Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#5861
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <6atssv4pjatpjf2bmiqc1jv17o0dnte89l@4ax.com>,
Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 03 Dec 03 10:54:53 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>wrote:
>
>>In article <2c7qsvgrtldnv0d50g0u57c2j0cadcc7if@4ax.com>,
>> Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>>>On Tue, 02 Dec 03 15:37:02 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <Us5zb.282500$275.1000782@attbi_s53>,
>>>> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>>>>In article <bqinb6$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?
>>>
>>>Lloyd, you might want to do a Google search on the keywords:
>>>canadian health care problems
>>>This would let you see reality instead of the utopia your liberal
>>>friends promise.
>>>
>>
>>Oh great, he wants me to absorb his right-wing propaganda.
>>
>>Try this:
>>
>>http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.e...cs/HealthCare/
Co
>>nsumerReports-Sep92.html.gz#Does%20Canada%20Have%20The%20Answer?
>
>Consumer Reports???
>You've GOT to be kidding.
>
Why is it all the right-wing Taliban here would believe anything an HMO or
drug company tells them but reject the main voice for the consumer?
Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 03 Dec 03 10:54:53 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>wrote:
>
>>In article <2c7qsvgrtldnv0d50g0u57c2j0cadcc7if@4ax.com>,
>> Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>>>On Tue, 02 Dec 03 15:37:02 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <Us5zb.282500$275.1000782@attbi_s53>,
>>>> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>>>>In article <bqinb6$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?
>>>
>>>Lloyd, you might want to do a Google search on the keywords:
>>>canadian health care problems
>>>This would let you see reality instead of the utopia your liberal
>>>friends promise.
>>>
>>
>>Oh great, he wants me to absorb his right-wing propaganda.
>>
>>Try this:
>>
>>http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.e...cs/HealthCare/
Co
>>nsumerReports-Sep92.html.gz#Does%20Canada%20Have%20The%20Answer?
>
>Consumer Reports???
>You've GOT to be kidding.
>
Why is it all the right-wing Taliban here would believe anything an HMO or
drug company tells them but reject the main voice for the consumer?
#5862
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <6atssv4pjatpjf2bmiqc1jv17o0dnte89l@4ax.com>,
Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 03 Dec 03 10:54:53 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>wrote:
>
>>In article <2c7qsvgrtldnv0d50g0u57c2j0cadcc7if@4ax.com>,
>> Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>>>On Tue, 02 Dec 03 15:37:02 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <Us5zb.282500$275.1000782@attbi_s53>,
>>>> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>>>>In article <bqinb6$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?
>>>
>>>Lloyd, you might want to do a Google search on the keywords:
>>>canadian health care problems
>>>This would let you see reality instead of the utopia your liberal
>>>friends promise.
>>>
>>
>>Oh great, he wants me to absorb his right-wing propaganda.
>>
>>Try this:
>>
>>http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.e...cs/HealthCare/
Co
>>nsumerReports-Sep92.html.gz#Does%20Canada%20Have%20The%20Answer?
>
>Consumer Reports???
>You've GOT to be kidding.
>
Why is it all the right-wing Taliban here would believe anything an HMO or
drug company tells them but reject the main voice for the consumer?
Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 03 Dec 03 10:54:53 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>wrote:
>
>>In article <2c7qsvgrtldnv0d50g0u57c2j0cadcc7if@4ax.com>,
>> Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>>>On Tue, 02 Dec 03 15:37:02 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <Us5zb.282500$275.1000782@attbi_s53>,
>>>> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>>>>In article <bqinb6$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?
>>>
>>>Lloyd, you might want to do a Google search on the keywords:
>>>canadian health care problems
>>>This would let you see reality instead of the utopia your liberal
>>>friends promise.
>>>
>>
>>Oh great, he wants me to absorb his right-wing propaganda.
>>
>>Try this:
>>
>>http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.e...cs/HealthCare/
Co
>>nsumerReports-Sep92.html.gz#Does%20Canada%20Have%20The%20Answer?
>
>Consumer Reports???
>You've GOT to be kidding.
>
Why is it all the right-wing Taliban here would believe anything an HMO or
drug company tells them but reject the main voice for the consumer?
#5863
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <6atssv4pjatpjf2bmiqc1jv17o0dnte89l@4ax.com>,
Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 03 Dec 03 10:54:53 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>wrote:
>
>>In article <2c7qsvgrtldnv0d50g0u57c2j0cadcc7if@4ax.com>,
>> Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>>>On Tue, 02 Dec 03 15:37:02 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <Us5zb.282500$275.1000782@attbi_s53>,
>>>> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>>>>In article <bqinb6$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?
