Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#6661
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycanbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 20:27:57 -0500, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>> In article <3FCCF1D1.ACBB3171@greg.greg>, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
>> >Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> >
>> >> In article <3FCCD887.D942F3A9@greg.greg>, John S <john_s@no.spam> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >z wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote in message
>> >> news:<O0Lyb.274685$ao4.944751@attbi_s51>...
>> >> >> > In article <b5b4685f.0312010918.6e702dc5@posting.google.com >, z wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > > They are going to move production of CO2 to China? All those
>> >> >> > > inefficient old coal-fired power plants are going to China?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > What is better? An old inefficient regulated to be as clean as
>> feasiable
>> >> >> > coal power plant in the USA feeding a factory with electricity or a
>> >> >> > quick-and-dirty-old-tech-soviet-style coal plant in china feeding a
>> >> >> > factory? Which is better for the environment?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > And why do we have old coal plants in the USA? Because any new plants
>> >> >> > are opposed on environmental grounds. And new and better means of
>> >> >> > generation are opposed on environmental grounds. So what we get
>> >> >> > is the status quo. The status quo remains because change is not
>> >> >> > possible.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Yeah, the old rightwing fantasy factory rides again. Do you recall the
>> >> >> Clean Air Act? Do you recall that the power companies piteously pled
>> >> >> for and were granted an exemption for their old coal and oil fuelled
>> >> >> plants, since the power companies promised that they were going to be
>> >> >> all mothballed soon anyway and it would be purely wasteful to upgrade
>> >> >> them for the short time they will be in operation? Well, it's thirty
>> >> >> years later now, and here in CT, half the electricity is still being
>> >> >> produced by those old 'soon to be mothballed' plants, known locally as
>> >> >> the Filthy Five. This is not because the utility companies are just
>> >> >> dying to build some expensive clean new plants and the
>> >> >> environmentalists just won't let them. It's purely because it's much
>> >> >> cheaper to run these monstrosities unmodified than it is to build new
>> >> >> plants, despite the environmentalists screaming to trade them for
>> >> >> clean new plants or else update them. The Reagan and Bush I
>> >> >> administrations refused to enforce the part of the Clean Air Act that
>> >> >> requires the companies to install upgraded pollution controls if they
>> >> >> were doing significant expansions to the plants, in contrast to
>> >> >> routine maintenance, allowing the Filthy Five to actually expand their
>> >> >> filthy emissions. The Clinton administration finally starts to enforce
>> >> >> this provision, and what happens? The Bush junta reverses the
>> >> >> enforcement decision. And in response to this boondoggle, the
>> >> >> utilities raise their rates 10%.
>> >> >
>> >> >That's not true at all. First of all, the Bush I administration SIGNED
>> the
>> >> Clean Air Act
>> >> >amendments in 1990 into law, which strenghthened, not weakened the Clean
>> Air
>> >> Act. Secondly, the
>> >> >act was and is being enforced. The act was designed to require NEW PLANTS
>> >> (new sources) to have
>> >> >much more stringent controls with updated technology. Older plants would
>> be
>> >> initially exempted
>> >> >because of common sense economics. However pollution from these older
>> palnts
>> >> would then be capped
>> >> >and traded, so plants pay for their negative externalities (pollution) and
>> >> production is shifted to
>> >> >the most efficient (by this I mean less polluting) plants because they are
>> >> cheaper to operate due
>> >> >to the cost of pollution credits. In this way all plants use the most
>> >> advanced pollution controls
>> >> >available to them. Eventually the older plants are shut down or upgraded
>> >> (when they WOULD be
>> >> >subject to New Source controls) because they are too expensive to operate
>> or
>> >> they get too old to
>> >> >operate anyway.
>> >> >
>> >> >The problem is that the Clinton administration started treating routine
>> >> maintenance on plants as
>> >> >"new source" creation, which was contrary to the actual written law.
>> >>
>> >> Wrong. They started treating major modifications as new sources, which was
>> >> exactly what the law allowed (and required).
>> >
>> >MAJOR modifications. Not minor improvements which would INCREASE efficiency,
>> such
>> >as a new version of wear items such as turbine blades.
>> >
>> >> If during 10 years of routine
>> >> maintenance you replace each part, you've got a new source, yet under your
>> and
>> >> Bush's plan, it'd never trigger the latest pollution controls because you
>> >> replaced it one piece at a time, as part of each year's maintenance.
>> >
>> >No. The law clearly states that merely replacing parts is NOT new source.
>> Try
>> >becoming familiar with what you talk about.
>> >
>>
>> Replacing may not be, but changing one part for a DIFFERENT one is, and should
>> be. Otherwise, you'd have the scenario I mentioned.
>
>In your alternate reality, not in the actual US statue. Routine maintenance and
>part upgrades are specifically permitted under the new source review. This was
>done for good reason, otherwise it would be bad policy that creates perverse
>incentives to remain most polluting status quo.
>
>>
>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Treating it this way
>> >> >subjected the plants specifically exempted from the statue to the
>> >> requirements of new plants.
>> >>
>> >> But if the plants get modified instead of just "serviced and cleaned",
>> that's
>> >> precisely what the law intended. That's why the EPA sued a number of
>> utility
>> >> companies, why a number of them settled, and why the suits continued until
>> >> Bush decided to "reinterpet" the law just this year.;
>> >
>> >Actually all Bush did was interpret the law exactly as it was WRITTEN in the
>> >statue, and had been enforced pre Browner and friends.
>>
>> Not true. I refer you to the suits the EPA filed.
>
>You mean the Clinton EPA filed, the same EPA file that destroyed its records in
>its last day, despite specific US District Court orders not to. Yep, the Clinton
>EPA was sure proud of its record.
>
>>
>>
>> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> ?This
>> >> >had the perverse incentive of indicating to plant owners that routine
>> >> maintenance is a BAD IDEA to
>> >> >do, because the Government will come after you for doing it. Better to
>> defer
>> >> maintenance and not
>> >> >keep plants in the most effiicent manner they can be reasonably operated
>> in.
>> >> But the effect of
>> >> >this is that when routine maintenance and minor upgrades become to
>> expensive
>> >> because of overzealous
>> >> >regulation, the effect is that nothing is done and instead the most
>> polluting
>> >> plants are left in
>> >> >operation as is, with no improvements all. The WSJ has reported
>> extensively
>> >> on this, and
>> >>
>> >> The WSJ never met an environmental reg it liked, because it never met a
>> >> corporate profit it didn't want increased.
>> >
>> >What on earth are you babbling about? You can't make your argument with
>> actual
>> >facts, so you attack/smear the messenger.
