggled with
>CDMA technology in the US because of the constant change and forward
>movement in technology here. Europe would be happy to stay with GSM as a
>universal standard while US companies are pushing the technological
>envelope. Is the most efficient? Maybe not, but it's the price we pay for
>innovation and new technologies. High energy competition is dollar driven
>(oh, how evil.... the greed!). The European model severely dampens that
>energy. You can see the desparation to bring in outside money in Europe;
>like government subsidies, their selling of weapons systems (France,
>Germany) to ANYONE (read Saddam Hussein), willingness to accept despotism in
>exchange for lucrative trade deals (do you really think France opposed the
>war on "moral" grounds?).
>
>
Yet you can see autos in Europe that get 40 mpg. Ones that go 200+ mph. You
can see high-speed rail we can only dream of here.
"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:bql30g$c29$28@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> In article <uXnzb.211214$Dw6.768125@attbi_s02>,
>> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>> >In article <bql0h3$c29$4@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> >> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>> >>>In article <bqit3e$of5$1@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> >>>> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>> >>>>>In article <bqinb6$him$8@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> >
>> >>>>>> Yeah, it'd be terrible if everybody were covered and we spent less
>on
>> health
>> >>>>>> care, as Europe, Canada, and Japan do, wouldn't it? Terrible for
>> insurance
>> >>>>>> companies, drug companies, HMOs, etc, that is.
>> >
>> >>>>>How would we spend "less on health care" ? Instead of paying for
>health
>> >>>>>insurance we would pay *AT LEAST* that much in additional taxes.
>> >
>> >>>> Why is it, then, that every western European nation, plus Canada and
>> Japan,
>> >>>> spend less per capita on health care than the US yet still cover
>> everybody?
>> >
>> >>>Answer a question with a question. How does your state run health care
>> >>>system cost less than the current private one?
>> >
>> >> Because all the examples we have of state-run health care say it would.
>> >> Economy of scale, negotiation for lower prices, preventative care
>instead
>> of
>> >> waiting until the person becomes sick -- all these and other factors.
>> >
>> >So your answer is we would save money through the reduced quality of
>care.
>> >I suggest you gain some experience with how government price controls
>> >have a negative impact on care, at least with regards to how it works
>> >in the USA.
>> >
>> >
>> Again, I refer you to all the data which shows people in Canada and
>western
>> Europe are healthier and live longer.
>
>The Europeans and Canadians choose to tax themsleves to provide cradle to
>grave care for health care. It's a choice they make. Good for them.
Yet they pass less for health care then we do. Sounds like a win-win
situation to me.
>There's a price they pay for that. There's far less innovation and change
>in Europe than there is in the US. They tend to stick with the status quo.
What does that mean? There are plenty of innovations. Airbus now is outdoing
Boeing in orders, for example. Why? Innovative ideas.
>In the US, the competitive juices among companies are often too much for
>European companies. Airbus was subsidized for years to support foreign
>sales.
And the US refusing to buy any military hardware from Airbus isn't a form of
subsidy to Boeing?
Besides, if the gov't pays for health care instead of the employer, that's
reducing the costs to the employer.
>Another example is telecommunications. Nokia has struggled with
>CDMA technology in the US because of the constant change and forward
>movement in technology here. Europe would be happy to stay with GSM as a
>universal standard while US companies are pushing the technological
>envelope. Is the most efficient? Maybe not, but it's the price we pay for
>innovation and new technologies. High energy competition is dollar driven
>(oh, how evil.... the greed!). The European model severely dampens that
>energy. You can see the desparation to bring in outside money in Europe;
>like government subsidies, their selling of weapons systems (France,
>Germany) to ANYONE (read Saddam Hussein), willingness to accept despotism in
>exchange for lucrative trade deals (do you really think France opposed the
>war on "moral" grounds?).
>
>
Yet you can see autos in Europe that get 40 mpg. Ones that go 200+ mph. You
can see high-speed rail we can only dream of here.
#5836
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <iNpzb.2062$WT6.190@twister.socal.rr.com>,
"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:bql30g$c29$28@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> In article <uXnzb.211214$Dw6.768125@attbi_s02>,
>> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>> >In article <bql0h3$c29$4@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> >> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>> >>>In article <bqit3e$of5$1@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> >>>> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>> >>>>>In article <bqinb6$him$8@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> >
>> >>>>>> Yeah, it'd be terrible if everybody were covered and we spent less
>on
>> health
>> >>>>>> care, as Europe, Canada, and Japan do, wouldn't it? Terrible for
>> insurance
>> >>>>>> companies, drug companies, HMOs, etc, that is.