>>>
>>>Lloyd, you might want to do a Google search on the keywords:
>>>canadian health care problems
>>>This would let you see reality instead of the utopia your liberal
>>>friends promise.
>>>
>>
>>Oh great, he wants me to absorb his right-wing propaganda.
>>
>>Try this:
>>
>>http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.e...cs/HealthCare/
Co
>>nsumerReports-Sep92.html.gz#Does%20Canada%20Have%20The%20Answer?
>
>Consumer Reports???
>You've GOT to be kidding.
>
Why is it all the right-wing Taliban here would believe anything an HMO or
drug company tells them but reject the main voice for the consumer?
Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 03 Dec 03 10:54:53 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>wrote:
>
>>In article <2c7qsvgrtldnv0d50g0u57c2j0cadcc7if@4ax.com>,
>> Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>>>On Tue, 02 Dec 03 15:37:02 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <Us5zb.282500$275.1000782@attbi_s53>,
>>>> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>>>>In article <bqinb6$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?
>>>
>>>Lloyd, you might want to do a Google search on the keywords:
>>>canadian health care problems
>>>This would let you see reality instead of the utopia your liberal
>>>friends promise.
>>>
>>
>>Oh great, he wants me to absorb his right-wing propaganda.
>>
>>Try this:
>>
>>http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.e...cs/HealthCare/
Co
>>nsumerReports-Sep92.html.gz#Does%20Canada%20Have%20The%20Answer?
>
>Consumer Reports???
>You've GOT to be kidding.
>
Why is it all the right-wing Taliban here would believe anything an HMO or
drug company tells them but reject the main voice for the consumer?
#5864
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <jitssv8suj0cd099p9hi10snvtjud3sfg9@4ax.com>,
Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 03 Dec 03 10:53:28 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>wrote:
>
>>>Explain then Lloyd why bus loads of Canadians with life threating health
>>>problems are forced to come to the USA for treatment at their own expense.
>>>Sure they can get free care in Canada, IF they can wait 6 months to a year
>>>for treatment.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Like asking why people travel to Mexico for Christmas trees. It simply does
>>not happen.
>>
>>Read, for example,
>>http://www.worldpolicy.org/globalrig...da-health.html
>
>Um, Lloyd...
>Remember how you complain when we quote conservative sources?
>
Because CR is a consumer advocate group. Not liberal or conservative. Now I
know to you Taliban anybody to the left of Atilla the Hun is a liberal if not
a socialist, but the rest of us aren't stupid like that.
Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 03 Dec 03 10:53:28 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>wrote:
>
>>>Explain then Lloyd why bus loads of Canadians with life threating health
>>>problems are forced to come to the USA for treatment at their own expense.
>>>Sure they can get free care in Canada, IF they can wait 6 months to a year
>>>for treatment.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Like asking why people travel to Mexico for Christmas trees. It simply does
>>not happen.
>>
>>Read, for example,
>>http://www.worldpolicy.org/globalrig...da-health.html
>
>Um, Lloyd...
>Remember how you complain when we quote conservative sources?
>
Because CR is a consumer advocate group. Not liberal or conservative. Now I
know to you Taliban anybody to the left of Atilla the Hun is a liberal if not
a socialist, but the rest of us aren't stupid like that.
#5865
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <jitssv8suj0cd099p9hi10snvtjud3sfg9@4ax.com>,
Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 03 Dec 03 10:53:28 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>wrote:
>
>>>Explain then Lloyd why bus loads of Canadians with life threating health
>>>problems are forced to come to the USA for treatment at their own expense.
>>>Sure they can get free care in Canada, IF they can wait 6 months to a year
>>>for treatment.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Like asking why people travel to Mexico for Christmas trees. It simply does
>>not happen.
>>
>>Read, for example,
>>http://www.worldpolicy.org/globalrig...da-health.html
>
>Um, Lloyd...
>Remember how you complain when we quote conservative sources?
>
Because CR is a consumer advocate group. Not liberal or conservative. Now I
know to you Taliban anybody to the left of Atilla the Hun is a liberal if not
a socialist, but the rest of us aren't stupid like that.
Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 03 Dec 03 10:53:28 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>wrote:
>
>>>Explain then Lloyd why bus loads of Canadians with life threating health
>>>problems are forced to come to the USA for treatment at their own expense.