>>
>> I suggest you cite some source other than one rabidly pro-business to have any
>> credibility.
>
>The only sources that appears to have credibility with you is the Sierra Club and
>Consumer Reports. Furthermore your slam against WSJ is false and you cannot
>substantiate it.
>
>>
>>
>> > Try actually reading the WSJ for once
>> >in your life and you would know that you are wrong as when you said that
>> Daimler
>> >Chrysler was the only foreign company listed on the New York Stock Exchange,
>> as if
>> >Sony of Japan (NYSE:SNE) or Deutsch Bank AG (NYSE: DB) and others didn't
>> even
>> >exist!
>> >
>>
>> You're confusing ADRs with actual shares of stock.
>
>Many non companies (inclding American Depostitary Receipt) are LISTED on the New
>York Stock Exchange and trade like any other stock, contrary to your phony claim
>that only DCX is listed on NYSE. Global Shares are no less listed on the NYSE
>than ADPs.
>
>>
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >specifically about how the Clinton EPA chief was upset that plants were
>> TOO
>> >> CLEAN because they
>> >> >needed something to rail against to publicity. This was all recorded in
>> >> memos.
>> >>
>> >> It was not.
>> >
>> > Wrong, the Wall Street Journal printed some of these memos not too long
>> ago. And
>> >those were the ones that did not get quietly destroyed by Browner on the last
>> full
>> >day of the Clinton adminstration. ABC News reported on April 30 2001 that
>> Clinton
>> >EPA Administrator Browner had ordered her records and hard drives destroyed,
>> >against US District Court Judge Royce Lamberth's order. I guess the
>> Clinton
>> >Administration is good in your eyes for Enron style shredding. The
>> philosophy of
>> >the Clinton EPA was to do grandstanding rulemaking, without required
>> legislation
>> >or even sound policies. Let me guess, now you're going to start saying how
>> ABC
>> >News is really just a shill. too. Ha!
>> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >The Bush plan restores the EPA's mandated New Source Review. But it's
>> easier
>> >> for people to make
>> >> >silly attacks on Bush, because they cannot comprehend the actual laws, the
>> >> reason why they were
>> >> >written, the actual effects that they have, the effect of enforcing
>> non-laws,
>> >> or what is going on
>> >> >in general.
>> >>
>> >> Next you'll be telling us how good Bush is for the environment! LOL!
>> >
>> >A lot better than his predecessor, who created perverse incentives for plants
>> NOT
>> >to get cleaner, and HALTED dead brush cleanup in forests so that they could
>> become
>> >tinderboxes for massive fires. Bush is giving us low sulfur diesel fuel,
>> the low
>> >arsenic water standard which Clinton denied drinkers in 1996, and Bush's EPA
>> is
>> >forcing General Electric to clean up PCBs for the entire Hudson River.
>> Thanks for
>> >all those fires, Mr. Clinton. Thanks for conveniently destroying the
>> government
>> >records on the way out too. Glad you were so proud of your record that you
>> needed
>> >to erase it.
>> >
>> >I'll repost that story that was posted before, because you conveniently
>> forgot to
>> >comment on it!
>> >
>> > "In one famous case, DTE Energy Corp., parent of Detroit Edison Co., tried
>> to
>> >replace older, less efficient propeller blades in several steam turbines at
>> its
>> >biggest coal-fired plant. The new blades were 15% more efficient than the
>> old,
>> >meaning they could generate 15% more power using the same amount of
>> energy--more
>> >power, less pollution. But the Clinton EPA threatened to invoke New Source
>> Review
>> >anyway, so the plan was scrapped.
>> >
>> > Not that Detroit Edison and others are avoiding heavy pollution-fighting
>> >expenses. At the very same plant, Detroit Edison is spending $650 million to
>> meet
>> >new nitrogen oxide standards--an expense that won't generate a single new
>> kilowatt
>> >of electricity.
>> >
>> > Bureaucrats, of course, interpret such a rational response to perverse rules
>> as a
>> >sign of corporate greed. So when the Clinton administration found that at
>> least
>> >80% of the nation's utilities were violating its New Source Review
>> guidelines, it
>> >didn't bother to ask whether something might be wrong with its policies. It
>> simply
>> >filed an avalanche of lawsuits demanding huge fines.
>> >
>> >Yet EPA data clearly show that emissions of nitrogen oxide and sulfur
>> dioxide, the
>> >two main industrial pollutants, have declined substantially despite a
>> tripling of
>> >coal usage. Future Clean Air targets will reduce emissions a further 50%."
>> -WSJ
>> >11/26/02
>
>I notice that you have nothing to say to that. By the way, your computer's clock
>is wrong too.
I am not sure who wrote this but whoever did does not know ---- about
steam turbines or power plants! Yes I do. Been there done it!!
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>> In article <3FCCF1D1.ACBB3171@greg.greg>, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
>> >Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> >
>> >> In article <3FCCD887.D942F3A9@greg.greg>, John S <john_s@no.spam> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >z wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote in message
>> >> news:<O0Lyb.274685$ao4.944751@attbi_s51>...
>> >> >> > In article <b5b4685f.0312010918.6e702dc5@posting.google.com >, z wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > > They are going to move production of CO2 to China? All those
>> >> >> > > inefficient old coal-fired power plants are going to China?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > What is better? An old inefficient regulated to be as clean as
>> feasiable
>> >> >> > coal power plant in the USA feeding a factory with electricity or a
>> >> >> > quick-and-dirty-old-tech-soviet-style coal plant in china feeding a
>> >> >> > factory? Which is better for the environment?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > And why do we have old coal plants in the USA? Because any new plants
>> >> >> > are opposed on environmental grounds. And new and better means of
>> >> >> > generation are opposed on environmental grounds. So what we get
>> >> >> > is the status quo. The status quo remains because change is not
>> >> >> > possible.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Yeah, the old rightwing fantasy factory rides again. Do you recall the
>> >> >> Clean Air Act? Do you recall that the power companies piteously pled
>> >> >> for and were granted an exemption for their old coal and oil fuelled
>> >> >> plants, since the power companies promised that they were going to be
>> >> >> all mothballed soon anyway and it would be purely wasteful to upgrade
>> >> >> them for the short time they will be in operation? Well, it's thirty
>> >> >> years later now, and here in CT, half the electricity is still being
>> >> >> produced by those old 'soon to be mothballed' plants, known locally as
>> >> >> the Filthy Five. This is not because the utility companies are just
>> >> >> dying to build some expensive clean new plants and the
>> >> >> environmentalists just won't let them. It's purely because it's much
>> >> >> cheaper to run these monstrosities unmodified than it is to build new
>> >> >> plants, despite the environmentalists screaming to trade them for
>> >> >> clean new plants or else update them. The Reagan and Bush I
>> >> >> administrations refused to enforce the part of the Clean Air Act that
>> >> >> requires the companies to install upgraded pollution controls if they
>> >> >> were doing significant expansions to the plants, in contrast to
>> >> >> routine maintenance, allowing the Filthy Five to actually expand their
>> >> >> filthy emissions. The Clinton administration finally starts to enforce
>> >> >> this provision, and what happens? The Bush junta reverses the
>> >> >> enforcement decision. And in response to this boondoggle, the
>> >> >> utilities raise their rates 10%.
