Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#6911
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study aboutsafetycanbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On Sat, 6 Dec 2003, Bill Putney wrote:
> > > I just believe that there is a "natural" order to things.
> >
> > ...which, apparently, includes only those things you deem "natural".
>
> Well, yeah! Based on a higher authority that I know you have a problem
> with.
I have no problem with your higher authority. My problem is with your
attempting to force me to accede to your higher authority.
DS
> > > I just believe that there is a "natural" order to things.
> >
> > ...which, apparently, includes only those things you deem "natural".
>
> Well, yeah! Based on a higher authority that I know you have a problem
> with.
I have no problem with your higher authority. My problem is with your
attempting to force me to accede to your higher authority.
DS
#6912
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study aboutsafetycanbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On Sat, 6 Dec 2003, Bill Putney wrote:
> > > I just believe that there is a "natural" order to things.
> >
> > ...which, apparently, includes only those things you deem "natural".
>
> Well, yeah! Based on a higher authority that I know you have a problem
> with.
I have no problem with your higher authority. My problem is with your
attempting to force me to accede to your higher authority.
DS
> > > I just believe that there is a "natural" order to things.
> >
> > ...which, apparently, includes only those things you deem "natural".
>
> Well, yeah! Based on a higher authority that I know you have a problem
> with.
I have no problem with your higher authority. My problem is with your
attempting to force me to accede to your higher authority.
DS
#6913
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study aboutsafetycanbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On Sat, 6 Dec 2003, Bill Putney wrote:
> > > I just believe that there is a "natural" order to things.
> >
> > ...which, apparently, includes only those things you deem "natural".
>
> Well, yeah! Based on a higher authority that I know you have a problem
> with.
I have no problem with your higher authority. My problem is with your
attempting to force me to accede to your higher authority.
DS
> > > I just believe that there is a "natural" order to things.
> >
> > ...which, apparently, includes only those things you deem "natural".
>
> Well, yeah! Based on a higher authority that I know you have a problem
> with.
I have no problem with your higher authority. My problem is with your
attempting to force me to accede to your higher authority.
DS
#6914
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety canbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Bill Funk wrote:
> 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.
Perhaps Lloyd can provide a list of sites that are approved by him as a source for
"facts?" I'd wager it's a short list.
> 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.
Perhaps Lloyd can provide a list of sites that are approved by him as a source for
"facts?" I'd wager it's a short list.
#6915
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety canbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Bill Funk wrote:
> 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.
Perhaps Lloyd can provide a list of sites that are approved by him as a source for
"facts?" I'd wager it's a short list.
> 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.
Perhaps Lloyd can provide a list of sites that are approved by him as a source for
"facts?" I'd wager it's a short list.
#6916
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety canbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Bill Funk wrote:
> 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.
Perhaps Lloyd can provide a list of sites that are approved by him as a source for
"facts?" I'd wager it's a short list.
> 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.
Perhaps Lloyd can provide a list of sites that are approved by him as a source for
"facts?" I'd wager it's a short list.
#6917
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study aboutsafetycanbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Brandon Sommerville wrote:
>
> On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 00:34:45 -0500, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
> >
> >Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >
> >> In article <3FCE2318.F0DD5CF7@mindspring.com>,
> >> "C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >The "new class of civil union" would cover that just fine.
> >> >>
> >> >> Didn't "separate but equal" get discredited in the 1950s?
> >> >
> >> >This statement is the sort of crap uttered by psudeo-liberals that I find
> >> >particularly offensive. Trying to redine the word "marriage" to cover same
> >> >--- unions is not discrimination.
> >> >
> >> Why is telling some people they don't have a right others have NOT
> >> discrimination?
> >
> >Everybody (of age) has the same right to marry somebody of the opposite ---.
>
> Why not just acknowledge that they have the right to marry?
Because that would be a lie. That's like asking "Why not just
acknowledge that mixing two parts spam with three parts bread crumbs
will produce water. You could acknowledge it, but it doesn't make it
true.
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! =-----
#6918
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study aboutsafetycanbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Brandon Sommerville wrote:
>
> On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 00:34:45 -0500, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
> >
> >Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >
> >> In article <3FCE2318.F0DD5CF7@mindspring.com>,
> >> "C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >The "new class of civil union" would cover that just fine.
> >> >>
> >> >> Didn't "separate but equal" get discredited in the 1950s?
> >> >
> >> >This statement is the sort of crap uttered by psudeo-liberals that I find
> >> >particularly offensive. Trying to redine the word "marriage" to cover same
> >> >--- unions is not discrimination.
> >> >
> >> Why is telling some people they don't have a right others have NOT
> >> discrimination?
> >
> >Everybody (of age) has the same right to marry somebody of the opposite ---.
>
> Why not just acknowledge that they have the right to marry?
Because that would be a lie. That's like asking "Why not just
acknowledge that mixing two parts spam with three parts bread crumbs
will produce water. You could acknowledge it, but it doesn't make it
true.
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! =-----
#6919
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study aboutsafetycanbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Brandon Sommerville wrote:
>
> On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 00:34:45 -0500, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
> >
> >Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >
> >> In article <3FCE2318.F0DD5CF7@mindspring.com>,
> >> "C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >The "new class of civil union" would cover that just fine.
> >> >>
> >> >> Didn't "separate but equal" get discredited in the 1950s?
> >> >
> >> >This statement is the sort of crap uttered by psudeo-liberals that I find
> >> >particularly offensive. Trying to redine the word "marriage" to cover same
> >> >--- unions is not discrimination.
> >> >
> >> Why is telling some people they don't have a right others have NOT
> >> discrimination?
> >
> >Everybody (of age) has the same right to marry somebody of the opposite ---.
>
> Why not just acknowledge that they have the right to marry?
Because that would be a lie. That's like asking "Why not just
acknowledge that mixing two parts spam with three parts bread crumbs
will produce water. You could acknowledge it, but it doesn't make it
true.
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! =-----
#6920
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, Bill Putney wrote:
>
> > The issue I was discussing was the changing of the definiton of marriage
> > to satisfy everyone's desires
>
> Slippery-slope arguments have never held much persuasive or logical
> weight.
>
> > You claim discrimination by excluding gays. I claim that others could
> > claim that you would want to discriminate against them because you would
> > exlude non-adults, non-humans, or even non-living things for those
> > humans that wanted to marry, say, their dog, tree, torque wrench, etc.
>
> And this is a slippery-slope argument totally divorced, as it were, from
> any reality.
Why is it a slippery slope argument?