>> >
>> >>>>>How would we spend "less on health care" ? Instead of paying for
>health
>> >>>>>insurance we would pay *AT LEAST* that much in additional taxes.
>> >
>> >>>> Why is it, then, that every western European nation, plus Canada and
>> Japan,
>> >>>> spend less per capita on health care than the US yet still cover
>> everybody?
>> >
>> >>>Answer a question with a question. How does your state run health care
>> >>>system cost less than the current private one?
>> >
>> >> Because all the examples we have of state-run health care say it would.
>> >> Economy of scale, negotiation for lower prices, preventative care
>instead
>> of
>> >> waiting until the person becomes sick -- all these and other factors.
>> >
>> >So your answer is we would save money through the reduced quality of
>care.
>> >I suggest you gain some experience with how government price controls
>> >have a negative impact on care, at least with regards to how it works
>> >in the USA.
>> >
>> >
>> Again, I refer you to all the data which shows people in Canada and
>western
>> Europe are healthier and live longer.
>
>The Europeans and Canadians choose to tax themsleves to provide cradle to
>grave care for health care. It's a choice they make. Good for them.
Yet they pass less for health care then we do. Sounds like a win-win
situation to me.
>There's a price they pay for that. There's far less innovation and change
>in Europe than there is in the US. They tend to stick with the status quo.
What does that mean? There are plenty of innovations. Airbus now is outdoing
Boeing in orders, for example. Why? Innovative ideas.
>In the US, the competitive juices among companies are often too much for
>European companies. Airbus was subsidized for years to support foreign
>sales.
And the US refusing to buy any military hardware from Airbus isn't a form of
subsidy to Boeing?
Besides, if the gov't pays for health care instead of the employer, that's
reducing the costs to the employer.
>Another example is telecommunications. Nokia has struggled with
>CDMA technology in the US because of the constant change and forward
>movement in technology here. Europe would be happy to stay with GSM as a
>universal standard while US companies are pushing the technological
>envelope. Is the most efficient? Maybe not, but it's the price we pay for
>innovation and new technologies. High energy competition is dollar driven
>(oh, how evil.... the greed!). The European model severely dampens that
>energy. You can see the desparation to bring in outside money in Europe;
>like government subsidies, their selling of weapons systems (France,
>Germany) to ANYONE (read Saddam Hussein), willingness to accept despotism in
>exchange for lucrative trade deals (do you really think France opposed the
>war on "moral" grounds?).
>
>
Yet you can see autos in Europe that get 40 mpg. Ones that go 200+ mph. You
can see high-speed rail we can only dream of here.
"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:bql30g$c29$28@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> In article <uXnzb.211214$Dw6.768125@attbi_s02>,
>> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>> >In article <bql0h3$c29$4@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> >> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>> >>>In article <bqit3e$of5$1@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> >>>> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>> >>>>>In article <bqinb6$him$8@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> >
>> >>>>>> Yeah, it'd be terrible if everybody were covered and we spent less
>on
>> health
>> >>>>>> care, as Europe, Canada, and Japan do, wouldn't it? Terrible for
>> insurance
>> >>>>>> companies, drug companies, HMOs, etc, that is.
>> >
>> >>>>>How would we spend "less on health care" ? Instead of paying for
>health
>> >>>>>insurance we would pay *AT LEAST* that much in additional taxes.
>> >
>> >>>> Why is it, then, that every western European nation, plus Canada and
>> Japan,
>> >>>> spend less per capita on health care than the US yet still cover
>> everybody?
>> >
>> >>>Answer a question with a question. How does your state run health care
>> >>>system cost less than the current private one?
>> >
>> >> Because all the examples we have of state-run health care say it would.
>> >> Economy of scale, negotiation for lower prices, preventative care
>instead
>> of
>> >> waiting until the person becomes sick -- all these and other factors.
>> >
>> >So your answer is we would save money through the reduced quality of
>care.
>> >I suggest you gain some experience with how government price controls
>> >have a negative impact on care, at least with regards to how it works
>> >in the USA.
