Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#6271
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety canbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 09:50:40 -0500, Jenn Wasdyke
<wasdyke68@pobox.nospam> wrote:
>> So change the codification slightly. Instead of specifying that it's
>> a man and woman specify that it's two people. Problem solved, no
>> other laws need to be changed.
>
>Why should it be only two people? If three consenting people wish to be
>married, why discriminate against them?
I think that's already covered.
Such unions are called 'corporations'. :-)
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
<wasdyke68@pobox.nospam> wrote:
>> So change the codification slightly. Instead of specifying that it's
>> a man and woman specify that it's two people. Problem solved, no
>> other laws need to be changed.
>
>Why should it be only two people? If three consenting people wish to be
>married, why discriminate against them?
I think that's already covered.
Such unions are called 'corporations'. :-)
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
#6272
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On Thu, 04 Dec 03 10:23:20 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:
>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.
Non sequitor.
>
>>Seperate bathrooms.
>
>Which laws mandate that?
Try going into one and find out.
Are you *really* this dumb?
>
>>Voting age.
>
>You really think telling a 5-year old he can't vote is like telling an adult
>whom he can't marry?
It's discrimination, based on age.
Or do you think differently?
>
>>Drinking age.
>>And on and on.
>>Discrimination per se is not wrong; it's how it's applied that can be
>>wrong.
>>
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
wrote:
>In article <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.
Non sequitor.
>
>>Seperate bathrooms.
>
>Which laws mandate that?
Try going into one and find out.
Are you *really* this dumb?
>
>>Voting age.
>
>You really think telling a 5-year old he can't vote is like telling an adult
>whom he can't marry?
It's discrimination, based on age.
Or do you think differently?
>
>>Drinking age.
>>And on and on.
>>Discrimination per se is not wrong; it's how it's applied that can be
>>wrong.
>>
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
#6273
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On Thu, 04 Dec 03 10:23:20 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:
>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.
Non sequitor.
>
>>Seperate bathrooms.
>
>Which laws mandate that?
Try going into one and find out.
Are you *really* this dumb?
>
>>Voting age.
>
>You really think telling a 5-year old he can't vote is like telling an adult
>whom he can't marry?
It's discrimination, based on age.
Or do you think differently?
>
>>Drinking age.
>>And on and on.
>>Discrimination per se is not wrong; it's how it's applied that can be
>>wrong.
>>
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
wrote:
>In article <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.
Non sequitor.
>
>>Seperate bathrooms.
>
>Which laws mandate that?
Try going into one and find out.
Are you *really* this dumb?
>
>>Voting age.
>
>You really think telling a 5-year old he can't vote is like telling an adult
>whom he can't marry?
It's discrimination, based on age.
Or do you think differently?
>
>>Drinking age.
>>And on and on.
>>Discrimination per se is not wrong; it's how it's applied that can be
>>wrong.
>>
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
#6274
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On Thu, 04 Dec 03 10:23:20 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:
>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.
Non sequitor.
>
>>Seperate bathrooms.
>
>Which laws mandate that?
Try going into one and find out.
Are you *really* this dumb?
>
>>Voting age.
>
>You really think telling a 5-year old he can't vote is like telling an adult
>whom he can't marry?
It's discrimination, based on age.
Or do you think differently?
>
>>Drinking age.
>>And on and on.
>>Discrimination per se is not wrong; it's how it's applied that can be
>>wrong.
>>
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
wrote:
>In article <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.
Non sequitor.
>
>>Seperate bathrooms.
>
>Which laws mandate that?
Try going into one and find out.
Are you *really* this dumb?
>
>>Voting age.
>
>You really think telling a 5-year old he can't vote is like telling an adult
>whom he can't marry?
It's discrimination, based on age.
Or do you think differently?
>
>>Drinking age.
>>And on and on.
>>Discrimination per se is not wrong; it's how it's applied that can be
>>wrong.
>>
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
#6275
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge studyaboutsafetycanbemisinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
> In article <3FCE8679.C036BE53@kinez.net>,
> Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net> wrote:
> >...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.