>>>Sure they can get free care in Canada, IF they can wait 6 months to a year
>>>for treatment.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Like asking why people travel to Mexico for Christmas trees. It simply does
>>not happen.
>>
>>Read, for example,
>>http://www.worldpolicy.org/globalrig...da-health.html
>
>Um, Lloyd...
>Remember how you complain when we quote conservative sources?
>
Because CR is a consumer advocate group. Not liberal or conservative. Now I
know to you Taliban anybody to the left of Atilla the Hun is a liberal if not
a socialist, but the rest of us aren't stupid like that.
#5866
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <jitssv8suj0cd099p9hi10snvtjud3sfg9@4ax.com>,
Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 03 Dec 03 10:53:28 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>wrote:
>
>>>Explain then Lloyd why bus loads of Canadians with life threating health
>>>problems are forced to come to the USA for treatment at their own expense.
>>>Sure they can get free care in Canada, IF they can wait 6 months to a year
>>>for treatment.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Like asking why people travel to Mexico for Christmas trees. It simply does
>>not happen.
>>
>>Read, for example,
>>http://www.worldpolicy.org/globalrig...da-health.html
>
>Um, Lloyd...
>Remember how you complain when we quote conservative sources?
>
Because CR is a consumer advocate group. Not liberal or conservative. Now I
know to you Taliban anybody to the left of Atilla the Hun is a liberal if not
a socialist, but the rest of us aren't stupid like that.
Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 03 Dec 03 10:53:28 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>wrote:
>
>>>Explain then Lloyd why bus loads of Canadians with life threating health
>>>problems are forced to come to the USA for treatment at their own expense.
>>>Sure they can get free care in Canada, IF they can wait 6 months to a year
>>>for treatment.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Like asking why people travel to Mexico for Christmas trees. It simply does
>>not happen.
>>
>>Read, for example,
>>http://www.worldpolicy.org/globalrig...da-health.html
>
>Um, Lloyd...
>Remember how you complain when we quote conservative sources?
>
Because CR is a consumer advocate group. Not liberal or conservative. Now I
know to you Taliban anybody to the left of Atilla the Hun is a liberal if not
a socialist, but the rest of us aren't stupid like that.
#5867
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycanbemisinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <3FCE7849.53867CA3@kinez.net>,
Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net> wrote:
>
>
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>
>> In article <3FCD2603.3BC69F50@kinez.net>,
>> Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net> wrote:
>
>> >You're free to pay for their healthcare any time you want. But what
>> >idiot believes that they have the right to reach into my pocket and take
>> >what is mine (it's called stealing). So - really - who is preventing
>> >you and anyone who feels that way from paying for the treatment of these
>> >people? You have that right, as do I - but by freedom of will - not by
>> >confiscation.
>> >
>>
>> It's called living in a society. Society has the right to compel you to
pay
>> taxes, and it's the height of idiocy to call it stealing or theft...
>
>You're thinking of a pure democracy without any Consitutional
>protections, wherein if 50.0000000001% of the people vote to confiscate
>your property, then it's legal for them to do so. Society, under a
>constituional republic, can only tax to the degree that their
>constitution allows them to.
OK, show me anywhere the US constitution caps taxes.
I'm waiting....
>Going beyond that is stealing regardless
>of liberals euphemistically calling the unauthorized confiscation
>"taxes".
>
>I always knew that your brand of liberal believed that the state had an
>unlimited right to my property, but I never thought any were so totally
>blind to basic principles as to openly admit that they believed that.
>Guess I was wrong.
>
>Bill Putney
>(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
>address with "x")
>
>
>-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
>http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
>-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net> wrote:
>
>
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>
>> In article <3FCD2603.3BC69F50@kinez.net>,
>> Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net> wrote:
>
>> >You're free to pay for their healthcare any time you want. But what
>> >idiot believes that they have the right to reach into my pocket and take
>> >what is mine (it's called stealing). So - really - who is preventing
>> >you and anyone who feels that way from paying for the treatment of these
>> >people? You have that right, as do I - but by freedom of will - not by
>> >confiscation.
>> >
>>
>> It's called living in a society. Society has the right to compel you to
pay
>> taxes, and it's the height of idiocy to call it stealing or theft...
>
>You're thinking of a pure democracy without any Consitutional
>protections, wherein if 50.0000000001% of the people vote to confiscate
>your property, then it's legal for them to do so. Society, under a
>constituional republic, can only tax to the degree that their
>constitution allows them to.