>> >
>> >
>> Again, I refer you to all the data which shows people in Canada and
>western
>> Europe are healthier and live longer.
>
>The Europeans and Canadians choose to tax themsleves to provide cradle to
>grave care for health care. It's a choice they make. Good for them.
Yet they pass less for health care then we do. Sounds like a win-win
situation to me.
>There's a price they pay for that. There's far less innovation and change
>in Europe than there is in the US. They tend to stick with the status quo.
What does that mean? There are plenty of innovations. Airbus now is outdoing
Boeing in orders, for example. Why? Innovative ideas.
>In the US, the competitive juices among companies are often too much for
>European companies. Airbus was subsidized for years to support foreign
>sales.
And the US refusing to buy any military hardware from Airbus isn't a form of
subsidy to Boeing?
Besides, if the gov't pays for health care instead of the employer, that's
reducing the costs to the employer.
>Another example is telecommunications. Nokia has struggled with
>CDMA technology in the US because of the constant change and forward
>movement in technology here. Europe would be happy to stay with GSM as a
>universal standard while US companies are pushing the technological
>envelope. Is the most efficient? Maybe not, but it's the price we pay for
>innovation and new technologies. High energy competition is dollar driven
>(oh, how evil.... the greed!). The European model severely dampens that
>energy. You can see the desparation to bring in outside money in Europe;
>like government subsidies, their selling of weapons systems (France,
>Germany) to ANYONE (read Saddam Hussein), willingness to accept despotism in
>exchange for lucrative trade deals (do you really think France opposed the
>war on "moral" grounds?).
>
>
Yet you can see autos in Europe that get 40 mpg. Ones that go 200+ mph. You
can see high-speed rail we can only dream of here.
#5837
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <Xhqzb.2069$WT6.1828@twister.socal.rr.com>,
"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:bql21b$c29$22@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> In article <Uaizb.2907$rE3.2726@twister.socal.rr.com>,
>> "David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> So are conservatives -- telling people what kind of --- to have, what
>> >genders
>> >> can marry, what a woman can do with her body, etc.
>> >>
>> >
>> >This one again? Ok, I'll repeat myself. Conservatives believe some
>rights
>> >are reserved to states and individuals to decide how they want to govern
>> >themselves. That includes the rights of states and communities, through
>> >their legislatures, to rule on sexual behaviors, abortion, and marriage.
>> >It's the Dems who want to nationalize these things and force all
>communities
>> >nationwide to accept their new age definitions of morality and religion.
>>
>> Why wouldn't the most intimate relationships between people be a right
>> reserved to the people themselves (9th amendment)? Surely if there are
>any
>> "inherent" or "God-given" rights, it would be those that have to do with
>> intimate relationships and behaviors. Aren't you arguing the 9th
>amendment is
>> meaningless, that any rights not enumerated are reserved just to the
>states?
>>
>
>Not at all. It's just not the business of the feds.
Interpretting the US constitution is the business of the feds, and it's the US
constitution that reserves certain unenumerated rights to the people. Who
else but the courts can interpret that and say what those rights are?
> There's multiple
>jurisdiction below federal. State, county, city. The juridiction arguments
>among these entities for rights reserved to them is up to them individually.
None of them has the jurisdiction to interpret the US constitution.
>
>The arguments for and against Sodomy laws and Adultery laws each have
merit.
Sure, so did those against integration. To bigots.
>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).
>Should local governments be able to prohibit it? The sexual
>revolution in the 60's made it "quaint" to expect intact families with
>mothers AND fathers; to expect fidelity, which is tightly tied to religious
>values, is "old fashioned". Without religious values, we can behave as the
>animals and it's "okay".... individually. But that's where we got the
>"single mom" phenomenon. It's effect on the black community has been tragic
>with 70% of babies born to unwed mothers.
>
>Child poverty is a direct result of this. Even worse than the poverty is
>children with teeny bopper mothers more concerned with partying on Friday
>night and finding someone... anyone... to watch their kids while they to it.
>They give no structure or limits to their children's lives and end up
>producing more adults with no clue how to be productive members of society.
>
>Personal choices? Hmph.
>
>> >
>> >The conservative position has never been to nationalize any of these
>issues,
>> >but to allow local jurisdictions to choose for themselves. The only time
>> >conservatives do want to nationalize such issues is when the Libs find a
>> >liberal federal judge to overturn local law based and make it a national
>> >issue, i.e., unlimited federal government.
