Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#6931
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study aboutsafetycanbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On Sat, 6 Dec 2003, Greg wrote:
> The defining difference between homosexuals and heterosexuals is the
> type of activity they each engage in
Repetition does not bolster this statement's validity.
> unless you know of other differences unrelated to sexuality.
The gender of people with whom homosexuals fall in love with...?
DS
> The defining difference between homosexuals and heterosexuals is the
> type of activity they each engage in
Repetition does not bolster this statement's validity.
> unless you know of other differences unrelated to sexuality.
The gender of people with whom homosexuals fall in love with...?
DS
#6932
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study aboutsafetycanbemisinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Brandon Sommerville wrote:
>
> On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 08:50:56 -0500, Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net>
> wrote:
> >
> >"Daniel J. Stern" 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.
> >
> >But the idea of a gay "couple" being officially married is almost as
> >ridiculous according to the established and recognized definition of
> >marriage. Either the difinition allows gays to be married or it
> >doesn't. Either it allows a man to marry a dog or it doesn't. We might
> >as well get off this one as neither one of us is gonna budge.
>
> Are you assigning to a dog or a tree the same capabilities and legal
> status as a human?
No, but if you can arbitrarily assign marriage rights to gays, then why
wouldn't someone be able to assign human legal status to a dog (and - no
- before someone says it, I am not equating gays to dogs). BTW - there
are people who want to do that (i.e., grant certain human legal and
consititutional status to animals). There are also people who would
also want to assign the same legal status to children as adults (i.e.,
erase the distinction), which of course leaves you open to pedopholia
becoming a meaningless word, and NAMBLA will have won its fight that the
UN tried to assist in in the 90's but thank God got publicly exposed by
the "evil" right wingers and stopped single-handedly by the U.S.
Congress (with nary a word from the left or European countries).
I can easily visualize, maybe not the evolution of our legal system to
accepting marriage to dogs (although, frankly nothing would surprise
me), but certainly, one layer of the onion at a time, to where there
will legally be no distinction between children and adults, and
therefore legal pedophilia (the phrase "consenting adults" will become
meaningless, legally).
I assure you - there are those who have those things on their agenda to
be done when the time comes (i.e., when the public is sufficiently
prepared and ready for it - when it's only just one more tiny
"insignificant" incremental step beyond the last one).
And at each step, the left swears and declares "Oh - this is the last
step - we won't go beyond this - just grant us this one concession.
Just allow us to engage in sodomy in our own homes, and we won't ask for
recognition of gay marriage - it's only those religious people that lie
and say that that's what we plan to do - we won't go any furhter -
honest!"
Or now: "Just grant us the right to get married - we promise not to
erase the distinction between adults and children - it's only those
religious people that lie and say that that's what we plan to do - we
won't do that - honest!"
I can hear it now: "There it is - one of them religious right-wingers
bringing up that bogus 'slippery slope' argument". Don't tell me it's
not happening.
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! =-----
#6933
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study aboutsafetycanbemisinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Brandon Sommerville wrote:
>
> On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 08:50:56 -0500, Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net>
> wrote:
> >
> >"Daniel J. Stern" 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.
> >
> >But the idea of a gay "couple" being officially married is almost as
> >ridiculous according to the established and recognized definition of
> >marriage. Either the difinition allows gays to be married or it
> >doesn't. Either it allows a man to marry a dog or it doesn't. We might
> >as well get off this one as neither one of us is gonna budge.
>
> Are you assigning to a dog or a tree the same capabilities and legal
> status as a human?
No, but if you can arbitrarily assign marriage rights to gays, then why
wouldn't someone be able to assign human legal status to a dog (and - no
- before someone says it, I am not equating gays to dogs). BTW - there
are people who want to do that (i.e., grant certain human legal and
consititutional status to animals). There are also people who would
also want to assign the same legal status to children as adults (i.e.,
erase the distinction), which of course leaves you open to pedopholia
becoming a meaningless word, and NAMBLA will have won its fight that the
UN tried to assist in in the 90's but thank God got publicly exposed by
the "evil" right wingers and stopped single-handedly by the U.S.
Congress (with nary a word from the left or European countries).
I can easily visualize, maybe not the evolution of our legal system to
accepting marriage to dogs (although, frankly nothing would surprise
me), but certainly, one layer of the onion at a time, to where there
will legally be no distinction between children and adults, and
therefore legal pedophilia (the phrase "consenting adults" will become
meaningless, legally).
I assure you - there are those who have those things on their agenda to
be done when the time comes (i.e., when the public is sufficiently
prepared and ready for it - when it's only just one more tiny
"insignificant" incremental step beyond the last one).
And at each step, the left swears and declares "Oh - this is the last
step - we won't go beyond this - just grant us this one concession.
Just allow us to engage in sodomy in our own homes, and we won't ask for
recognition of gay marriage - it's only those religious people that lie
and say that that's what we plan to do - we won't go any furhter -
honest!"
Or now: "Just grant us the right to get married - we promise not to
erase the distinction between adults and children - it's only those
religious people that lie and say that that's what we plan to do - we
won't do that - honest!"
I can hear it now: "There it is - one of them religious right-wingers
bringing up that bogus 'slippery slope' argument". Don't tell me it's
not happening.