>> >> >
>> >> >That's not true at all. First of all, the Bush I administration SIGNED
>> the
>> >> Clean Air Act
>> >> >amendments in 1990 into law, which strenghthened, not weakened the Clean
>> Air
>> >> Act. Secondly, the
>> >> >act was and is being enforced. The act was designed to require NEW PLANTS
>> >> (new sources) to have
>> >> >much more stringent controls with updated technology. Older plants would
>> be
>> >> initially exempted
>> >> >because of common sense economics. However pollution from these older
>> palnts
>> >> would then be capped
>> >> >and traded, so plants pay for their negative externalities (pollution) and
>> >> production is shifted to
>> >> >the most efficient (by this I mean less polluting) plants because they are
>> >> cheaper to operate due
>> >> >to the cost of pollution credits. In this way all plants use the most
>> >> advanced pollution controls
>> >> >available to them. Eventually the older plants are shut down or upgraded
>> >> (when they WOULD be
>> >> >subject to New Source controls) because they are too expensive to operate
>> or
>> >> they get too old to
>> >> >operate anyway.
>> >> >
>> >> >The problem is that the Clinton administration started treating routine
>> >> maintenance on plants as
>> >> >"new source" creation, which was contrary to the actual written law.
>> >>
>> >> Wrong. They started treating major modifications as new sources, which was
>> >> exactly what the law allowed (and required).
>> >
>> >MAJOR modifications. Not minor improvements which would INCREASE efficiency,
>> such
>> >as a new version of wear items such as turbine blades.
>> >
>> >> If during 10 years of routine
>> >> maintenance you replace each part, you've got a new source, yet under your
>> and
>> >> Bush's plan, it'd never trigger the latest pollution controls because you
>> >> replaced it one piece at a time, as part of each year's maintenance.
>> >
>> >No. The law clearly states that merely replacing parts is NOT new source.
>> Try
>> >becoming familiar with what you talk about.
>> >
>>
>> Replacing may not be, but changing one part for a DIFFERENT one is, and should
>> be. Otherwise, you'd have the scenario I mentioned.
>
>In your alternate reality, not in the actual US statue. Routine maintenance and
>part upgrades are specifically permitted under the new source review. This was
>done for good reason, otherwise it would be bad policy that creates perverse
>incentives to remain most polluting status quo.
>
>>
>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Treating it this way
>> >> >subjected the plants specifically exempted from the statue to the
>> >> requirements of new plants.
>> >>
>> >> But if the plants get modified instead of just "serviced and cleaned",
>> that's
>> >> precisely what the law intended. That's why the EPA sued a number of
>> utility
>> >> companies, why a number of them settled, and why the suits continued until
>> >> Bush decided to "reinterpet" the law just this year.;
>> >
>> >Actually all Bush did was interpret the law exactly as it was WRITTEN in the
>> >statue, and had been enforced pre Browner and friends.
>>
>> Not true. I refer you to the suits the EPA filed.
>
>You mean the Clinton EPA filed, the same EPA file that destroyed its records in
>its last day, despite specific US District Court orders not to. Yep, the Clinton
>EPA was sure proud of its record.
>
>>
>>
>> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> ?This
>> >> >had the perverse incentive of indicating to plant owners that routine
>> >> maintenance is a BAD IDEA to
>> >> >do, because the Government will come after you for doing it. Better to
>> defer
>> >> maintenance and not
>> >> >keep plants in the most effiicent manner they can be reasonably operated
>> in.
>> >> But the effect of
>> >> >this is that when routine maintenance and minor upgrades become to
>> expensive
>> >> because of overzealous
>> >> >regulation, the effect is that nothing is done and instead the most
>> polluting
>> >> plants are left in
>> >> >operation as is, with no improvements all. The WSJ has reported
>> extensively
>> >> on this, and
>> >>
>> >> The WSJ never met an environmental reg it liked, because it never met a
>> >> corporate profit it didn't want increased.
>> >
>> >What on earth are you babbling about? You can't make your argument with
>> actual
>> >facts, so you attack/smear the messenger.
>>
>> I suggest you cite some source other than one rabidly pro-business to have any
>> credibility.
>
>The only sources that appears to have credibility with you is the Sierra Club and
>Consumer Reports. Furthermore your slam against WSJ is false and you cannot
>substantiate it.
>
>>
>>
>> > Try actually reading the WSJ for once
>> >in your life and you would know that you are wrong as when you said that
>> Daimler
>> >Chrysler was the only foreign company listed on the New York Stock Exchange,
>> as if
>> >Sony of Japan (NYSE:SNE) or Deutsch Bank AG (NYSE: DB) and others didn't
>> even
>> >exist!
>> >
>>
>> You're confusing ADRs with actual shares of stock.
>
>Many non companies (inclding American Depostitary Receipt) are LISTED on the New
>York Stock Exchange and trade like any other stock, contrary to your phony claim
>that only DCX is listed on NYSE. Global Shares are no less listed on the NYSE
>than ADPs.
>
>>
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >specifically about how the Clinton EPA chief was upset that plants were
>> TOO
>> >> CLEAN because they
>> >> >needed something to rail against to publicity. This was all recorded in
>> >> memos.
>> >>
>> >> It was not.
>> >
>> > Wrong, the Wall Street Journal printed some of these memos not too long
>> ago. And
>> >those were the ones that did not get quietly destroyed by Browner on the last
>> full
>> >day of the Clinton adminstration. ABC News reported on April 30 2001 that
>> Clinton
>> >EPA Administrator Browner had ordered her records and hard drives destroyed,
>> >against US District Court Judge Royce Lamberth's order. I guess the
>> Clinton
>> >Administration is good in your eyes for Enron style shredding. The
>> philosophy of
>> >the Clinton EPA was to do grandstanding rulemaking, without required
>> legislation
>> >or even sound policies. Let me guess, now you're going to start saying how
>> ABC
>> >News is really just a shill. too. Ha!
>> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >The Bush plan restores the EPA's mandated New Source Review. But it's
>> easier
>> >> for people to make
>> >> >silly attacks on Bush, because they cannot comprehend the actual laws, the
>> >> reason why they were
>> >> >written, the actual effects that they have, the effect of enforcing
>> non-laws,
>> >> or what is going on
>> >> >in general.
>> >>
>> >> Next you'll be telling us how good Bush is for the environment! LOL!
>> >
>> >A lot better than his predecessor, who created perverse incentives for plants
>> NOT
>> >to get cleaner, and HALTED dead brush cleanup in forests so that they could
>> become
>> >tinderboxes for massive fires. Bush is giving us low sulfur diesel fuel,
>> the low
>> >arsenic water standard which Clinton denied drinkers in 1996, and Bush's EPA
>> is
>> >forcing General Electric to clean up PCBs for the entire Hudson River.
>> Thanks for
>> >all those fires, Mr. Clinton. Thanks for conveniently destroying the
>> government
>> >records on the way out too. Glad you were so proud of your record that you
>> needed
>> >to erase it.
>> >
>> >I'll repost that story that was posted before, because you conveniently
>> forgot to
>> >comment on it!
>> >
>> > "In one famous case, DTE Energy Corp., parent of Detroit Edison Co., tried
>> to
>> >replace older, less efficient propeller blades in several steam turbines at
>> its
>> >biggest coal-fired plant. The new blades were 15% more efficient than the
>> old,
>> >meaning they could generate 15% more power using the same amount of
>> energy--more
>> >power, less pollution. But the Clinton EPA threatened to invoke New Source
>> Review
>> >anyway, so the plan was scrapped.
>> >
>> > Not that Detroit Edison and others are avoiding heavy pollution-fighting
>> >expenses. At the very same plant, Detroit Edison is spending $650 million to
>> meet
>> >new nitrogen oxide standards--an expense that won't generate a single new
>> kilowatt
>> >of electricity.
>> >
>> > Bureaucrats, of course, interpret such a rational response to perverse rules
>> as a
>> >sign of corporate greed. So when the Clinton administration found that at
>> least
>> >80% of the nation's utilities were violating its New Source Review
>> guidelines, it
>> >didn't bother to ask whether something might be wrong with its policies. It
>> simply
>> >filed an avalanche of lawsuits demanding huge fines.
>> >
>> >Yet EPA data clearly show that emissions of nitrogen oxide and sulfur
>> dioxide, the
>> >two main industrial pollutants, have declined substantially despite a
>> tripling of
>> >coal usage. Future Clean Air targets will reduce emissions a further 50%."
>> -WSJ
>> >11/26/02
>
>I notice that you have nothing to say to that. By the way, your computer's clock
>is wrong too.
I am not sure who wrote this but whoever did does not know ---- about
steam turbines or power plants! Yes I do. Been there done it!!
#6662
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge studyaboutsafetycanbemisinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Lloyd Parker wrote:
> In article <3FCF464D.FFB06AD2@pobox.nospam>,
> Jenn Wasdyke <wasdyke68@pobox.nospam> wrote:
> >"Daniel J. Stern" wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, 3 Dec 2003, C. E. White wrote:
> >>
> >> 5> Marriage is a union between a man and a woman.
> >>
> >> 4> If two men or two women want to be joined as a family in a marriage,
> >> 4> how does it detract from your marriage?
> >>
> >> 3> It is not a marriage.
> >>
> >> 2> So, let's summarize. The question is "Why should marriage be restricted
> >> 2> to opposite---- couples?" and the very best, most cogent response you
> >> 2> can come up with is "Because marriage is restricted to opposite----
> >> 2> couples."
> >>
> >> > Why are trees called tress, dogs called dogs, etc. If I call a cat a
> >> > dog, does that make it a dog?
> >>
> >> We're not considering cats, dogs or trees. We're considering two people
> >> who wish to affirm their relationship to each other, thereby taking on the
> >> social and financial responsibilities and attaining the social and
> >> financial privileges accorded by society to two people in such a
> >> relationship.
> >>
> >> You have yet to explain why the --- of the two partners is at all relevant
> >> other than to make circular parrot noises ("Rawk! Man and woman! Reehoo!
> >> Redefining! Rawk! Not a marriage").
> >>
> >> You seem very convinced of your rightness on this matter. Surely, then,
> >> you can articulate the basis for your belief in a persuasive and logical
> >> manner, rather than simply repeating a dogmatic statement...?
> >>
> >> > The laws related to the institution of marriage were set in place with
> >> > the understanding that a marriage was a union between a man and a woman.
> >>
> >> Fifty years ago, your type was saying "The laws related to the institution
> >> of marriage were set in place with the understanding that a marriage was a
> >> union between members of the same race."
> >>
> >> > Trying to extend those laws to cover same --- unions is not the right
> >> > way to fix a perceived injustice.
> >>
> >> While I'd be interested to learn what you think *is* the right way, I
> >> hardly think you have much basis to be making pronouncements on the
> >> matter. You're not on the receiving end of the injustice.
> >
> >Your argument is to redefine something that has been well defined. If
> >somebody says that a square can only have 4 sides, you could call them a
> >circular parrot for not including a pentagon as a square with that reasoning.
> >
> >If people want to change that definition, in the USA at least there is a
> >proper procedure to do such in each state. Until then the existing
> definition
> >stands.
> >
> >Not what the Massachusetts legislature did, as the State Senate never voted
> on
> >the constitutional amendment on marriage. They were required to vote on this
> >under the constitution, as the proper number of signatures were obtained.
>
> Considering the decision has only been out a few weeks, and the legislature is
> probably not in session now...
Nonsense! The consitutional convention was on June 19, 2002. Whether or not the
legislature is in session NOW has no bearing. The Senate had a constitutional
duty to vote on the amendment. Instead the constitutional convention was brought
to order and adjourned within mere seconds. Yay or nay vote on the amendment,
that is all that was needed. After this travesty, the President Senate's approval
rating plumeted to the basement, even in liberal Massachusetts. He should have
been able to easily win governor, instead he came in a very distant third in just
the primary.
> In article <3FCF464D.FFB06AD2@pobox.nospam>,
> Jenn Wasdyke <wasdyke68@pobox.nospam> wrote:
> >"Daniel J. Stern" wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, 3 Dec 2003, C. E. White wrote:
> >>
> >> 5> Marriage is a union between a man and a woman.
> >>
> >> 4> If two men or two women want to be joined as a family in a marriage,
> >> 4> how does it detract from your marriage?
> >>
> >> 3> It is not a marriage.
