Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#6821
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycanbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Bill Funk wrote:
>
> 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"
Lloyd's never had to turn a profit in his life, nor has his employer,
and he looks down on people who have to sully their hands doing so.
It's called "elitism"..
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! =-----
#6822
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycanbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Bill Funk wrote:
>
> 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"
Lloyd's never had to turn a profit in his life, nor has his employer,
and he looks down on people who have to sully their hands doing so.
It's called "elitism"..
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! =-----
#6823
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycanbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Bill Funk wrote:
>
> 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"
Lloyd's never had to turn a profit in his life, nor has his employer,
and he looks down on people who have to sully their hands doing so.
It's called "elitism"..
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! =-----
#6824
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On Fri, 05 Dec 03 10:45:50 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:
>Who decides if a right is reserved to the states or to the people? Since it's
>in the US constitution, the federal courts must.
The amendment is actually pretty specific about just what rights are
covered where:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be
construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
It shouldn't take the Supreme Court to determine which rights are
enumerated int he Constitution, especially for the intent of the
amendment. Such rights are either enumerated (specifically listed) or
they aren't.
As far as the actual intent is concerned, it's pretty well understood,
becasuse we have the writings (and arguments) of not only the
authors/proponents, but also the arguments of those opposed, through
contemporary writings.
Google will provide many sites that can show this.
Of course, Lloyd seems to think that this will only produce right-wing
sites, so he won't even try using Google.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
wrote:
>Who decides if a right is reserved to the states or to the people? Since it's
>in the US constitution, the federal courts must.
The amendment is actually pretty specific about just what rights are
covered where:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be
construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
It shouldn't take the Supreme Court to determine which rights are
enumerated int he Constitution, especially for the intent of the
amendment. Such rights are either enumerated (specifically listed) or
they aren't.
As far as the actual intent is concerned, it's pretty well understood,
becasuse we have the writings (and arguments) of not only the
authors/proponents, but also the arguments of those opposed, through
contemporary writings.
Google will provide many sites that can show this.
Of course, Lloyd seems to think that this will only produce right-wing
sites, so he won't even try using Google.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
#6825
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On Fri, 05 Dec 03 10:45:50 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:
>Who decides if a right is reserved to the states or to the people? Since it's
>in the US constitution, the federal courts must.
The amendment is actually pretty specific about just what rights are
covered where:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be
construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
It shouldn't take the Supreme Court to determine which rights are
enumerated int he Constitution, especially for the intent of the
amendment. Such rights are either enumerated (specifically listed) or
they aren't.
As far as the actual intent is concerned, it's pretty well understood,
becasuse we have the writings (and arguments) of not only the
authors/proponents, but also the arguments of those opposed, through
contemporary writings.
Google will provide many sites that can show this.
Of course, Lloyd seems to think that this will only produce right-wing
sites, so he won't even try using Google.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
wrote:
>Who decides if a right is reserved to the states or to the people? Since it's
>in the US constitution, the federal courts must.
The amendment is actually pretty specific about just what rights are
covered where:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be
construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
It shouldn't take the Supreme Court to determine which rights are
enumerated int he Constitution, especially for the intent of the
amendment. Such rights are either enumerated (specifically listed) or
they aren't.
As far as the actual intent is concerned, it's pretty well understood,
becasuse we have the writings (and arguments) of not only the
authors/proponents, but also the arguments of those opposed, through
contemporary writings.
Google will provide many sites that can show this.
Of course, Lloyd seems to think that this will only produce right-wing
sites, so he won't even try using Google.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
#6826
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On Fri, 05 Dec 03 10:45:50 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:
>Who decides if a right is reserved to the states or to the people? Since it's
>in the US constitution, the federal courts must.
The amendment is actually pretty specific about just what rights are
covered where:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be
construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
It shouldn't take the Supreme Court to determine which rights are
enumerated int he Constitution, especially for the intent of the
amendment. Such rights are either enumerated (specifically listed) or
they aren't.
As far as the actual intent is concerned, it's pretty well understood,
becasuse we have the writings (and arguments) of not only the
authors/proponents, but also the arguments of those opposed, through
contemporary writings.
Google will provide many sites that can show this.
Of course, Lloyd seems to think that this will only produce right-wing
sites, so he won't even try using Google.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
wrote:
>Who decides if a right is reserved to the states or to the people? Since it's
>in the US constitution, the federal courts must.
The amendment is actually pretty specific about just what rights are
covered where:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be
construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
It shouldn't take the Supreme Court to determine which rights are
enumerated int he Constitution, especially for the intent of the
amendment. Such rights are either enumerated (specifically listed) or
they aren't.
As far as the actual intent is concerned, it's pretty well understood,
becasuse we have the writings (and arguments) of not only the
authors/proponents, but also the arguments of those opposed, through
contemporary writings.
