Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#6421
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety canbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <4tkvsv8snjqk1gb7ec6f6556d7ck8dpikf@4ax.com>,
Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 04 Dec 03 10:23:56 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>wrote:
>
>>>Marriage, in our culture (Judeo/Christian) has been historically
>>
>>But the US government, not being JudeoChristian or any religion, should not
>>reflect religious bias, should it?
>
>Depends on how you look at it.
>The government is made up of 'the people'.
>Those people's lives are, at least in part, shaped by their religion.
>To expect their government to be completely divorced from that
>religion (whatever religion it is, or even the combination of
>religions it is here) is being unrealistic. It's asking the people to
>ignore what they believe in.
Or asking them to not force others to live like the majority wants. You seem
to be advocating the Taliban style of government -- those who are in power get
to enforce their religious beliefs on everybody else.
>
>It is a goal of our government, at this time, to attempt to divorce
>itself from all religion. Is that good?
>How can we expect our government to come up with laws that have no
>base? No anchor at all? How can we possibly expect to base our laws on
>the human experience, and then expect to deny a large part of that
>experience?
>
>I'm not proposing a theocracy, but I do think that trying to deny all
>religious beliefs is simply impossible, and, as such, should be
>recognized.
>
Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 04 Dec 03 10:23:56 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>wrote:
>
>>>Marriage, in our culture (Judeo/Christian) has been historically
>>
>>But the US government, not being JudeoChristian or any religion, should not
>>reflect religious bias, should it?
>
>Depends on how you look at it.
>The government is made up of 'the people'.
>Those people's lives are, at least in part, shaped by their religion.
>To expect their government to be completely divorced from that
>religion (whatever religion it is, or even the combination of
>religions it is here) is being unrealistic. It's asking the people to
>ignore what they believe in.
Or asking them to not force others to live like the majority wants. You seem
to be advocating the Taliban style of government -- those who are in power get
to enforce their religious beliefs on everybody else.
>
>It is a goal of our government, at this time, to attempt to divorce
>itself from all religion. Is that good?
>How can we expect our government to come up with laws that have no
>base? No anchor at all? How can we possibly expect to base our laws on
>the human experience, and then expect to deny a large part of that
>experience?
>
>I'm not proposing a theocracy, but I do think that trying to deny all
>religious beliefs is simply impossible, and, as such, should be
>recognized.
>
#6422
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety canbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <hglvsvk8hj6v966c1u8kf9h3q1pjlkn443@4ax.com>,
Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>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'. :-)
>
Except instead of screwing each other, they screw everybody else.
Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>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'. :-)
>
Except instead of screwing each other, they screw everybody else.
#6423
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety canbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <hglvsvk8hj6v966c1u8kf9h3q1pjlkn443@4ax.com>,
Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>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'. :-)
>
Except instead of screwing each other, they screw everybody else.
Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>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'. :-)
>
Except instead of screwing each other, they screw everybody else.
#6424
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety canbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <hglvsvk8hj6v966c1u8kf9h3q1pjlkn443@4ax.com>,
Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>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'. :-)
>
Except instead of screwing each other, they screw everybody else.
Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>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'. :-)
>
Except instead of screwing each other, they screw everybody else.
#6425
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge studyaboutsafetycanbemisinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <3FCFD881.CF86AD98@kinez.net>,
Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net> wrote:
>
>
>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.
If you cited it, must be. Why not cite, oh, a NEWS organization? Or the UN
itself?
>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).
Why would liberals be outspoken about the UN endorsing gay rights groups?
>
>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 <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.
If you cited it, must be. Why not cite, oh, a NEWS organization? Or the UN
itself?
>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).
Why would liberals be outspoken about the UN endorsing gay rights groups?
>
>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! =-----
#6426
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge studyaboutsafetycanbemisinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <3FCFD881.CF86AD98@kinez.net>,
Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net> wrote:
>
>
>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.
If you cited it, must be. Why not cite, oh, a NEWS organization? Or the UN
itself?
>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).
Why would liberals be outspoken about the UN endorsing gay rights groups?
>
>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 <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.
If you cited it, must be. Why not cite, oh, a NEWS organization? Or the UN
itself?
>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).
Why would liberals be outspoken about the UN endorsing gay rights groups?
>
>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! =-----
#6427
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge studyaboutsafetycanbemisinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <3FCFD881.CF86AD98@kinez.net>,
Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net> wrote:
>
>
>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.
If you cited it, must be. Why not cite, oh, a NEWS organization? Or the UN
itself?
>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).
Why would liberals be outspoken about the UN endorsing gay rights groups?
>
>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 <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.
If you cited it, must be. Why not cite, oh, a NEWS organization? Or the UN
itself?