> >>
> >> 2> So, let's summarize. The question is "Why should marriage be restricted
> >> 2> to opposite---- couples?" and the very best, most cogent response you
> >> 2> can come up with is "Because marriage is restricted to opposite----
> >> 2> couples."
> >>
> >> > Why are trees called tress, dogs called dogs, etc. If I call a cat a
> >> > dog, does that make it a dog?
> >>
> >> We're not considering cats, dogs or trees. We're considering two people
> >> who wish to affirm their relationship to each other, thereby taking on the
> >> social and financial responsibilities and attaining the social and
> >> financial privileges accorded by society to two people in such a
> >> relationship.
> >>
> >> You have yet to explain why the --- of the two partners is at all relevant
> >> other than to make circular parrot noises ("Rawk! Man and woman! Reehoo!
> >> Redefining! Rawk! Not a marriage").
> >>
> >> You seem very convinced of your rightness on this matter. Surely, then,
> >> you can articulate the basis for your belief in a persuasive and logical
> >> manner, rather than simply repeating a dogmatic statement...?
> >>
> >> > The laws related to the institution of marriage were set in place with
> >> > the understanding that a marriage was a union between a man and a woman.
> >>
> >> Fifty years ago, your type was saying "The laws related to the institution
> >> of marriage were set in place with the understanding that a marriage was a
> >> union between members of the same race."
> >>
> >> > Trying to extend those laws to cover same --- unions is not the right
> >> > way to fix a perceived injustice.
> >>
> >> While I'd be interested to learn what you think *is* the right way, I
> >> hardly think you have much basis to be making pronouncements on the
> >> matter. You're not on the receiving end of the injustice.
> >
> >Your argument is to redefine something that has been well defined. If
> >somebody says that a square can only have 4 sides, you could call them a
> >circular parrot for not including a pentagon as a square with that reasoning.
> >
> >If people want to change that definition, in the USA at least there is a
> >proper procedure to do such in each state. Until then the existing
> definition
> >stands.
> >
> >Not what the Massachusetts legislature did, as the State Senate never voted
> on
> >the constitutional amendment on marriage. They were required to vote on this
> >under the constitution, as the proper number of signatures were obtained.
>
> Considering the decision has only been out a few weeks, and the legislature is
> probably not in session now...
Nonsense! The consitutional convention was on June 19, 2002. Whether or not the
legislature is in session NOW has no bearing. The Senate had a constitutional
duty to vote on the amendment. Instead the constitutional convention was brought
to order and adjourned within mere seconds. Yay or nay vote on the amendment,
that is all that was needed. After this travesty, the President Senate's approval
rating plumeted to the basement, even in liberal Massachusetts. He should have
been able to easily win governor, instead he came in a very distant third in just
the primary.
#6663
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge studyaboutsafetycanbemisinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Lloyd Parker wrote:
> In article <3FCF464D.FFB06AD2@pobox.nospam>,
> Jenn Wasdyke <wasdyke68@pobox.nospam> wrote:
> >"Daniel J. Stern" wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, 3 Dec 2003, C. E. White wrote:
> >>
> >> 5> Marriage is a union between a man and a woman.
> >>
> >> 4> If two men or two women want to be joined as a family in a marriage,
> >> 4> how does it detract from your marriage?
> >>
> >> 3> It is not a marriage.
> >>
> >> 2> So, let's summarize. The question is "Why should marriage be restricted
> >> 2> to opposite---- couples?" and the very best, most cogent response you
> >> 2> can come up with is "Because marriage is restricted to opposite----
> >> 2> couples."
> >>
> >> > Why are trees called tress, dogs called dogs, etc. If I call a cat a
> >> > dog, does that make it a dog?
> >>
> >> We're not considering cats, dogs or trees. We're considering two people
> >> who wish to affirm their relationship to each other, thereby taking on the
> >> social and financial responsibilities and attaining the social and
> >> financial privileges accorded by society to two people in such a
> >> relationship.
> >>
> >> You have yet to explain why the --- of the two partners is at all relevant
> >> other than to make circular parrot noises ("Rawk! Man and woman! Reehoo!
> >> Redefining! Rawk! Not a marriage").
> >>
> >> You seem very convinced of your rightness on this matter. Surely, then,
> >> you can articulate the basis for your belief in a persuasive and logical
> >> manner, rather than simply repeating a dogmatic statement...?
> >>
> >> > The laws related to the institution of marriage were set in place with
> >> > the understanding that a marriage was a union between a man and a woman.
> >>
> >> Fifty years ago, your type was saying "The laws related to the institution
> >> of marriage were set in place with the understanding that a marriage was a
> >> union between members of the same race."
> >>
> >> > Trying to extend those laws to cover same --- unions is not the right
> >> > way to fix a perceived injustice.
> >>
> >> While I'd be interested to learn what you think *is* the right way, I
> >> hardly think you have much basis to be making pronouncements on the
> >> matter. You're not on the receiving end of the injustice.
> >
> >Your argument is to redefine something that has been well defined. If
> >somebody says that a square can only have 4 sides, you could call them a
> >circular parrot for not including a pentagon as a square with that reasoning.
> >
> >If people want to change that definition, in the USA at least there is a
> >proper procedure to do such in each state. Until then the existing
> definition
> >stands.
> >
> >Not what the Massachusetts legislature did, as the State Senate never voted
> on
> >the constitutional amendment on marriage. They were required to vote on this
> >under the constitution, as the proper number of signatures were obtained.
>
> Considering the decision has only been out a few weeks, and the legislature is
> probably not in session now...
Nonsense! The consitutional convention was on June 19, 2002. Whether or not the
legislature is in session NOW has no bearing. The Senate had a constitutional
duty to vote on the amendment. Instead the constitutional convention was brought
to order and adjourned within mere seconds. Yay or nay vote on the amendment,
that is all that was needed. After this travesty, the President Senate's approval
rating plumeted to the basement, even in liberal Massachusetts. He should have
been able to easily win governor, instead he came in a very distant third in just
the primary.
> In article <3FCF464D.FFB06AD2@pobox.nospam>,
> Jenn Wasdyke <wasdyke68@pobox.nospam> wrote:
> >"Daniel J. Stern" wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, 3 Dec 2003, C. E. White wrote:
> >>
> >> 5> Marriage is a union between a man and a woman.
> >>
> >> 4> If two men or two women want to be joined as a family in a marriage,
> >> 4> how does it detract from your marriage?
> >>
> >> 3> It is not a marriage.
> >>
> >> 2> So, let's summarize. The question is "Why should marriage be restricted
> >> 2> to opposite---- couples?" and the very best, most cogent response you
> >> 2> can come up with is "Because marriage is restricted to opposite----
> >> 2> couples."