>
> Flat-out lie.
Oh yeah? Read it and weap:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interna...ay_Association
Here's another good one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAMBLA
A matter of public record - part of the Congressional record, no doubt.
You wanna dispute that?
I suppose you'll say that the Wikipedia is run by a right wing
organization. Notice how many times on the article it says that right
wing groups and politicians opposed the goings on of the gay community
in the situation - not once does it mention liberals as being
particularly outspoken about the UN's endorsement of such groups (and
the gay rights orgs. only acted when they saw that the publicity was
damaging their other "more palatable" causes).
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! =-----
#6276
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge studyaboutsafetycanbemisinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
> In article <3FCE8679.C036BE53@kinez.net>,
> Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net> wrote:
> >...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.
>
> Flat-out lie.
Oh yeah? Read it and weap:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interna...ay_Association
Here's another good one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAMBLA
A matter of public record - part of the Congressional record, no doubt.
You wanna dispute that?
I suppose you'll say that the Wikipedia is run by a right wing
organization. Notice how many times on the article it says that right
wing groups and politicians opposed the goings on of the gay community
in the situation - not once does it mention liberals as being
particularly outspoken about the UN's endorsement of such groups (and
the gay rights orgs. only acted when they saw that the publicity was
damaging their other "more palatable" causes).
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! =-----
#6277
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge studyaboutsafetycanbemisinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
> In article <3FCE8679.C036BE53@kinez.net>,
> Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net> wrote:
> >...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.
>
> Flat-out lie.
Oh yeah? Read it and weap:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interna...ay_Association
Here's another good one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAMBLA
A matter of public record - part of the Congressional record, no doubt.
You wanna dispute that?
I suppose you'll say that the Wikipedia is run by a right wing
organization. Notice how many times on the article it says that right
wing groups and politicians opposed the goings on of the gay community
in the situation - not once does it mention liberals as being
particularly outspoken about the UN's endorsement of such groups (and
the gay rights orgs. only acted when they saw that the publicity was
damaging their other "more palatable" causes).
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! =-----
#6278
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study aboutsafetycanbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
> In article <bqm2dd01v75@enews1.newsguy.com>,
> "Jerry McG" <gmcgeorge.REMOVE@frontier.net> wrote:
> >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
>
> Sorry, that's not "exposure." Read what people living in Canada and Britain
> say. Not anecdotes.
Hmmm - I read what Canadians had to say, but you wouldn't accept that.
Got a little shell game going on here, Lloyd? Yeah - I think so.
When someone says something that you agree with, then its valid
first-hand information. If they say something that you disagree with,
then it's anecdotal. At least you're consistent in your
inconsistencies.
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! =-----
#6279
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study aboutsafetycanbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
> In article <bqm2dd01v75@enews1.newsguy.com>,
> "Jerry McG" <gmcgeorge.REMOVE@frontier.net> wrote:
> >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
>
> Sorry, that's not "exposure." Read what people living in Canada and Britain
> say. Not anecdotes.
Hmmm - I read what Canadians had to say, but you wouldn't accept that.
Got a little shell game going on here, Lloyd? Yeah - I think so.
When someone says something that you agree with, then its valid
first-hand information. If they say something that you disagree with,
then it's anecdotal. At least you're consistent in your
inconsistencies.
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! =-----
#6280
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study aboutsafetycanbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
> In article <bqm2dd01v75@enews1.newsguy.com>,
> "Jerry McG" <gmcgeorge.REMOVE@frontier.net> wrote:
> >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
>
> Sorry, that's not "exposure." Read what people living in Canada and Britain
> say. Not anecdotes.
Hmmm - I read what Canadians had to say, but you wouldn't accept that.
Got a little shell game going on here, Lloyd? Yeah - I think so.
When someone says something that you agree with, then its valid
first-hand information. If they say something that you disagree with,
then it's anecdotal. At least you're consistent in your
inconsistencies.
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! =-----