>> >
>> >Why can't you see the conservative vs. liberal debate as one based on
>role
>> >of federal government instead of merely accusing conservatives of being
>> >"rascist", "homophobe", "sexist", "bigoted". All those labels are debate
>> >enders. The issue of the role of government is a legitimate thing to
>debate
>> >with honorable arguments on both sides. Yet people like you never engage
>in
>> >it. You resort to this name calling instead.
>> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >
>> >
>
>
"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:bql21b$c29$22@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> In article <Uaizb.2907$rE3.2726@twister.socal.rr.com>,
>> "David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> So are conservatives -- telling people what kind of --- to have, what
>> >genders
>> >> can marry, what a woman can do with her body, etc.
>> >>
>> >
>> >This one again? Ok, I'll repeat myself. Conservatives believe some
>rights
>> >are reserved to states and individuals to decide how they want to govern
>> >themselves. That includes the rights of states and communities, through
>> >their legislatures, to rule on sexual behaviors, abortion, and marriage.
>> >It's the Dems who want to nationalize these things and force all
>communities
>> >nationwide to accept their new age definitions of morality and religion.
>>
>> Why wouldn't the most intimate relationships between people be a right
>> reserved to the people themselves (9th amendment)? Surely if there are
>any
>> "inherent" or "God-given" rights, it would be those that have to do with
>> intimate relationships and behaviors. Aren't you arguing the 9th
>amendment is
>> meaningless, that any rights not enumerated are reserved just to the
>states?
>>
>
>Not at all. It's just not the business of the feds.
Interpretting the US constitution is the business of the feds, and it's the US
constitution that reserves certain unenumerated rights to the people. Who
else but the courts can interpret that and say what those rights are?
> There's multiple
>jurisdiction below federal. State, county, city. The juridiction arguments
>among these entities for rights reserved to them is up to them individually.
None of them has the jurisdiction to interpret the US constitution.
>
>The arguments for and against Sodomy laws and Adultery laws each have
merit.
Sure, so did those against integration. To bigots.
>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).
>Should local governments be able to prohibit it? The sexual
>revolution in the 60's made it "quaint" to expect intact families with
>mothers AND fathers; to expect fidelity, which is tightly tied to religious
>values, is "old fashioned". Without religious values, we can behave as the
>animals and it's "okay".... individually. But that's where we got the
>"single mom" phenomenon. It's effect on the black community has been tragic
>with 70% of babies born to unwed mothers.
>
>Child poverty is a direct result of this. Even worse than the poverty is
>children with teeny bopper mothers more concerned with partying on Friday
>night and finding someone... anyone... to watch their kids while they to it.
>They give no structure or limits to their children's lives and end up
>producing more adults with no clue how to be productive members of society.
>
>Personal choices? Hmph.
>
>> >
>> >The conservative position has never been to nationalize any of these
>issues,
>> >but to allow local jurisdictions to choose for themselves. The only time
>> >conservatives do want to nationalize such issues is when the Libs find a
>> >liberal federal judge to overturn local law based and make it a national
>> >issue, i.e., unlimited federal government.
>> >
>> >Why can't you see the conservative vs. liberal debate as one based on
>role
>> >of federal government instead of merely accusing conservatives of being
>> >"rascist", "homophobe", "sexist", "bigoted". All those labels are debate
>> >enders. The issue of the role of government is a legitimate thing to
>debate
>> >with honorable arguments on both sides. Yet people like you never engage
>in
>> >it. You resort to this name calling instead.
>> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >
>> >
>
>
#5838
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <Xhqzb.2069$WT6.1828@twister.socal.rr.com>,
"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:bql21b$c29$22@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> In article <Uaizb.2907$rE3.2726@twister.socal.rr.com>,
>> "David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> So are conservatives -- telling people what kind of --- to have, what
>> >genders
>> >> can marry, what a woman can do with her body, etc.
>> >>
>> >
>> >This one again? Ok, I'll repeat myself. Conservatives believe some
>rights
>> >are reserved to states and individuals to decide how they want to govern
>> >themselves. That includes the rights of states and communities, through
>> >their legislatures, to rule on sexual behaviors, abortion, and marriage.