>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).
Why would liberals be outspoken about the UN endorsing gay rights groups?
>
>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! =-----
#6428
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycanbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <3FCFE961.BAECF093@greg.greg>, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>> In article <3FCCE917.CEB3EFBE@greg.greg>, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
>> >Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> >
>> >> In article <MfVyb.61262$t01.28458@twister.socal.rr.com>,
>> >> "David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >"Brent P" <tetraethyllead@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> >> >news:NHTyb.384552$HS4.3166098@attbi_s01...
>> >> >> In article <3FCBD92E.AA0EBC33@kinez.net>, Bill Putney wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > I think z would go for the California model for "conservation"
wherein
>> >> >> > you legally ban the building of power generation facilities, then,
>> when
>> >> >> > the demand far outstrips the supply capacity, the price for energy
>> goes
>> >> >> > up so high that everyone turns their a.c. off because they can't
>> afford
>> >> >> > to run them - everybody wins because, once again, everyone is
forced
>> >> >> > down to the same level of misery - equality achieved at last. Oh
one
>> >> >> > catch - the people responsible aren't even allowed to finish out
their
>> >> >> > term due to the anger of the recipients of the benevolence of the
>> >> >> > government.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> You forgot the best aspect. The rich elites can still afford the
>> >> >> higher rates and can keep their AC on without any supply problems.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >Reminds me of my experience in a country a few years ago that had
"free"
>> >> >(i.e., rationed) medical care for all. The demand for care
outstripped
>> the
>> >> >supply and the only people who got decent medical care were the people
>> with
>> >> >money, who could pay for a private doctor. Everyone else had to go
wait
>> in
>> >> >line at the clinic and hope for decent care.
>> >>
>> >> As opposed to here, where if you don't have insurance, or aren't rich,
you
>> >> either go bankrupt or do without any care?
>> >
>> >Again Lloyd, not true, except perhaps in your alternate reality, where
>> (unnamed)
>> >people in this group are Taliban that stone women for learning to read and
>> shoot
>> >as US troops . Hospitals may not turn people away for care by law.
>> >
>> Only in an emergency is a hospital required to treat anybody, and as soon
as
>> they're "stable" they can be turned out. Need dialysis? No hospital is
>> required to do that for free, for example.
>
>Dialysis patients get low-cost or free dialysis from medical centers (this
>procedure need not be done at a hospital) every day.
>
>
If there's one nearby and it voluntarily does that. That doesn't cover
everybody.
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>> In article <3FCCE917.CEB3EFBE@greg.greg>, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
>> >Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> >
>> >> In article <MfVyb.61262$t01.28458@twister.socal.rr.com>,
>> >> "David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >"Brent P" <tetraethyllead@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> >> >news:NHTyb.384552$HS4.3166098@attbi_s01...
>> >> >> In article <3FCBD92E.AA0EBC33@kinez.net>, Bill Putney wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > I think z would go for the California model for "conservation"
wherein
>> >> >> > you legally ban the building of power generation facilities, then,
>> when
>> >> >> > the demand far outstrips the supply capacity, the price for energy
>> goes
>> >> >> > up so high that everyone turns their a.c. off because they can't
>> afford
>> >> >> > to run them - everybody wins because, once again, everyone is
forced
>> >> >> > down to the same level of misery - equality achieved at last. Oh
one
>> >> >> > catch - the people responsible aren't even allowed to finish out
their
>> >> >> > term due to the anger of the recipients of the benevolence of the
>> >> >> > government.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> You forgot the best aspect. The rich elites can still afford the
>> >> >> higher rates and can keep their AC on without any supply problems.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >Reminds me of my experience in a country a few years ago that had
"free"
>> >> >(i.e., rationed) medical care for all. The demand for care
outstripped
>> the
>> >> >supply and the only people who got decent medical care were the people
>> with
>> >> >money, who could pay for a private doctor. Everyone else had to go
wait
>> in
>> >> >line at the clinic and hope for decent care.
>> >>
>> >> As opposed to here, where if you don't have insurance, or aren't rich,
you
>> >> either go bankrupt or do without any care?
>> >
>> >Again Lloyd, not true, except perhaps in your alternate reality, where
>> (unnamed)
>> >people in this group are Taliban that stone women for learning to read and
>> shoot
>> >as US troops . Hospitals may not turn people away for care by law.
>> >
>> Only in an emergency is a hospital required to treat anybody, and as soon
as
>> they're "stable" they can be turned out. Need dialysis? No hospital is
>> required to do that for free, for example.
>
>Dialysis patients get low-cost or free dialysis from medical centers (this
>procedure need not be done at a hospital) every day.
