Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#6811
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety canbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On Fri, 05 Dec 03 10:57:10 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:
>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.
You're completely missing what I'm saying.
Probably on purpose.
Tha Taliban not only allowed the gov't to accfdept the fact that
religion forms a strong part of many people's lives, but it went far
further: it drcreed HOW that religion would be a strong part of their
lives.
I'm not advocating anything of the sort.
But you knew that; you simply over-reated to an idea that didn't fit
*YOUR* idea of how religion should (or shouldn't) be recognized.
Gee, it seems that YOU are far more closely allied to the ideas of the
Taliban than I am, since you want to dictate far more than I do.
>
>>
>>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
replace "g" with "a"
wrote:
>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.
You're completely missing what I'm saying.
Probably on purpose.
Tha Taliban not only allowed the gov't to accfdept the fact that
religion forms a strong part of many people's lives, but it went far
further: it drcreed HOW that religion would be a strong part of their
lives.
I'm not advocating anything of the sort.
But you knew that; you simply over-reated to an idea that didn't fit
*YOUR* idea of how religion should (or shouldn't) be recognized.
Gee, it seems that YOU are far more closely allied to the ideas of the
Taliban than I am, since you want to dictate far more than I do.
>
>>
>>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
replace "g" with "a"
#6812
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycanbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On Sat, 6 Dec 2003 01:02:11 -0500, "Daniel J. Stern"
<dastern@127.0.0.1> wrote:
>On Fri, 5 Dec 2003, Greg wrote:
>
>> Being hetero or homosexual only refers to one's activities.
>
>Most behavioural scientists disagree with you -- this is the party line of
>the Religious Reich types.
>
>Unless you're prepared to say that being six-foot-four or blue of eye or
>having a Roman nose only refers to one activities...?
Homosexuality is a mental disorder. Until the liberal left decided to
force the issue by declaring it was genetic, even though there is
proof it is not genetic.
So go ahead and spout you ------ views, intelligent people know
better.
<dastern@127.0.0.1> wrote:
>On Fri, 5 Dec 2003, Greg wrote:
>
>> Being hetero or homosexual only refers to one's activities.
>
>Most behavioural scientists disagree with you -- this is the party line of
>the Religious Reich types.
>
>Unless you're prepared to say that being six-foot-four or blue of eye or
>having a Roman nose only refers to one activities...?
Homosexuality is a mental disorder. Until the liberal left decided to
force the issue by declaring it was genetic, even though there is
proof it is not genetic.
So go ahead and spout you ------ views, intelligent people know
better.
#6813
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycanbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On Sat, 6 Dec 2003 01:02:11 -0500, "Daniel J. Stern"
<dastern@127.0.0.1> wrote:
>On Fri, 5 Dec 2003, Greg wrote:
>
>> Being hetero or homosexual only refers to one's activities.
>
>Most behavioural scientists disagree with you -- this is the party line of
>the Religious Reich types.
>
>Unless you're prepared to say that being six-foot-four or blue of eye or
>having a Roman nose only refers to one activities...?
Homosexuality is a mental disorder. Until the liberal left decided to
force the issue by declaring it was genetic, even though there is
proof it is not genetic.
So go ahead and spout you ------ views, intelligent people know
better.
<dastern@127.0.0.1> wrote:
>On Fri, 5 Dec 2003, Greg wrote:
>
>> Being hetero or homosexual only refers to one's activities.
>
>Most behavioural scientists disagree with you -- this is the party line of
>the Religious Reich types.
>
>Unless you're prepared to say that being six-foot-four or blue of eye or
>having a Roman nose only refers to one activities...?
Homosexuality is a mental disorder. Until the liberal left decided to
force the issue by declaring it was genetic, even though there is
proof it is not genetic.
So go ahead and spout you ------ views, intelligent people know
better.
#6814
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycanbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On Sat, 6 Dec 2003 01:02:11 -0500, "Daniel J. Stern"
<dastern@127.0.0.1> wrote:
>On Fri, 5 Dec 2003, Greg wrote:
>
>> Being hetero or homosexual only refers to one's activities.
>
>Most behavioural scientists disagree with you -- this is the party line of
>the Religious Reich types.
>
>Unless you're prepared to say that being six-foot-four or blue of eye or
>having a Roman nose only refers to one activities...?
Homosexuality is a mental disorder. Until the liberal left decided to
force the issue by declaring it was genetic, even though there is
proof it is not genetic.
So go ahead and spout you ------ views, intelligent people know
better.