>> >It's the Dems who want to nationalize these things and force all
>communities
>> >nationwide to accept their new age definitions of morality and religion.
>>
>> Why wouldn't the most intimate relationships between people be a right
>> reserved to the people themselves (9th amendment)? Surely if there are
>any
>> "inherent" or "God-given" rights, it would be those that have to do with
>> intimate relationships and behaviors. Aren't you arguing the 9th
>amendment is
>> meaningless, that any rights not enumerated are reserved just to the
>states?
>>
>
>Not at all. It's just not the business of the feds.
Interpretting the US constitution is the business of the feds, and it's the US
constitution that reserves certain unenumerated rights to the people. Who
else but the courts can interpret that and say what those rights are?
> There's multiple
>jurisdiction below federal. State, county, city. The juridiction arguments
>among these entities for rights reserved to them is up to them individually.
None of them has the jurisdiction to interpret the US constitution.
>
>The arguments for and against Sodomy laws and Adultery laws each have
merit.
Sure, so did those against integration. To bigots.
>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).
>Should local governments be able to prohibit it? The sexual
>revolution in the 60's made it "quaint" to expect intact families with
>mothers AND fathers; to expect fidelity, which is tightly tied to religious
>values, is "old fashioned". Without religious values, we can behave as the
>animals and it's "okay".... individually. But that's where we got the
>"single mom" phenomenon. It's effect on the black community has been tragic
>with 70% of babies born to unwed mothers.
>
>Child poverty is a direct result of this. Even worse than the poverty is
>children with teeny bopper mothers more concerned with partying on Friday
>night and finding someone... anyone... to watch their kids while they to it.
>They give no structure or limits to their children's lives and end up
>producing more adults with no clue how to be productive members of society.
>
>Personal choices? Hmph.
>
>> >
>> >The conservative position has never been to nationalize any of these
>issues,
>> >but to allow local jurisdictions to choose for themselves. The only time
>> >conservatives do want to nationalize such issues is when the Libs find a
>> >liberal federal judge to overturn local law based and make it a national
>> >issue, i.e., unlimited federal government.
>> >
>> >Why can't you see the conservative vs. liberal debate as one based on
>role
>> >of federal government instead of merely accusing conservatives of being
>> >"rascist", "homophobe", "sexist", "bigoted". All those labels are debate
>> >enders. The issue of the role of government is a legitimate thing to
>debate
>> >with honorable arguments on both sides. Yet people like you never engage
>in
>> >it. You resort to this name calling instead.
>> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >
>> >
>
>
"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:bql21b$c29$22@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> In article <Uaizb.2907$rE3.2726@twister.socal.rr.com>,
>> "David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> So are conservatives -- telling people what kind of --- to have, what
>> >genders
>> >> can marry, what a woman can do with her body, etc.
>> >>
>> >
>> >This one again? Ok, I'll repeat myself. Conservatives believe some
>rights
>> >are reserved to states and individuals to decide how they want to govern
>> >themselves. That includes the rights of states and communities, through
>> >their legislatures, to rule on sexual behaviors, abortion, and marriage.
>> >It's the Dems who want to nationalize these things and force all
>communities
>> >nationwide to accept their new age definitions of morality and religion.
>>
>> Why wouldn't the most intimate relationships between people be a right
>> reserved to the people themselves (9th amendment)? Surely if there are
>any
>> "inherent" or "God-given" rights, it would be those that have to do with
>> intimate relationships and behaviors. Aren't you arguing the 9th
>amendment is
>> meaningless, that any rights not enumerated are reserved just to the
>states?
>>
>
>Not at all. It's just not the business of the feds.
Interpretting the US constitution is the business of the feds, and it's the US
constitution that reserves certain unenumerated rights to the people. Who
else but the courts can interpret that and say what those rights are?
> There's multiple
>jurisdiction below federal. State, county, city. The juridiction arguments
>among these entities for rights reserved to them is up to them individually.
None of them has the jurisdiction to interpret the US constitution.
>
>The arguments for and against Sodomy laws and Adultery laws each have
merit.
Sure, so did those against integration. To bigots.
>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).
>Should local governments be able to prohibit it? The sexual
>revolution in the 60's made it "quaint" to expect intact families with
>mothers AND fathers; to expect fidelity, which is tightly tied to religious
>values, is "old fashioned". Without religious values, we can behave as the
>animals and it's "okay".... individually. But that's where we got the
>"single mom" phenomenon. It's effect on the black community has been tragic
>with 70% of babies born to unwed mothers.