>
>
If there's one nearby and it voluntarily does that. That doesn't cover
everybody.
#6429
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycanbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <3FCFE961.BAECF093@greg.greg>, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>> In article <3FCCE917.CEB3EFBE@greg.greg>, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
>> >Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> >
>> >> In article <MfVyb.61262$t01.28458@twister.socal.rr.com>,
>> >> "David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >"Brent P" <tetraethyllead@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> >> >news:NHTyb.384552$HS4.3166098@attbi_s01...
>> >> >> In article <3FCBD92E.AA0EBC33@kinez.net>, Bill Putney wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > I think z would go for the California model for "conservation"
wherein
>> >> >> > you legally ban the building of power generation facilities, then,
>> when
>> >> >> > the demand far outstrips the supply capacity, the price for energy
>> goes
>> >> >> > up so high that everyone turns their a.c. off because they can't
>> afford
>> >> >> > to run them - everybody wins because, once again, everyone is
forced
>> >> >> > down to the same level of misery - equality achieved at last. Oh
one
>> >> >> > catch - the people responsible aren't even allowed to finish out
their
>> >> >> > term due to the anger of the recipients of the benevolence of the
>> >> >> > government.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> You forgot the best aspect. The rich elites can still afford the
>> >> >> higher rates and can keep their AC on without any supply problems.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >Reminds me of my experience in a country a few years ago that had
"free"
>> >> >(i.e., rationed) medical care for all. The demand for care
outstripped
>> the
>> >> >supply and the only people who got decent medical care were the people
>> with
>> >> >money, who could pay for a private doctor. Everyone else had to go
wait
>> in
>> >> >line at the clinic and hope for decent care.
>> >>
>> >> As opposed to here, where if you don't have insurance, or aren't rich,
you
>> >> either go bankrupt or do without any care?
>> >
>> >Again Lloyd, not true, except perhaps in your alternate reality, where
>> (unnamed)
>> >people in this group are Taliban that stone women for learning to read and
>> shoot
>> >as US troops . Hospitals may not turn people away for care by law.
>> >
>> Only in an emergency is a hospital required to treat anybody, and as soon
as
>> they're "stable" they can be turned out. Need dialysis? No hospital is
>> required to do that for free, for example.
>
>Dialysis patients get low-cost or free dialysis from medical centers (this
>procedure need not be done at a hospital) every day.
>
>
If there's one nearby and it voluntarily does that. That doesn't cover
everybody.
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>> In article <3FCCE917.CEB3EFBE@greg.greg>, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
>> >Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> >
>> >> In article <MfVyb.61262$t01.28458@twister.socal.rr.com>,
>> >> "David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >"Brent P" <tetraethyllead@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> >> >news:NHTyb.384552$HS4.3166098@attbi_s01...
>> >> >> In article <3FCBD92E.AA0EBC33@kinez.net>, Bill Putney wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > I think z would go for the California model for "conservation"
wherein
>> >> >> > you legally ban the building of power generation facilities, then,
>> when
>> >> >> > the demand far outstrips the supply capacity, the price for energy
>> goes
>> >> >> > up so high that everyone turns their a.c. off because they can't
>> afford
>> >> >> > to run them - everybody wins because, once again, everyone is
forced
>> >> >> > down to the same level of misery - equality achieved at last. Oh
one
>> >> >> > catch - the people responsible aren't even allowed to finish out
their
>> >> >> > term due to the anger of the recipients of the benevolence of the
>> >> >> > government.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> You forgot the best aspect. The rich elites can still afford the
>> >> >> higher rates and can keep their AC on without any supply problems.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >Reminds me of my experience in a country a few years ago that had
"free"
>> >> >(i.e., rationed) medical care for all. The demand for care
outstripped
>> the
>> >> >supply and the only people who got decent medical care were the people
>> with
>> >> >money, who could pay for a private doctor. Everyone else had to go
wait
>> in
>> >> >line at the clinic and hope for decent care.
>> >>
>> >> As opposed to here, where if you don't have insurance, or aren't rich,
you
>> >> either go bankrupt or do without any care?
>> >
>> >Again Lloyd, not true, except perhaps in your alternate reality, where
>> (unnamed)
>> >people in this group are Taliban that stone women for learning to read and
>> shoot
>> >as US troops . Hospitals may not turn people away for care by law.
>> >
>> Only in an emergency is a hospital required to treat anybody, and as soon
as
>> they're "stable" they can be turned out. Need dialysis? No hospital is
>> required to do that for free, for example.
>
>Dialysis patients get low-cost or free dialysis from medical centers (this
>procedure need not be done at a hospital) every day.
