Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#6901
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycanbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On Sat, 6 Dec 2003, Greg wrote:
> If two (or more) siblings wish to get married to get all those legal
> benefits that people strive for in the form of marriage, why stop them?
Asked and answered.
DS
> If two (or more) siblings wish to get married to get all those legal
> benefits that people strive for in the form of marriage, why stop them?
Asked and answered.
DS
#6902
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study aboutsafetycanbemisinterpreted by SUV drivers)
"Daniel J. Stern" wrote:
> On Sat, 6 Dec 2003, Greg wrote:
>
> > Fine. But if ending discrimination is the goal, than why should
> > siblings be prevented from marriage?
>
> Clear and present public health reasons.
What is the health reason involved in Jeff marrying brother Jerry? Or, as his
been pointed already, that producing children needn't be involved in the
course of marriage, what would the public health reasons be without children?
>
>
> > 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?
No.
> 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?
I just don't see how you can have one and not the other.
#6903
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study aboutsafetycanbemisinterpreted by SUV drivers)
"Daniel J. Stern" wrote:
> On Sat, 6 Dec 2003, Greg wrote:
>
> > Fine. But if ending discrimination is the goal, than why should
> > siblings be prevented from marriage?
>
> Clear and present public health reasons.
What is the health reason involved in Jeff marrying brother Jerry? Or, as his
been pointed already, that producing children needn't be involved in the
course of marriage, what would the public health reasons be without children?
>
>
> > 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?
No.
> 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?
I just don't see how you can have one and not the other.
#6904
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study aboutsafetycanbemisinterpreted by SUV drivers)
"Daniel J. Stern" wrote:
> On Sat, 6 Dec 2003, Greg wrote:
>
> > Fine. But if ending discrimination is the goal, than why should
> > siblings be prevented from marriage?
>
> Clear and present public health reasons.
What is the health reason involved in Jeff marrying brother Jerry? Or, as his
been pointed already, that producing children needn't be involved in the
course of marriage, what would the public health reasons be without children?
>
>
> > 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?
No.
> 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?
I just don't see how you can have one and not the other.
#6905
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycanbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Brandon Sommerville wrote:
>
> On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 23:33:26 -0500, Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >"C. E. White" wrote:
> >
> >> Lesbian couples can even have children.
> >
> >Technically, no. There has to be a real ----- involved somewhere.
>
> Have you never heard of a sperm bank?
Yes, and I was fully aware of that when I posted. If a lezzie has a
baby, then obviously the other lezzie is not the father (or to
"de-gendrize" it, one of the biological parents). Even for the sperm
bank, there was undoubtedly a male involved somewhere in the process,
hence the reference to the ----- (that's where they got *THE SPERM*).
So, no, lesbian couples cannot "have" children biologically. One
lesbian and one other person "had" the child, biologically speaking.
The other person could not be another lesbian.
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! =-----
#6906
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycanbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Brandon Sommerville wrote:
>
> On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 23:33:26 -0500, Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >"C. E. White" wrote:
> >
> >> Lesbian couples can even have children.
> >
> >Technically, no. There has to be a real ----- involved somewhere.
>
> Have you never heard of a sperm bank?
Yes, and I was fully aware of that when I posted. If a lezzie has a
baby, then obviously the other lezzie is not the father (or to
"de-gendrize" it, one of the biological parents). Even for the sperm
bank, there was undoubtedly a male involved somewhere in the process,
hence the reference to the ----- (that's where they got *THE SPERM*).
So, no, lesbian couples cannot "have" children biologically. One
lesbian and one other person "had" the child, biologically speaking.
The other person could not be another lesbian.
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! =-----
#6907
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycanbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Brandon Sommerville wrote:
>
> On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 23:33:26 -0500, Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >"C. E. White" wrote:
> >
> >> Lesbian couples can even have children.
> >
> >Technically, no. There has to be a real ----- involved somewhere.
>
> Have you never heard of a sperm bank?
Yes, and I was fully aware of that when I posted. If a lezzie has a
baby, then obviously the other lezzie is not the father (or to
"de-gendrize" it, one of the biological parents). Even for the sperm
bank, there was undoubtedly a male involved somewhere in the process,
hence the reference to the ----- (that's where they got *THE SPERM*).