> >>
> >> > Why are trees called tress, dogs called dogs, etc. If I call a cat a
> >> > dog, does that make it a dog?
> >>
> >> We're not considering cats, dogs or trees. We're considering two people
> >> who wish to affirm their relationship to each other, thereby taking on the
> >> social and financial responsibilities and attaining the social and
> >> financial privileges accorded by society to two people in such a
> >> relationship.
> >>
> >> You have yet to explain why the --- of the two partners is at all relevant
> >> other than to make circular parrot noises ("Rawk! Man and woman! Reehoo!
> >> Redefining! Rawk! Not a marriage").
> >>
> >> You seem very convinced of your rightness on this matter. Surely, then,
> >> you can articulate the basis for your belief in a persuasive and logical
> >> manner, rather than simply repeating a dogmatic statement...?
> >>
> >> > The laws related to the institution of marriage were set in place with
> >> > the understanding that a marriage was a union between a man and a woman.
> >>
> >> Fifty years ago, your type was saying "The laws related to the institution
> >> of marriage were set in place with the understanding that a marriage was a
> >> union between members of the same race."
> >>
> >> > Trying to extend those laws to cover same --- unions is not the right
> >> > way to fix a perceived injustice.
> >>
> >> While I'd be interested to learn what you think *is* the right way, I
> >> hardly think you have much basis to be making pronouncements on the
> >> matter. You're not on the receiving end of the injustice.
> >
> >Your argument is to redefine something that has been well defined. If
> >somebody says that a square can only have 4 sides, you could call them a
> >circular parrot for not including a pentagon as a square with that reasoning.
> >
> >If people want to change that definition, in the USA at least there is a
> >proper procedure to do such in each state. Until then the existing
> definition
> >stands.
> >
> >Not what the Massachusetts legislature did, as the State Senate never voted
> on
> >the constitutional amendment on marriage. They were required to vote on this
> >under the constitution, as the proper number of signatures were obtained.
>
> Considering the decision has only been out a few weeks, and the legislature is
> probably not in session now...
Nonsense! The consitutional convention was on June 19, 2002. Whether or not the
legislature is in session NOW has no bearing. The Senate had a constitutional
duty to vote on the amendment. Instead the constitutional convention was brought
to order and adjourned within mere seconds. Yay or nay vote on the amendment,
that is all that was needed. After this travesty, the President Senate's approval
rating plumeted to the basement, even in liberal Massachusetts. He should have
been able to easily win governor, instead he came in a very distant third in just
the primary.
#6664
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge studyaboutsafetycanbemisinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Lloyd Parker wrote:
> In article <3FCF464D.FFB06AD2@pobox.nospam>,
> Jenn Wasdyke <wasdyke68@pobox.nospam> wrote:
> >"Daniel J. Stern" wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, 3 Dec 2003, C. E. White wrote:
> >>
> >> 5> Marriage is a union between a man and a woman.
> >>
> >> 4> If two men or two women want to be joined as a family in a marriage,
> >> 4> how does it detract from your marriage?
> >>
> >> 3> It is not a marriage.
> >>
> >> 2> So, let's summarize. The question is "Why should marriage be restricted
> >> 2> to opposite---- couples?" and the very best, most cogent response you
> >> 2> can come up with is "Because marriage is restricted to opposite----
> >> 2> couples."
> >>
> >> > Why are trees called tress, dogs called dogs, etc. If I call a cat a
> >> > dog, does that make it a dog?
> >>
> >> We're not considering cats, dogs or trees. We're considering two people
> >> who wish to affirm their relationship to each other, thereby taking on the
> >> social and financial responsibilities and attaining the social and
> >> financial privileges accorded by society to two people in such a
> >> relationship.
> >>
> >> You have yet to explain why the --- of the two partners is at all relevant
> >> other than to make circular parrot noises ("Rawk! Man and woman! Reehoo!
> >> Redefining! Rawk! Not a marriage").
> >>
> >> You seem very convinced of your rightness on this matter. Surely, then,
> >> you can articulate the basis for your belief in a persuasive and logical
> >> manner, rather than simply repeating a dogmatic statement...?
> >>
> >> > The laws related to the institution of marriage were set in place with
> >> > the understanding that a marriage was a union between a man and a woman.
> >>
> >> Fifty years ago, your type was saying "The laws related to the institution
> >> of marriage were set in place with the understanding that a marriage was a
> >> union between members of the same race."
> >>
> >> > Trying to extend those laws to cover same --- unions is not the right
> >> > way to fix a perceived injustice.
> >>
> >> While I'd be interested to learn what you think *is* the right way, I
> >> hardly think you have much basis to be making pronouncements on the
> >> matter. You're not on the receiving end of the injustice.
> >
> >Your argument is to redefine something that has been well defined. If
> >somebody says that a square can only have 4 sides, you could call them a
> >circular parrot for not including a pentagon as a square with that reasoning.
> >
> >If people want to change that definition, in the USA at least there is a
> >proper procedure to do such in each state. Until then the existing
> definition
> >stands.
> >
> >Not what the Massachusetts legislature did, as the State Senate never voted
> on
> >the constitutional amendment on marriage. They were required to vote on this
> >under the constitution, as the proper number of signatures were obtained.
>
> Considering the decision has only been out a few weeks, and the legislature is
> probably not in session now...
Nonsense! The consitutional convention was on June 19, 2002. Whether or not the
legislature is in session NOW has no bearing. The Senate had a constitutional
duty to vote on the amendment. Instead the constitutional convention was brought
to order and adjourned within mere seconds. Yay or nay vote on the amendment,
that is all that was needed. After this travesty, the President Senate's approval
rating plumeted to the basement, even in liberal Massachusetts. He should have
been able to easily win governor, instead he came in a very distant third in just
the primary.
> In article <3FCF464D.FFB06AD2@pobox.nospam>,
> Jenn Wasdyke <wasdyke68@pobox.nospam> wrote:
> >"Daniel J. Stern" wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, 3 Dec 2003, C. E. White wrote:
> >>
> >> 5> Marriage is a union between a man and a woman.
> >>
> >> 4> If two men or two women want to be joined as a family in a marriage,
> >> 4> how does it detract from your marriage?
> >>
> >> 3> It is not a marriage.
> >>
> >> 2> So, let's summarize. The question is "Why should marriage be restricted
> >> 2> to opposite---- couples?" and the very best, most cogent response you
> >> 2> can come up with is "Because marriage is restricted to opposite----
> >> 2> couples."
> >>
> >> > Why are trees called tress, dogs called dogs, etc. If I call a cat a
> >> > dog, does that make it a dog?