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! =-----
#6934
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study aboutsafetycanbemisinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Brandon Sommerville wrote:
>
> On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 08:50:56 -0500, Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net>
> wrote:
> >
> >"Daniel J. Stern" 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.
> >
> >But the idea of a gay "couple" being officially married is almost as
> >ridiculous according to the established and recognized definition of
> >marriage. Either the difinition allows gays to be married or it
> >doesn't. Either it allows a man to marry a dog or it doesn't. We might
> >as well get off this one as neither one of us is gonna budge.
>
> Are you assigning to a dog or a tree the same capabilities and legal
> status as a human?
No, but if you can arbitrarily assign marriage rights to gays, then why
wouldn't someone be able to assign human legal status to a dog (and - no
- before someone says it, I am not equating gays to dogs). BTW - there
are people who want to do that (i.e., grant certain human legal and
consititutional status to animals). There are also people who would
also want to assign the same legal status to children as adults (i.e.,
erase the distinction), which of course leaves you open to pedopholia
becoming a meaningless word, and NAMBLA will have won its fight that the
UN tried to assist in in the 90's but thank God got publicly exposed by
the "evil" right wingers and stopped single-handedly by the U.S.
Congress (with nary a word from the left or European countries).
I can easily visualize, maybe not the evolution of our legal system to
accepting marriage to dogs (although, frankly nothing would surprise
me), but certainly, one layer of the onion at a time, to where there
will legally be no distinction between children and adults, and
therefore legal pedophilia (the phrase "consenting adults" will become
meaningless, legally).
I assure you - there are those who have those things on their agenda to
be done when the time comes (i.e., when the public is sufficiently
prepared and ready for it - when it's only just one more tiny
"insignificant" incremental step beyond the last one).
And at each step, the left swears and declares "Oh - this is the last
step - we won't go beyond this - just grant us this one concession.
Just allow us to engage in sodomy in our own homes, and we won't ask for
recognition of gay marriage - it's only those religious people that lie
and say that that's what we plan to do - we won't go any furhter -
honest!"
Or now: "Just grant us the right to get married - we promise not to
erase the distinction between adults and children - it's only those
religious people that lie and say that that's what we plan to do - we
won't do that - honest!"
I can hear it now: "There it is - one of them religious right-wingers
bringing up that bogus 'slippery slope' argument". Don't tell me it's
not happening.
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! =-----
#6935
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study aboutsafetycanbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
"Daniel J. Stern" wrote:
>
> 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.
And of course you want me to accede to your higher authority when my
higher authority says I can't. So again, it boils down to we believe
what we believe, and we act on those beliefs (at the voting booth), and
may the best man win. Even if he doesn't win, it will all be sorted out
in the end by my higher authority - sorry - I didn't write the rules.
Don't like them? Compain to my higher authority.
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! =-----
#6936
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study aboutsafetycanbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
"Daniel J. Stern" wrote:
>
> 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.
And of course you want me to accede to your higher authority when my
higher authority says I can't. So again, it boils down to we believe
what we believe, and we act on those beliefs (at the voting booth), and
may the best man win. Even if he doesn't win, it will all be sorted out
in the end by my higher authority - sorry - I didn't write the rules.
Don't like them? Compain to my higher authority.
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! =-----
#6937
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study aboutsafetycanbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
"Daniel J. Stern" wrote:
>
> 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.
And of course you want me to accede to your higher authority when my
higher authority says I can't. So again, it boils down to we believe
what we believe, and we act on those beliefs (at the voting booth), and
may the best man win. Even if he doesn't win, it will all be sorted out
in the end by my higher authority - sorry - I didn't write the rules.
Don't like them? Compain to my higher authority.
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! =-----
#6938
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycanbemisinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 15:53:27 -0500, Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net>
wrote:
snip of a whole bunch of facts that any intelligent person would know
to be true...
>Bill Putney
What are you, Bill, one of those crack head right wing power hungry
kill all the innocent and rape the poor republicans? :-D
wrote:
snip of a whole bunch of facts that any intelligent person would know
to be true...
>Bill Putney
What are you, Bill, one of those crack head right wing power hungry
kill all the innocent and rape the poor republicans? :-D
#6939
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycanbemisinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 15:53:27 -0500, Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net>
wrote:
snip of a whole bunch of facts that any intelligent person would know
to be true...
>Bill Putney
What are you, Bill, one of those crack head right wing power hungry
kill all the innocent and rape the poor republicans? :-D
wrote:
snip of a whole bunch of facts that any intelligent person would know
to be true...
>Bill Putney
What are you, Bill, one of those crack head right wing power hungry
kill all the innocent and rape the poor republicans? :-D
#6940
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycanbemisinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 15:53:27 -0500, Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net>
wrote:
snip of a whole bunch of facts that any intelligent person would know
to be true...
>Bill Putney
What are you, Bill, one of those crack head right wing power hungry
kill all the innocent and rape the poor republicans? :-D
wrote:
snip of a whole bunch of facts that any intelligent person would know
to be true...
>Bill Putney
What are you, Bill, one of those crack head right wing power hungry
kill all the innocent and rape the poor republicans? :-D