>
>Child poverty is a direct result of this. Even worse than the poverty is
>children with teeny bopper mothers more concerned with partying on Friday
>night and finding someone... anyone... to watch their kids while they to it.
>They give no structure or limits to their children's lives and end up
>producing more adults with no clue how to be productive members of society.
>
>Personal choices? Hmph.
>
>> >
>> >The conservative position has never been to nationalize any of these
>issues,
>> >but to allow local jurisdictions to choose for themselves. The only time
>> >conservatives do want to nationalize such issues is when the Libs find a
>> >liberal federal judge to overturn local law based and make it a national
>> >issue, i.e., unlimited federal government.
>> >
>> >Why can't you see the conservative vs. liberal debate as one based on
>role
>> >of federal government instead of merely accusing conservatives of being
>> >"rascist", "homophobe", "sexist", "bigoted". All those labels are debate
>> >enders. The issue of the role of government is a legitimate thing to
>debate
>> >with honorable arguments on both sides. Yet people like you never engage
>in
>> >it. You resort to this name calling instead.
>> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >
>> >
>
>
#5839
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <Xhqzb.2069$WT6.1828@twister.socal.rr.com>,
"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:bql21b$c29$22@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> In article <Uaizb.2907$rE3.2726@twister.socal.rr.com>,
>> "David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> So are conservatives -- telling people what kind of --- to have, what
>> >genders
>> >> can marry, what a woman can do with her body, etc.
>> >>
>> >
>> >This one again? Ok, I'll repeat myself. Conservatives believe some
>rights
>> >are reserved to states and individuals to decide how they want to govern
>> >themselves. That includes the rights of states and communities, through
>> >their legislatures, to rule on sexual behaviors, abortion, and marriage.
>> >It's the Dems who want to nationalize these things and force all
>communities
>> >nationwide to accept their new age definitions of morality and religion.
>>
>> Why wouldn't the most intimate relationships between people be a right
>> reserved to the people themselves (9th amendment)? Surely if there are
>any
>> "inherent" or "God-given" rights, it would be those that have to do with
>> intimate relationships and behaviors. Aren't you arguing the 9th
>amendment is
>> meaningless, that any rights not enumerated are reserved just to the
>states?
>>
>
>Not at all. It's just not the business of the feds.
Interpretting the US constitution is the business of the feds, and it's the US
constitution that reserves certain unenumerated rights to the people. Who
else but the courts can interpret that and say what those rights are?
> There's multiple
>jurisdiction below federal. State, county, city. The juridiction arguments
>among these entities for rights reserved to them is up to them individually.
None of them has the jurisdiction to interpret the US constitution.
>
>The arguments for and against Sodomy laws and Adultery laws each have
merit.
Sure, so did those against integration. To bigots.
>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).
>Should local governments be able to prohibit it? The sexual
>revolution in the 60's made it "quaint" to expect intact families with
>mothers AND fathers; to expect fidelity, which is tightly tied to religious
>values, is "old fashioned". Without religious values, we can behave as the
>animals and it's "okay".... individually. But that's where we got the
>"single mom" phenomenon. It's effect on the black community has been tragic
>with 70% of babies born to unwed mothers.
>
>Child poverty is a direct result of this. Even worse than the poverty is
>children with teeny bopper mothers more concerned with partying on Friday
>night and finding someone... anyone... to watch their kids while they to it.
>They give no structure or limits to their children's lives and end up
>producing more adults with no clue how to be productive members of society.
>
>Personal choices? Hmph.
>
>> >
>> >The conservative position has never been to nationalize any of these
>issues,
>> >but to allow local jurisdictions to choose for themselves. The only time
>> >conservatives do want to nationalize such issues is when the Libs find a
>> >liberal federal judge to overturn local law based and make it a national
>> >issue, i.e., unlimited federal government.
>> >
>> >Why can't you see the conservative vs. liberal debate as one based on
>role
>> >of federal government instead of merely accusing conservatives of being
>> >"rascist", "homophobe", "sexist", "bigoted". All those labels are debate
>> >enders. The issue of the role of government is a legitimate thing to
>debate
>> >with honorable arguments on both sides. Yet people like you never engage
>in
>> >it. You resort to this name calling instead.
>> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >
>> >
>
>
"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:bql21b$c29$22@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> In article <Uaizb.2907$rE3.2726@twister.socal.rr.com>,
>> "David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> So are conservatives -- telling people what kind of --- to have, what
>> >genders
>> >> can marry, what a woman can do with her body, etc.
>> >>
>> >
>> >This one again? Ok, I'll repeat myself. Conservatives believe some
>rights
>> >are reserved to states and individuals to decide how they want to govern
>> >themselves. That includes the rights of states and communities, through
>> >their legislatures, to rule on sexual behaviors, abortion, and marriage.
>> >It's the Dems who want to nationalize these things and force all
>communities
>> >nationwide to accept their new age definitions of morality and religion.
>>
>> Why wouldn't the most intimate relationships between people be a right
>> reserved to the people themselves (9th amendment)? Surely if there are
>any
>> "inherent" or "God-given" rights, it would be those that have to do with
>> intimate relationships and behaviors. Aren't you arguing the 9th
>amendment is
>> meaningless, that any rights not enumerated are reserved just to the
>states?
>>
>
>Not at all. It's just not the business of the feds.
Interpretting the US constitution is the business of the feds, and it's the US
constitution that reserves certain unenumerated rights to the people. Who
else but the courts can interpret that and say what those rights are?
> There's multiple
>jurisdiction below federal. State, county, city. The juridiction arguments
>among these entities for rights reserved to them is up to them individually.
None of them has the jurisdiction to interpret the US constitution.
>
>The arguments for and against Sodomy laws and Adultery laws each have
merit.
Sure, so did those against integration. To bigots.
>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).
>Should local governments be able to prohibit it? The sexual
>revolution in the 60's made it "quaint" to expect intact families with
>mothers AND fathers; to expect fidelity, which is tightly tied to religious
>values, is "old fashioned". Without religious values, we can behave as the
>animals and it's "okay".... individually. But that's where we got the
>"single mom" phenomenon. It's effect on the black community has been tragic
>with 70% of babies born to unwed mothers.
>
>Child poverty is a direct result of this. Even worse than the poverty is
>children with teeny bopper mothers more concerned with partying on Friday
>night and finding someone... anyone... to watch their kids while they to it.
>They give no structure or limits to their children's lives and end up
>producing more adults with no clue how to be productive members of society.
>
>Personal choices? Hmph.
>
>> >
>> >The conservative position has never been to nationalize any of these
>issues,
>> >but to allow local jurisdictions to choose for themselves. The only time
>> >conservatives do want to nationalize such issues is when the Libs find a
>> >liberal federal judge to overturn local law based and make it a national
>> >issue, i.e., unlimited federal government.
>> >
>> >Why can't you see the conservative vs. liberal debate as one based on
>role
>> >of federal government instead of merely accusing conservatives of being
>> >"rascist", "homophobe", "sexist", "bigoted". All those labels are debate
>> >enders. The issue of the role of government is a legitimate thing to
>debate
>> >with honorable arguments on both sides. Yet people like you never engage
>in
>> >it. You resort to this name calling instead.
>> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >
>> >
>
>
#5840
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycanbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <3FCE332E.F20E016B@mindspring.com>,
"C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>
>Brandon Sommerville 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 is not a marriage. I am not opposed to people of the same --- entering
into a
>commited relationship, but that is not the same thing as a traditional
marriage. If
>there are benefits related to a traditional marriage that same --- couple
feel they
>are entitled to, then they should petition their representatives to pass laws
to
>extend these benefits to them and not try to duck the process by redefining
an
>establishment that has long been in place.
>
>Ed
>
Slavery was an instutition that was "long in place" too. Just because a form
of discrimination has lasted a long time isn't any reason to resist changing
it.
"C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>
>Brandon Sommerville 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 is not a marriage. I am not opposed to people of the same --- entering
into a
>commited relationship, but that is not the same thing as a traditional
marriage. If
>there are benefits related to a traditional marriage that same --- couple
feel they
>are entitled to, then they should petition their representatives to pass laws
to
>extend these benefits to them and not try to duck the process by redefining
an
>establishment that has long been in place.
>
>Ed
>
Slavery was an instutition that was "long in place" too. Just because a form
of discrimination has lasted a long time isn't any reason to resist changing
it.