<dastern@127.0.0.1> wrote:
>On Fri, 5 Dec 2003, Greg wrote:
>
>> Being hetero or homosexual only refers to one's activities.
>
>Most behavioural scientists disagree with you -- this is the party line of
>the Religious Reich types.
>
>Unless you're prepared to say that being six-foot-four or blue of eye or
>having a Roman nose only refers to one activities...?
Homosexuality is a mental disorder. Until the liberal left decided to
force the issue by declaring it was genetic, even though there is
proof it is not genetic.
So go ahead and spout you ------ views, intelligent people know
better.
#6815
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety canbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On Fri, 05 Dec 03 10:58:02 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:
>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.
It's really a shame that you feel that way.
I can only suppose, then, that you have nothing to do with
corportations, including buying no products from them, accepting no
part of your offered salary that's provided by them, etc.
Am I right?
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
wrote:
>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.
It's really a shame that you feel that way.
I can only suppose, then, that you have nothing to do with
corportations, including buying no products from them, accepting no
part of your offered salary that's provided by them, etc.
Am I right?
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
#6816
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety canbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On Fri, 05 Dec 03 10:58:02 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:
>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.
It's really a shame that you feel that way.
I can only suppose, then, that you have nothing to do with
corportations, including buying no products from them, accepting no
part of your offered salary that's provided by them, etc.
Am I right?
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
wrote:
>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.
It's really a shame that you feel that way.
I can only suppose, then, that you have nothing to do with
corportations, including buying no products from them, accepting no
part of your offered salary that's provided by them, etc.
Am I right?
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
#6817
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety canbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On Fri, 05 Dec 03 10:58:02 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:
>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.
It's really a shame that you feel that way.
I can only suppose, then, that you have nothing to do with
corportations, including buying no products from them, accepting no
part of your offered salary that's provided by them, etc.
Am I right?
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
wrote:
>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.
It's really a shame that you feel that way.
I can only suppose, then, that you have nothing to do with
corportations, including buying no products from them, accepting no
part of your offered salary that's provided by them, etc.
Am I right?
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
#6818
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycanbemisinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On Sat, 6 Dec 2003 01:00:50 -0500, "Daniel J. Stern"
<dastern@127.0.0.1> wrote:
>On Fri, 5 Dec 2003, Bill Putney wrote:
>
>> But the same could be said of those who would want the right to marry their
>> dog or their tree (admitedly ridiculous examples, but they illustrate
>
>...your ability to come up with ridiculous examples not at all germane to
>the topic.
They are no more ridiculous than *** ------- another man.
<dastern@127.0.0.1> wrote:
>On Fri, 5 Dec 2003, Bill Putney wrote:
>
>> But the same could be said of those who would want the right to marry their
>> dog or their tree (admitedly ridiculous examples, but they illustrate
>
>...your ability to come up with ridiculous examples not at all germane to
>the topic.
They are no more ridiculous than *** ------- another man.
#6819
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycanbemisinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On Sat, 6 Dec 2003 01:00:50 -0500, "Daniel J. Stern"
<dastern@127.0.0.1> wrote:
>On Fri, 5 Dec 2003, Bill Putney wrote:
>
>> But the same could be said of those who would want the right to marry their
>> dog or their tree (admitedly ridiculous examples, but they illustrate
>
>...your ability to come up with ridiculous examples not at all germane to
>the topic.
They are no more ridiculous than *** ------- another man.
<dastern@127.0.0.1> wrote:
>On Fri, 5 Dec 2003, Bill Putney wrote:
>
>> But the same could be said of those who would want the right to marry their
>> dog or their tree (admitedly ridiculous examples, but they illustrate
>
>...your ability to come up with ridiculous examples not at all germane to
>the topic.
They are no more ridiculous than *** ------- another man.
#6820
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycanbemisinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On Sat, 6 Dec 2003 01:00:50 -0500, "Daniel J. Stern"
<dastern@127.0.0.1> wrote:
>On Fri, 5 Dec 2003, Bill Putney wrote:
>
>> But the same could be said of those who would want the right to marry their
>> dog or their tree (admitedly ridiculous examples, but they illustrate
>
>...your ability to come up with ridiculous examples not at all germane to
>the topic.
They are no more ridiculous than *** ------- another man.
<dastern@127.0.0.1> wrote:
>On Fri, 5 Dec 2003, Bill Putney wrote:
>
>> But the same could be said of those who would want the right to marry their
>> dog or their tree (admitedly ridiculous examples, but they illustrate
>
>...your ability to come up with ridiculous examples not at all germane to
>the topic.
They are no more ridiculous than *** ------- another man.