Google will provide many sites that can show this.
Of course, Lloyd seems to think that this will only produce right-wing
sites, so he won't even try using Google.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
#6827
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycan be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <MIydndONr9GTd02i4p2dnA@magma.ca>,
Dan Gates <dgates@kellerengineering.com> wrote:
>Matthew Russotto wrote:
>> In article <e7359b94e95c7b42780a15f66a4b4f62@news.teranews.co m>,
>> Brandon Sommerville <grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 13:24:57 -0600, russotto@grace.speakeasy.net
>>>(Matthew Russotto) wrote:
>>>
>>>
>> But in the US, we've got enough MRIs to service both the critical needs and
>> the less-critical needs in a timely manner. Or do you want to hobble
>> around in pain for 8 weeks longer? (or perhaps MUCH longer in my
>> case, as it took three studies to diagnose the problem -- and then there's the
>> issue of waiting periods for non-critical surgery in Canada)
>
>
>Which wasn't really an issue until the last decade when massive cuts to
>the system were carried out. If the funding was restored (yes, I know
>it will cost me more money), this wouldn't be such a problem. Oh, there
>was also the issue of cutting the enrolment at Medical Schools to reduce
>the number of doctors out there. Seems they wanted 80% of the
>physicians over 60 years old, uh-oh, now they are all retiring! What do
>we do now??
Looks like the problems of central control have hit you in the face --
but you still can't see them.
--
Matthew T. Russotto mrussotto@speakeasy.net
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue." But extreme restriction of liberty in pursuit of
a modicum of security is a very expensive vice.
Dan Gates <dgates@kellerengineering.com> wrote:
>Matthew Russotto wrote:
>> In article <e7359b94e95c7b42780a15f66a4b4f62@news.teranews.co m>,
>> Brandon Sommerville <grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 13:24:57 -0600, russotto@grace.speakeasy.net
>>>(Matthew Russotto) wrote:
>>>
>>>
>> But in the US, we've got enough MRIs to service both the critical needs and
>> the less-critical needs in a timely manner. Or do you want to hobble
>> around in pain for 8 weeks longer? (or perhaps MUCH longer in my
>> case, as it took three studies to diagnose the problem -- and then there's the
>> issue of waiting periods for non-critical surgery in Canada)
>
>
>Which wasn't really an issue until the last decade when massive cuts to
>the system were carried out. If the funding was restored (yes, I know
>it will cost me more money), this wouldn't be such a problem. Oh, there
>was also the issue of cutting the enrolment at Medical Schools to reduce
>the number of doctors out there. Seems they wanted 80% of the
>physicians over 60 years old, uh-oh, now they are all retiring! What do
>we do now??
Looks like the problems of central control have hit you in the face --
but you still can't see them.
--
Matthew T. Russotto mrussotto@speakeasy.net
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue." But extreme restriction of liberty in pursuit of
a modicum of security is a very expensive vice.
#6828
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycan be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <MIydndONr9GTd02i4p2dnA@magma.ca>,
Dan Gates <dgates@kellerengineering.com> wrote:
>Matthew Russotto wrote:
>> In article <e7359b94e95c7b42780a15f66a4b4f62@news.teranews.co m>,
>> Brandon Sommerville <grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 13:24:57 -0600, russotto@grace.speakeasy.net
>>>(Matthew Russotto) wrote:
>>>
>>>
>> But in the US, we've got enough MRIs to service both the critical needs and
>> the less-critical needs in a timely manner. Or do you want to hobble
>> around in pain for 8 weeks longer? (or perhaps MUCH longer in my
>> case, as it took three studies to diagnose the problem -- and then there's the
>> issue of waiting periods for non-critical surgery in Canada)
>
>
>Which wasn't really an issue until the last decade when massive cuts to
>the system were carried out. If the funding was restored (yes, I know
>it will cost me more money), this wouldn't be such a problem. Oh, there
>was also the issue of cutting the enrolment at Medical Schools to reduce
>the number of doctors out there. Seems they wanted 80% of the
>physicians over 60 years old, uh-oh, now they are all retiring! What do
>we do now??
Looks like the problems of central control have hit you in the face --
but you still can't see them.
--
Matthew T. Russotto mrussotto@speakeasy.net
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue." But extreme restriction of liberty in pursuit of
a modicum of security is a very expensive vice.