> >>
> >> We're not considering cats, dogs or trees. We're considering two people
> >> who wish to affirm their relationship to each other, thereby taking on the
> >> social and financial responsibilities and attaining the social and
> >> financial privileges accorded by society to two people in such a
> >> relationship.
> >>
> >> You have yet to explain why the --- of the two partners is at all relevant
> >> other than to make circular parrot noises ("Rawk! Man and woman! Reehoo!
> >> Redefining! Rawk! Not a marriage").
> >>
> >> You seem very convinced of your rightness on this matter. Surely, then,
> >> you can articulate the basis for your belief in a persuasive and logical
> >> manner, rather than simply repeating a dogmatic statement...?
> >>
> >> > The laws related to the institution of marriage were set in place with
> >> > the understanding that a marriage was a union between a man and a woman.
> >>
> >> Fifty years ago, your type was saying "The laws related to the institution
> >> of marriage were set in place with the understanding that a marriage was a
> >> union between members of the same race."
> >>
> >> > Trying to extend those laws to cover same --- unions is not the right
> >> > way to fix a perceived injustice.
> >>
> >> While I'd be interested to learn what you think *is* the right way, I
> >> hardly think you have much basis to be making pronouncements on the
> >> matter. You're not on the receiving end of the injustice.
> >
> >Your argument is to redefine something that has been well defined. If
> >somebody says that a square can only have 4 sides, you could call them a
> >circular parrot for not including a pentagon as a square with that reasoning.
> >
> >If people want to change that definition, in the USA at least there is a
> >proper procedure to do such in each state. Until then the existing
> definition
> >stands.
> >
> >Not what the Massachusetts legislature did, as the State Senate never voted
> on
> >the constitutional amendment on marriage. They were required to vote on this
> >under the constitution, as the proper number of signatures were obtained.
>
> Considering the decision has only been out a few weeks, and the legislature is
> probably not in session now...
Nonsense! The consitutional convention was on June 19, 2002. Whether or not the
legislature is in session NOW has no bearing. The Senate had a constitutional
duty to vote on the amendment. Instead the constitutional convention was brought
to order and adjourned within mere seconds. Yay or nay vote on the amendment,
that is all that was needed. After this travesty, the President Senate's approval
rating plumeted to the basement, even in liberal Massachusetts. He should have
been able to easily win governor, instead he came in a very distant third in just
the primary.
#6665
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Hugestudyaboutsafetycanbemisinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
> 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?
It's a matter of public record. Try U.S. Congressional record. Oops -
since I cited that, it must be a right wing organization.
It's a fact that it happened. You can deny it all you want. Just
because you probably won't find acknowledgement of it from liberal
organizations doesn't mean it didn't happen. However I suspect you
could find some mention of it even there - kind of hard to ignore the
elephant in the room so to speak.
Oh - what the heck. Here are some sentences from the article iteself:
"In October of 1993, pressure from American right-wing groups and
politicians began to be exerted on ILGA to kick out its ---------
organization members. The US Mission to the UN asked ILGA to
'disassociate itself from NAMBLA and other affiliate organizations'
whose 'objectives are not consonant with the UN's human rights
activities'.
"In November of 1993, the executive committee declared that ILGA
'condems pedophilia', contrary to some past resolutions on the matter,
and asked NAMBLA, Martijn, and Project Truth to resign voluntarily from
ILGA. None of the groups agreed to do so. On the 15th of November,
NAMBLA issued a press release reaffirming its membership in ILGA.
"On June 23, 1994, at the Annual Conference, NAMBLA, Martijn and Project
Truth were expelled from ILGA, on the motion of the executive committee,
and it was decided that 'groups or associations whose predominant aim is
to support or promote pedophilia are incompatible with the future
development of ILGA'.
"On the eve of the 25th anniversary of the Stonewall riots, the event
that sparked the contemporary gay and lesbian movement, the NAMBLA
Bulletin was released in a brown paper format to rally support for
NAMBLA and so-called 'boy love' organizations within the gay community.
Due to the pressures facing NAMBLA, its members organized a group called
the Spirit of Stonewall (SOS), which gathered the endorsement of some
figures and organizations in the gay movement. Despite threats of
arrest, 50 NAMBLA members and 200 supporters, including Harry Hay,
marched under the banner of SOS."
So you're going to refute the above information from that article? I
suspect, with your connections in certain "communities", you would have
not trouble confirming the facts as stated above. Just handwaiving them
away due to whatever intellectually dishonest diversion you want to
throw out won't make them not a matter of record. I think the case is
made rather completely.
> >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 [in context: who, in the situation described, were clearly pushing a pro-pedophilia agenda]?
(my comment in brackets above to re-introduce honesty into the
discussion)
Glad you agree that it would be strange for liberals to speak out
against systematized support of pedophilia. Notice my comment was
clearly in the context of the support of gay rights organizations who
worked a deal with the U.N. to support and endorse pedophilia around the
world. But that is a good observation that organizations with a liberal
agenda would not speak out against pedophilia (until publicity concerns
dictated that they to do so lest their more attainable agenda items be
jeopardized).
Give it up, Lloyd. It's clear to anyone who is honest what happened.
You can deny it all you want. It happened. Get over it. You're only
drawing attention to it and making your buddies look bad. Best to leave
it alone, but I really don't care beacuse the more people become aware
of that kind of crap, the more exposed you and your kind are.
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! =-----
#6666
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Hugestudyaboutsafetycanbemisinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
> 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?
It's a matter of public record. Try U.S. Congressional record. Oops -
since I cited that, it must be a right wing organization.
It's a fact that it happened. You can deny it all you want. Just
because you probably won't find acknowledgement of it from liberal
organizations doesn't mean it didn't happen. However I suspect you
could find some mention of it even there - kind of hard to ignore the
elephant in the room so to speak.
Oh - what the heck. Here are some sentences from the article iteself:
"In October of 1993, pressure from American right-wing groups and
politicians began to be exerted on ILGA to kick out its ---------
organization members. The US Mission to the UN asked ILGA to
'disassociate itself from NAMBLA and other affiliate organizations'
whose 'objectives are not consonant with the UN's human rights
activities'.
"In November of 1993, the executive committee declared that ILGA
'condems pedophilia', contrary to some past resolutions on the matter,
and asked NAMBLA, Martijn, and Project Truth to resign voluntarily from
ILGA. None of the groups agreed to do so. On the 15th of November,
NAMBLA issued a press release reaffirming its membership in ILGA.
"On June 23, 1994, at the Annual Conference, NAMBLA, Martijn and Project
Truth were expelled from ILGA, on the motion of the executive committee,
and it was decided that 'groups or associations whose predominant aim is
to support or promote pedophilia are incompatible with the future
development of ILGA'.