OK, show me anywhere the US constitution caps taxes.
I'm waiting....
>Going beyond that is stealing regardless
>of liberals euphemistically calling the unauthorized confiscation
>"taxes".
>
>I always knew that your brand of liberal believed that the state had an
>unlimited right to my property, but I never thought any were so totally
>blind to basic principles as to openly admit that they believed that.
>Guess I was wrong.
>
>Bill Putney
>(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
>address with "x")
>
>
>-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
>http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
>-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
#5868
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycanbemisinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <3FCE7849.53867CA3@kinez.net>,
Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net> wrote:
>
>
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>
>> In article <3FCD2603.3BC69F50@kinez.net>,
>> Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net> wrote:
>
>> >You're free to pay for their healthcare any time you want. But what
>> >idiot believes that they have the right to reach into my pocket and take
>> >what is mine (it's called stealing). So - really - who is preventing
>> >you and anyone who feels that way from paying for the treatment of these
>> >people? You have that right, as do I - but by freedom of will - not by
>> >confiscation.
>> >
>>
>> It's called living in a society. Society has the right to compel you to
pay
>> taxes, and it's the height of idiocy to call it stealing or theft...
>
>You're thinking of a pure democracy without any Consitutional
>protections, wherein if 50.0000000001% of the people vote to confiscate
>your property, then it's legal for them to do so. Society, under a
>constituional republic, can only tax to the degree that their
>constitution allows them to.
OK, show me anywhere the US constitution caps taxes.
I'm waiting....
>Going beyond that is stealing regardless
>of liberals euphemistically calling the unauthorized confiscation
>"taxes".
>
>I always knew that your brand of liberal believed that the state had an
>unlimited right to my property, but I never thought any were so totally
>blind to basic principles as to openly admit that they believed that.
>Guess I was wrong.
>
>Bill Putney
>(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
>address with "x")
>
>
>-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
>http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
>-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net> wrote:
>
>
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>
>> In article <3FCD2603.3BC69F50@kinez.net>,
>> Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net> wrote:
>
>> >You're free to pay for their healthcare any time you want. But what
>> >idiot believes that they have the right to reach into my pocket and take
>> >what is mine (it's called stealing). So - really - who is preventing
>> >you and anyone who feels that way from paying for the treatment of these
>> >people? You have that right, as do I - but by freedom of will - not by
>> >confiscation.
>> >
>>
>> It's called living in a society. Society has the right to compel you to
pay
>> taxes, and it's the height of idiocy to call it stealing or theft...
>
>You're thinking of a pure democracy without any Consitutional
>protections, wherein if 50.0000000001% of the people vote to confiscate
>your property, then it's legal for them to do so. Society, under a
>constituional republic, can only tax to the degree that their
>constitution allows them to.
OK, show me anywhere the US constitution caps taxes.
I'm waiting....
>Going beyond that is stealing regardless
>of liberals euphemistically calling the unauthorized confiscation
>"taxes".
>
>I always knew that your brand of liberal believed that the state had an
>unlimited right to my property, but I never thought any were so totally
>blind to basic principles as to openly admit that they believed that.
>Guess I was wrong.
>
>Bill Putney
>(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
>address with "x")
>
>
>-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
>http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
>-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
#5869
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycanbemisinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <3FCE7849.53867CA3@kinez.net>,
Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net> wrote:
>
>
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>
>> In article <3FCD2603.3BC69F50@kinez.net>,
>> Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net> wrote:
>
>> >You're free to pay for their healthcare any time you want. But what
>> >idiot believes that they have the right to reach into my pocket and take
>> >what is mine (it's called stealing). So - really - who is preventing
>> >you and anyone who feels that way from paying for the treatment of these
>> >people? You have that right, as do I - but by freedom of will - not by
>> >confiscation.
>> >
>>
>> It's called living in a society. Society has the right to compel you to
pay
>> taxes, and it's the height of idiocy to call it stealing or theft...
>
>You're thinking of a pure democracy without any Consitutional
>protections, wherein if 50.0000000001% of the people vote to confiscate
>your property, then it's legal for them to do so. Society, under a
>constituional republic, can only tax to the degree that their
>constitution allows them to.
OK, show me anywhere the US constitution caps taxes.
I'm waiting....
>Going beyond that is stealing regardless
>of liberals euphemistically calling the unauthorized confiscation
>"taxes".