So, no, lesbian couples cannot "have" children biologically. One
lesbian and one other person "had" the child, biologically speaking.
The other person could not be another lesbian.
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! =-----
#6908
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycanbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Lloyd Parker wrote:
> In article <3FCD3824.12530D76@greg.greg>, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
> >Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >
> >> In article <MK5zb.46$rE3.8@twister.socal.rr.com>,
> >> "David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> Yeah, that's a requirement for a grant, like your predecessors here
> >> >> >> say. You have to say 'and if funded, this project will destroy
> >> >> >> capitalism and further the crypto-communist agenda, destroying the
> >> >> >> middle class life style of myself and others like me and my family'.
> >> >> >> Bravo, you've figured it out. Down with science!!!
> >> >> >
> >> >> >This is the strategy of the left. When they find them on the wrong
> side
> >> >of
> >> >> >morality, they redefine morality. Now it's science. If you disagree
> >> >with
> >> >> >the "science" of global warming (and the global disaster it leads to)
> >> >then
> >> >> >you reject science. Likewise, morality is no longer fidelity, honesty,
> >> >> >personal responsibility. It's now support for the policies of the
> left,
> >> >> >like gay marriage and adopting the Kyoto protocol.
> >> >>
> >> >> Spoken like a good little creationist.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >Who? Me? I don't buy into "Creation Science". But the lefts
> redefinition
> >> >of "morality" and "science" is no different than what Creationists do to
> >> >force fit science into Genesis. Only it's force fit of science (and
> >> >religion) into anti-capitalism.
> >>
> >> No, you reject facts that don't fit your dogma. That's creationism.
> >>
> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >The groups standing behind extreme environmentalists are Socialists and
> >> >> >Communists. They are idealogical siblings to protect people from "evil
> >> >> >corporations".
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> And the folks standing behind you and your ilk are Fascists and *****.
> >> >Want
> >> >> to call names? OK.
> >> >
> >> >Not at all. When you see who shows up to those anti-globalist
> >> >(anti-corporate) demonstrations you see Socialist signs and booths all
> over
> >> >the place. No "name" calling was intended. And if you're looking for
> nasty
> >> >names to fit conservatives, you're really missing the mark with Fascist
> and
> >> >****. Those are on the opposite side of the political spectrum, away from
> >> >limited government.
> >>
> >> So are conservatives -- telling people what kind of --- to have, what
> genders
> >> can marry, what a woman can do with her body, etc.
> >
> >Since when to conservatives as an aggregate tell people what kind of --- to
> >have??? You're posting from an alternate reality again.
> >
> Sodomy laws?
What sodomy laws have been enacted since Republicans have held majorities in
Congress? Or have been in the Whitehouse? Or in the last few decades? Yeah,
sure there's some old laws that may be on the books, but it's still illegal to
take baths on Sundays in some states (Kentucky for one, IIRC) too.
#6909
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycanbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Lloyd Parker wrote:
> In article <3FCD3824.12530D76@greg.greg>, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
> >Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >
> >> In article <MK5zb.46$rE3.8@twister.socal.rr.com>,
> >> "David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> Yeah, that's a requirement for a grant, like your predecessors here
> >> >> >> say. You have to say 'and if funded, this project will destroy
> >> >> >> capitalism and further the crypto-communist agenda, destroying the
> >> >> >> middle class life style of myself and others like me and my family'.
> >> >> >> Bravo, you've figured it out. Down with science!!!
> >> >> >
> >> >> >This is the strategy of the left. When they find them on the wrong
> side
> >> >of
> >> >> >morality, they redefine morality. Now it's science. If you disagree
> >> >with
> >> >> >the "science" of global warming (and the global disaster it leads to)
> >> >then
> >> >> >you reject science. Likewise, morality is no longer fidelity, honesty,
> >> >> >personal responsibility. It's now support for the policies of the
> left,
> >> >> >like gay marriage and adopting the Kyoto protocol.
> >> >>
> >> >> Spoken like a good little creationist.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >Who? Me? I don't buy into "Creation Science". But the lefts
> redefinition
> >> >of "morality" and "science" is no different than what Creationists do to
> >> >force fit science into Genesis. Only it's force fit of science (and
> >> >religion) into anti-capitalism.