"On the eve of the 25th anniversary of the Stonewall riots, the event
that sparked the contemporary gay and lesbian movement, the NAMBLA
Bulletin was released in a brown paper format to rally support for
NAMBLA and so-called 'boy love' organizations within the gay community.
Due to the pressures facing NAMBLA, its members organized a group called
the Spirit of Stonewall (SOS), which gathered the endorsement of some
figures and organizations in the gay movement. Despite threats of
arrest, 50 NAMBLA members and 200 supporters, including Harry Hay,
marched under the banner of SOS."
So you're going to refute the above information from that article? I
suspect, with your connections in certain "communities", you would have
not trouble confirming the facts as stated above. Just handwaiving them
away due to whatever intellectually dishonest diversion you want to
throw out won't make them not a matter of record. I think the case is
made rather completely.
> >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 [in context: who, in the situation described, were clearly pushing a pro-pedophilia agenda]?
(my comment in brackets above to re-introduce honesty into the
discussion)
Glad you agree that it would be strange for liberals to speak out
against systematized support of pedophilia. Notice my comment was
clearly in the context of the support of gay rights organizations who
worked a deal with the U.N. to support and endorse pedophilia around the
world. But that is a good observation that organizations with a liberal
agenda would not speak out against pedophilia (until publicity concerns
dictated that they to do so lest their more attainable agenda items be
jeopardized).
Give it up, Lloyd. It's clear to anyone who is honest what happened.
You can deny it all you want. It happened. Get over it. You're only
drawing attention to it and making your buddies look bad. Best to leave
it alone, but I really don't care beacuse the more people become aware
of that kind of crap, the more exposed you and your kind are.
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! =-----
#6667
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Hugestudyaboutsafetycanbemisinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
> 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?
It's a matter of public record. Try U.S. Congressional record. Oops -
since I cited that, it must be a right wing organization.
It's a fact that it happened. You can deny it all you want. Just
because you probably won't find acknowledgement of it from liberal
organizations doesn't mean it didn't happen. However I suspect you
could find some mention of it even there - kind of hard to ignore the
elephant in the room so to speak.
Oh - what the heck. Here are some sentences from the article iteself:
"In October of 1993, pressure from American right-wing groups and
politicians began to be exerted on ILGA to kick out its ---------
organization members. The US Mission to the UN asked ILGA to
'disassociate itself from NAMBLA and other affiliate organizations'
whose 'objectives are not consonant with the UN's human rights
activities'.
"In November of 1993, the executive committee declared that ILGA
'condems pedophilia', contrary to some past resolutions on the matter,
and asked NAMBLA, Martijn, and Project Truth to resign voluntarily from
ILGA. None of the groups agreed to do so. On the 15th of November,
NAMBLA issued a press release reaffirming its membership in ILGA.
"On June 23, 1994, at the Annual Conference, NAMBLA, Martijn and Project
Truth were expelled from ILGA, on the motion of the executive committee,
and it was decided that 'groups or associations whose predominant aim is
to support or promote pedophilia are incompatible with the future
development of ILGA'.
"On the eve of the 25th anniversary of the Stonewall riots, the event
that sparked the contemporary gay and lesbian movement, the NAMBLA
Bulletin was released in a brown paper format to rally support for
NAMBLA and so-called 'boy love' organizations within the gay community.
Due to the pressures facing NAMBLA, its members organized a group called
the Spirit of Stonewall (SOS), which gathered the endorsement of some
figures and organizations in the gay movement. Despite threats of
arrest, 50 NAMBLA members and 200 supporters, including Harry Hay,
marched under the banner of SOS."
So you're going to refute the above information from that article? I
suspect, with your connections in certain "communities", you would have
not trouble confirming the facts as stated above. Just handwaiving them
away due to whatever intellectually dishonest diversion you want to
throw out won't make them not a matter of record. I think the case is
made rather completely.
> >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 [in context: who, in the situation described, were clearly pushing a pro-pedophilia agenda]?
(my comment in brackets above to re-introduce honesty into the
discussion)
Glad you agree that it would be strange for liberals to speak out
against systematized support of pedophilia. Notice my comment was
clearly in the context of the support of gay rights organizations who
worked a deal with the U.N. to support and endorse pedophilia around the
world. But that is a good observation that organizations with a liberal
agenda would not speak out against pedophilia (until publicity concerns
dictated that they to do so lest their more attainable agenda items be
jeopardized).
Give it up, Lloyd. It's clear to anyone who is honest what happened.
You can deny it all you want. It happened. Get over it. You're only
drawing attention to it and making your buddies look bad. Best to leave
it alone, but I really don't care beacuse the more people become aware
of that kind of crap, the more exposed you and your kind are.
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! =-----
#6668
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycanbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
> In article <tdudnVxyI7goDlKiRTvUqA@texas.net>, Steve <no@spam.thanks> wrote:
> >Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >
> >
> >> And the US refusing to buy any military hardware from Airbus isn't a form
> of
> >> subsidy to Boeing?
> >>
> >
> >Nope. Lockheed, Northrop-Grumman, and even Gulfstream and Cessna are
> >free to submit bids also. Its restricting military contracting to US
> >companies, and I have no problem with that.
> >
> It's subsidizing US companies by giving only them government contracts.
Ah - you must be referring to Nancy Pelosi's (sp?) husband.
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! =-----
#6669
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycanbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
> In article <tdudnVxyI7goDlKiRTvUqA@texas.net>, Steve <no@spam.thanks> wrote:
> >Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >
> >
> >> And the US refusing to buy any military hardware from Airbus isn't a form
> of
> >> subsidy to Boeing?
> >>
> >
> >Nope. Lockheed, Northrop-Grumman, and even Gulfstream and Cessna are
> >free to submit bids also. Its restricting military contracting to US
> >companies, and I have no problem with that.
> >
> It's subsidizing US companies by giving only them government contracts.
Ah - you must be referring to Nancy Pelosi's (sp?) husband.
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! =-----
#6670
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycanbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
> In article <tdudnVxyI7goDlKiRTvUqA@texas.net>, Steve <no@spam.thanks> wrote:
> >Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >
> >
> >> And the US refusing to buy any military hardware from Airbus isn't a form
> of
> >> subsidy to Boeing?
> >>
> >
> >Nope. Lockheed, Northrop-Grumman, and even Gulfstream and Cessna are
> >free to submit bids also. Its restricting military contracting to US
> >companies, and I have no problem with that.
> >
> It's subsidizing US companies by giving only them government contracts.
Ah - you must be referring to Nancy Pelosi's (sp?) husband.
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! =-----