>
>I always knew that your brand of liberal believed that the state had an
>unlimited right to my property, but I never thought any were so totally
>blind to basic principles as to openly admit that they believed that.
>Guess I was wrong.
>
>Bill Putney
>(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
>address with "x")
>
>
>-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
>http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
>-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net> wrote:
>
>
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>
>> In article <3FCD2603.3BC69F50@kinez.net>,
>> Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net> wrote:
>
>> >You're free to pay for their healthcare any time you want. But what
>> >idiot believes that they have the right to reach into my pocket and take
>> >what is mine (it's called stealing). So - really - who is preventing
>> >you and anyone who feels that way from paying for the treatment of these
>> >people? You have that right, as do I - but by freedom of will - not by
>> >confiscation.
>> >
>>
>> It's called living in a society. Society has the right to compel you to
pay
>> taxes, and it's the height of idiocy to call it stealing or theft...
>
>You're thinking of a pure democracy without any Consitutional
>protections, wherein if 50.0000000001% of the people vote to confiscate
>your property, then it's legal for them to do so. Society, under a
>constituional republic, can only tax to the degree that their
>constitution allows them to.
OK, show me anywhere the US constitution caps taxes.
I'm waiting....
>Going beyond that is stealing regardless
>of liberals euphemistically calling the unauthorized confiscation
>"taxes".
>
>I always knew that your brand of liberal believed that the state had an
>unlimited right to my property, but I never thought any were so totally
>blind to basic principles as to openly admit that they believed that.
>Guess I was wrong.
>
>Bill Putney
>(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
>address with "x")
>
>
>-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
>http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
>-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
#5870
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <f4ussvo9j315a0hms7l9tfirlc77672p8s@4ax.com>,
Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 03 Dec 03 11:09:23 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>wrote:
>
>>In article <3F7CE3E2.B772E342@mindspring.com>,
>> "C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>>
>>>> So are conservatives -- telling people what kind of --- to have, what
>>genders
>>>> can marry, what a woman can do with her body, etc.
>>>
>>>It is not just conservatives who oppose the redefinition of "marriage."
>>>Any reasonable person should oppose this sort of reckless redefinition
>>>of a long established legal / social / religious institution. If same
>>>--- couples want to form a long term commitment to each other, I think
>>>that is fine. If they feel they need a governmental sanction to this
>>>commitment, then pass a law that creates a new class of civil union. But
>>>trying to call this a "marriage" is an insult to millions of American
>>>and serves no useful purpose.
>>>
>>
>>But why should government institutionalize discrimination? OK, no religion
>>should be required to perform or recognize a marriage not in keeping with
its
>>creed (doesn't the catholic church not recognize marriages by divorced
>>people?), but why should government discriminate?
>>
>>>Ed
>
>The government discriminates all the time:
>Affirmative action.
You probably thought segregation wasn't discrimination though.
>Seperate bathrooms.
Which laws mandate that?
>Voting age.
You really think telling a 5-year old he can't vote is like telling an adult
whom he can't marry?
>Drinking age.
>And on and on.
>Discrimination per se is not wrong; it's how it's applied that can be
>wrong.
>
Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 03 Dec 03 11:09:23 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>wrote:
>
>>In article <3F7CE3E2.B772E342@mindspring.com>,
>> "C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>>
>>>> So are conservatives -- telling people what kind of --- to have, what
>>genders
>>>> can marry, what a woman can do with her body, etc.
>>>
>>>It is not just conservatives who oppose the redefinition of "marriage."
>>>Any reasonable person should oppose this sort of reckless redefinition
>>>of a long established legal / social / religious institution. If same
>>>--- couples want to form a long term commitment to each other, I think
>>>that is fine. If they feel they need a governmental sanction to this
>>>commitment, then pass a law that creates a new class of civil union. But
>>>trying to call this a "marriage" is an insult to millions of American
>>>and serves no useful purpose.
>>>
>>
>>But why should government institutionalize discrimination? OK, no religion
>>should be required to perform or recognize a marriage not in keeping with
its
>>creed (doesn't the catholic church not recognize marriages by divorced
>>people?), but why should government discriminate?
>>
>>>Ed
>
>The government discriminates all the time:
>Affirmative action.
You probably thought segregation wasn't discrimination though.
>Seperate bathrooms.
Which laws mandate that?
>Voting age.
You really think telling a 5-year old he can't vote is like telling an adult
whom he can't marry?
>Drinking age.
>And on and on.
>Discrimination per se is not wrong; it's how it's applied that can be
>wrong.
>