> >>
> >> No, you reject facts that don't fit your dogma. That's creationism.
> >>
> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >The groups standing behind extreme environmentalists are Socialists and
> >> >> >Communists. They are idealogical siblings to protect people from "evil
> >> >> >corporations".
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> And the folks standing behind you and your ilk are Fascists and *****.
> >> >Want
> >> >> to call names? OK.
> >> >
> >> >Not at all. When you see who shows up to those anti-globalist
> >> >(anti-corporate) demonstrations you see Socialist signs and booths all
> over
> >> >the place. No "name" calling was intended. And if you're looking for
> nasty
> >> >names to fit conservatives, you're really missing the mark with Fascist
> and
> >> >****. Those are on the opposite side of the political spectrum, away from
> >> >limited government.
> >>
> >> So are conservatives -- telling people what kind of --- to have, what
> genders
> >> can marry, what a woman can do with her body, etc.
> >
> >Since when to conservatives as an aggregate tell people what kind of --- to
> >have??? You're posting from an alternate reality again.
> >
> Sodomy laws?
What sodomy laws have been enacted since Republicans have held majorities in
Congress? Or have been in the Whitehouse? Or in the last few decades? Yeah,
sure there's some old laws that may be on the books, but it's still illegal to
take baths on Sundays in some states (Kentucky for one, IIRC) too.
#6910
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycanbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Lloyd Parker wrote:
> In article <3FCD3824.12530D76@greg.greg>, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
> >Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >
> >> In article <MK5zb.46$rE3.8@twister.socal.rr.com>,
> >> "David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> Yeah, that's a requirement for a grant, like your predecessors here
> >> >> >> say. You have to say 'and if funded, this project will destroy
> >> >> >> capitalism and further the crypto-communist agenda, destroying the
> >> >> >> middle class life style of myself and others like me and my family'.
> >> >> >> Bravo, you've figured it out. Down with science!!!
> >> >> >
> >> >> >This is the strategy of the left. When they find them on the wrong
> side
> >> >of
> >> >> >morality, they redefine morality. Now it's science. If you disagree
> >> >with
> >> >> >the "science" of global warming (and the global disaster it leads to)
> >> >then
> >> >> >you reject science. Likewise, morality is no longer fidelity, honesty,
> >> >> >personal responsibility. It's now support for the policies of the
> left,
> >> >> >like gay marriage and adopting the Kyoto protocol.
> >> >>
> >> >> Spoken like a good little creationist.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >Who? Me? I don't buy into "Creation Science". But the lefts
> redefinition
> >> >of "morality" and "science" is no different than what Creationists do to
> >> >force fit science into Genesis. Only it's force fit of science (and
> >> >religion) into anti-capitalism.
> >>
> >> No, you reject facts that don't fit your dogma. That's creationism.
> >>
> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >The groups standing behind extreme environmentalists are Socialists and
> >> >> >Communists. They are idealogical siblings to protect people from "evil
> >> >> >corporations".
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> And the folks standing behind you and your ilk are Fascists and *****.
> >> >Want
> >> >> to call names? OK.
> >> >
> >> >Not at all. When you see who shows up to those anti-globalist
> >> >(anti-corporate) demonstrations you see Socialist signs and booths all
> over
> >> >the place. No "name" calling was intended. And if you're looking for
> nasty
> >> >names to fit conservatives, you're really missing the mark with Fascist
> and
> >> >****. Those are on the opposite side of the political spectrum, away from
> >> >limited government.
> >>
> >> So are conservatives -- telling people what kind of --- to have, what
> genders
> >> can marry, what a woman can do with her body, etc.
> >
> >Since when to conservatives as an aggregate tell people what kind of --- to
> >have??? You're posting from an alternate reality again.
> >
> Sodomy laws?
What sodomy laws have been enacted since Republicans have held majorities in
Congress? Or have been in the Whitehouse? Or in the last few decades? Yeah,
sure there's some old laws that may be on the books, but it's still illegal to
take baths on Sundays in some states (Kentucky for one, IIRC) too.