Dan Gates <dgates@kellerengineering.com> wrote:
>Matthew Russotto wrote:
>> In article <e7359b94e95c7b42780a15f66a4b4f62@news.teranews.co m>,
>> Brandon Sommerville <grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 13:24:57 -0600, russotto@grace.speakeasy.net
>>>(Matthew Russotto) wrote:
>>>
>>>
>> But in the US, we've got enough MRIs to service both the critical needs and
>> the less-critical needs in a timely manner. Or do you want to hobble
>> around in pain for 8 weeks longer? (or perhaps MUCH longer in my
>> case, as it took three studies to diagnose the problem -- and then there's the
>> issue of waiting periods for non-critical surgery in Canada)
>
>
>Which wasn't really an issue until the last decade when massive cuts to
>the system were carried out. If the funding was restored (yes, I know
>it will cost me more money), this wouldn't be such a problem. Oh, there
>was also the issue of cutting the enrolment at Medical Schools to reduce
>the number of doctors out there. Seems they wanted 80% of the
>physicians over 60 years old, uh-oh, now they are all retiring! What do
>we do now??
Looks like the problems of central control have hit you in the face --
but you still can't see them.
--
Matthew T. Russotto mrussotto@speakeasy.net
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue." But extreme restriction of liberty in pursuit of
a modicum of security is a very expensive vice.
#6829
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycan be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <MIydndONr9GTd02i4p2dnA@magma.ca>,
Dan Gates <dgates@kellerengineering.com> wrote:
>Matthew Russotto wrote:
>> In article <e7359b94e95c7b42780a15f66a4b4f62@news.teranews.co m>,
>> Brandon Sommerville <grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 13:24:57 -0600, russotto@grace.speakeasy.net
>>>(Matthew Russotto) wrote:
>>>
>>>
>> But in the US, we've got enough MRIs to service both the critical needs and
>> the less-critical needs in a timely manner. Or do you want to hobble
>> around in pain for 8 weeks longer? (or perhaps MUCH longer in my
>> case, as it took three studies to diagnose the problem -- and then there's the
>> issue of waiting periods for non-critical surgery in Canada)
>
>
>Which wasn't really an issue until the last decade when massive cuts to
>the system were carried out. If the funding was restored (yes, I know
>it will cost me more money), this wouldn't be such a problem. Oh, there
>was also the issue of cutting the enrolment at Medical Schools to reduce
>the number of doctors out there. Seems they wanted 80% of the
>physicians over 60 years old, uh-oh, now they are all retiring! What do
>we do now??
Looks like the problems of central control have hit you in the face --
but you still can't see them.
--
Matthew T. Russotto mrussotto@speakeasy.net
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue." But extreme restriction of liberty in pursuit of
a modicum of security is a very expensive vice.
Dan Gates <dgates@kellerengineering.com> wrote:
>Matthew Russotto wrote:
>> In article <e7359b94e95c7b42780a15f66a4b4f62@news.teranews.co m>,
>> Brandon Sommerville <grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 13:24:57 -0600, russotto@grace.speakeasy.net
>>>(Matthew Russotto) wrote:
>>>
>>>
>> But in the US, we've got enough MRIs to service both the critical needs and
>> the less-critical needs in a timely manner. Or do you want to hobble
>> around in pain for 8 weeks longer? (or perhaps MUCH longer in my
>> case, as it took three studies to diagnose the problem -- and then there's the
>> issue of waiting periods for non-critical surgery in Canada)
>
>
>Which wasn't really an issue until the last decade when massive cuts to
>the system were carried out. If the funding was restored (yes, I know
>it will cost me more money), this wouldn't be such a problem. Oh, there
>was also the issue of cutting the enrolment at Medical Schools to reduce
>the number of doctors out there. Seems they wanted 80% of the
>physicians over 60 years old, uh-oh, now they are all retiring! What do
>we do now??
Looks like the problems of central control have hit you in the face --
but you still can't see them.
--
Matthew T. Russotto mrussotto@speakeasy.net
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue." But extreme restriction of liberty in pursuit of
a modicum of security is a very expensive vice.
#6830
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study aboutsafetycanbemisinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On Sat, 6 Dec 2003, Bill Putney wrote:
> > > Because if banning marriage of gays is discriminatory, than banning
> > > marriage of consenting adults in parties greater than two etc. certainly
> > > is too.
> >
> > Is this supposed to be scary and/or threatening? If so, why? Or is it just
> > another one of those things that you think should be illegal because you
> > think it's icky or whatever and it's been that way for as long as you can
> > remember?
>
>
> So why don't the other examples of potential married couples or groups
> have as much validity as gay "couples". You want to discriminate
> against those others.
Are you sure?
DS
> > > Because if banning marriage of gays is discriminatory, than banning
> > > marriage of consenting adults in parties greater than two etc. certainly
> > > is too.
> >
> > Is this supposed to be scary and/or threatening? If so, why? Or is it just
> > another one of those things that you think should be illegal because you
> > think it's icky or whatever and it's been that way for as long as you can
> > remember?
>
>
> So why don't the other examples of potential married couples or groups
> have as much validity as gay "couples". You want to discriminate
> against those others.
Are you sure?
DS