>
>
If there's one nearby and it voluntarily does that. That doesn't cover
everybody.
#6430
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycanbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <3FCFE961.BAECF093@greg.greg>, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>> In article <3FCCE917.CEB3EFBE@greg.greg>, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
>> >Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> >
>> >> In article <MfVyb.61262$t01.28458@twister.socal.rr.com>,
>> >> "David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >"Brent P" <tetraethyllead@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> >> >news:NHTyb.384552$HS4.3166098@attbi_s01...
>> >> >> In article <3FCBD92E.AA0EBC33@kinez.net>, Bill Putney wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > I think z would go for the California model for "conservation"
wherein
>> >> >> > you legally ban the building of power generation facilities, then,
>> when
>> >> >> > the demand far outstrips the supply capacity, the price for energy
>> goes
>> >> >> > up so high that everyone turns their a.c. off because they can't
>> afford
>> >> >> > to run them - everybody wins because, once again, everyone is
forced
>> >> >> > down to the same level of misery - equality achieved at last. Oh
one
>> >> >> > catch - the people responsible aren't even allowed to finish out
their
>> >> >> > term due to the anger of the recipients of the benevolence of the
>> >> >> > government.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> You forgot the best aspect. The rich elites can still afford the
>> >> >> higher rates and can keep their AC on without any supply problems.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >Reminds me of my experience in a country a few years ago that had
"free"
>> >> >(i.e., rationed) medical care for all. The demand for care
outstripped
>> the
>> >> >supply and the only people who got decent medical care were the people
>> with
>> >> >money, who could pay for a private doctor. Everyone else had to go
wait
>> in
>> >> >line at the clinic and hope for decent care.
>> >>
>> >> As opposed to here, where if you don't have insurance, or aren't rich,
you
>> >> either go bankrupt or do without any care?
>> >
>> >Again Lloyd, not true, except perhaps in your alternate reality, where
>> (unnamed)
>> >people in this group are Taliban that stone women for learning to read and
>> shoot
>> >as US troops . Hospitals may not turn people away for care by law.
>> >
>> Only in an emergency is a hospital required to treat anybody, and as soon
as
>> they're "stable" they can be turned out. Need dialysis? No hospital is
>> required to do that for free, for example.
>
>Dialysis patients get low-cost or free dialysis from medical centers (this
>procedure need not be done at a hospital) every day.
>
>
If there's one nearby and it voluntarily does that. That doesn't cover
everybody.
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>> In article <3FCCE917.CEB3EFBE@greg.greg>, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
>> >Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> >
>> >> In article <MfVyb.61262$t01.28458@twister.socal.rr.com>,
>> >> "David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >"Brent P" <tetraethyllead@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> >> >news:NHTyb.384552$HS4.3166098@attbi_s01...
>> >> >> In article <3FCBD92E.AA0EBC33@kinez.net>, Bill Putney wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > I think z would go for the California model for "conservation"
wherein
>> >> >> > you legally ban the building of power generation facilities, then,
>> when
>> >> >> > the demand far outstrips the supply capacity, the price for energy
>> goes
>> >> >> > up so high that everyone turns their a.c. off because they can't
>> afford
>> >> >> > to run them - everybody wins because, once again, everyone is
forced
>> >> >> > down to the same level of misery - equality achieved at last. Oh
one
>> >> >> > catch - the people responsible aren't even allowed to finish out
their
>> >> >> > term due to the anger of the recipients of the benevolence of the
>> >> >> > government.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> You forgot the best aspect. The rich elites can still afford the
>> >> >> higher rates and can keep their AC on without any supply problems.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >Reminds me of my experience in a country a few years ago that had
"free"
>> >> >(i.e., rationed) medical care for all. The demand for care
outstripped
>> the
>> >> >supply and the only people who got decent medical care were the people
>> with
>> >> >money, who could pay for a private doctor. Everyone else had to go
wait
>> in
>> >> >line at the clinic and hope for decent care.
>> >>
>> >> As opposed to here, where if you don't have insurance, or aren't rich,
you
>> >> either go bankrupt or do without any care?
>> >
>> >Again Lloyd, not true, except perhaps in your alternate reality, where
>> (unnamed)
>> >people in this group are Taliban that stone women for learning to read and
>> shoot
>> >as US troops . Hospitals may not turn people away for care by law.
>> >
>> Only in an emergency is a hospital required to treat anybody, and as soon
as
>> they're "stable" they can be turned out. Need dialysis? No hospital is
>> required to do that for free, for example.
>
>Dialysis patients get low-cost or free dialysis from medical centers (this
>procedure need not be done at a hospital) every day.
>
>
If there's one nearby and it voluntarily does that. That doesn't cover
everybody.