Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#7051
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study aboutsafetycanbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
So you that you can have something to keep you busy.
George wrote:
> Why is this ---- in the car groups?
>
> "Daniel J. Stern" <dastern@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
> news:Pine.SOL.4.44.0312061547400.10056-100000@alumni.engin.umich.edu...
> > 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
> >
> >
George wrote:
> Why is this ---- in the car groups?
>
> "Daniel J. Stern" <dastern@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
> news:Pine.SOL.4.44.0312061547400.10056-100000@alumni.engin.umich.edu...
> > 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
> >
> >
#7055
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycan be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
"Bill Putney" <bputney@kinez.net> wrote in message
news:3FD15247.5A62FC42@kinez.net...
>
>
> Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >
> > In article <tdudnVxyI7goDlKiRTvUqA@texas.net>, Steve <no@spam.thanks>
wrote:
> > >Lloyd Parker wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >> And the US refusing to buy any military hardware from Airbus isn't a
form
> > of
> > >> subsidy to Boeing?
> > >>
> > >
> > >Nope. Lockheed, Northrop-Grumman, and even Gulfstream and Cessna are
> > >free to submit bids also. Its restricting military contracting to US
> > >companies, and I have no problem with that.
> > >
> > It's subsidizing US companies by giving only them government contracts.
>
>
> Ah - you must be referring to Nancy Pelosi's (sp?) husband.
>
Tom Daschle's wife is a lobbiest for Boeing. Remember that dirty rotten
lease deal?
> 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! =-----
#7056
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycan be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
"Bill Putney" <bputney@kinez.net> wrote in message
news:3FD15247.5A62FC42@kinez.net...
>
>
> Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >
> > In article <tdudnVxyI7goDlKiRTvUqA@texas.net>, Steve <no@spam.thanks>
wrote:
> > >Lloyd Parker wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >> And the US refusing to buy any military hardware from Airbus isn't a
form
> > of
> > >> subsidy to Boeing?
> > >>
> > >
> > >Nope. Lockheed, Northrop-Grumman, and even Gulfstream and Cessna are
> > >free to submit bids also. Its restricting military contracting to US
> > >companies, and I have no problem with that.
> > >
> > It's subsidizing US companies by giving only them government contracts.
>
>
> Ah - you must be referring to Nancy Pelosi's (sp?) husband.
>
Tom Daschle's wife is a lobbiest for Boeing. Remember that dirty rotten
lease deal?
> 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! =-----
#7057
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycan be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
"Bill Putney" <bputney@kinez.net> wrote in message
news:3FD15247.5A62FC42@kinez.net...
>
>
> Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >
> > In article <tdudnVxyI7goDlKiRTvUqA@texas.net>, Steve <no@spam.thanks>
wrote:
> > >Lloyd Parker wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >> And the US refusing to buy any military hardware from Airbus isn't a
form
> > of
> > >> subsidy to Boeing?
> > >>
> > >
> > >Nope. Lockheed, Northrop-Grumman, and even Gulfstream and Cessna are
> > >free to submit bids also. Its restricting military contracting to US
> > >companies, and I have no problem with that.
> > >
> > It's subsidizing US companies by giving only them government contracts.
>
>
> Ah - you must be referring to Nancy Pelosi's (sp?) husband.
>
Tom Daschle's wife is a lobbiest for Boeing. Remember that dirty rotten
lease deal?
> 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! =-----
#7058
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety canbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
"Brandon Sommerville" <grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote in message
news:e039db6b422e40b19d80083bd626b86f@news.teranew s.com...
> On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 18:32:03 -0500, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
>
> >x-no-archive: yes
> >
> >Brandon Sommerville wrote:
> >
> >> On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 15:08:11 -0500, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Brandon Sommerville wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 00:35:30 -0500, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >Siblings cannot either. I don't see you pointing out the
'discrimination' here.
> >> >>
> >> >> There are significant medical reasons for disallowing siblings to
> >> >> marry. Are you suggesting that there are similar reasons preventing
> >> >> gays from marrying?
> >> >
> >> >Only if the siblings are opposite --- & producing children is
involved. Clearly
> >> >producing children is not a factor for gay marriage, why should it be
for sibling
> >> >marriage? 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?
> >>
> >> Children are impossible in a gay marriage. They are not impossible in
> >> a sibling marriage.
> >
> >Then why ban gay, sibling marriages, or marriages between sterilized
siblings where
> >children are impossible?
>
> An interesting question. Now that I think about it, incest was fairly
> common amongst royalty in a number of different cultures.
>
> Do I support it? No. Why? Because it's far simpler to ban
> incestuous marriages in total than to just ban specific types based on
> testing. Suppose the tests were wrong?
>
> Now, back to the real question, what do you specifically have against
> gay marriage?
Maybe you've missed many of the earlier posts.
> --
> Brandon Sommerville
> remove ".gov" to e-mail
>
> Definition of "Lottery":
> Millions of stupid people contributing
> to make one stupid person look smart.
#7059
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety canbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
"Brandon Sommerville" <grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote in message
news:e039db6b422e40b19d80083bd626b86f@news.teranew s.com...
> On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 18:32:03 -0500, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
>
> >x-no-archive: yes
> >
> >Brandon Sommerville wrote:
> >
> >> On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 15:08:11 -0500, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Brandon Sommerville wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 00:35:30 -0500, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >Siblings cannot either. I don't see you pointing out the
'discrimination' here.
> >> >>
> >> >> There are significant medical reasons for disallowing siblings to
> >> >> marry. Are you suggesting that there are similar reasons preventing
> >> >> gays from marrying?
> >> >
> >> >Only if the siblings are opposite --- & producing children is
involved. Clearly
> >> >producing children is not a factor for gay marriage, why should it be
for sibling
> >> >marriage? 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?
> >>
> >> Children are impossible in a gay marriage. They are not impossible in
> >> a sibling marriage.
> >
> >Then why ban gay, sibling marriages, or marriages between sterilized
siblings where
> >children are impossible?
>
> An interesting question. Now that I think about it, incest was fairly
> common amongst royalty in a number of different cultures.
>
> Do I support it? No. Why? Because it's far simpler to ban
> incestuous marriages in total than to just ban specific types based on
> testing. Suppose the tests were wrong?
>
> Now, back to the real question, what do you specifically have against
> gay marriage?
Maybe you've missed many of the earlier posts.
> --
> Brandon Sommerville
> remove ".gov" to e-mail
>
> Definition of "Lottery":
> Millions of stupid people contributing
> to make one stupid person look smart.
#7060
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety canbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
"Brandon Sommerville" <grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote in message
news:e039db6b422e40b19d80083bd626b86f@news.teranew s.com...
> On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 18:32:03 -0500, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
>
> >x-no-archive: yes
> >
> >Brandon Sommerville wrote:
> >
> >> On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 15:08:11 -0500, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Brandon Sommerville wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 00:35:30 -0500, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >Siblings cannot either. I don't see you pointing out the
'discrimination' here.
> >> >>
> >> >> There are significant medical reasons for disallowing siblings to
> >> >> marry. Are you suggesting that there are similar reasons preventing
> >> >> gays from marrying?
> >> >
> >> >Only if the siblings are opposite --- & producing children is
involved. Clearly
> >> >producing children is not a factor for gay marriage, why should it be
for sibling
> >> >marriage? 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?
> >>
> >> Children are impossible in a gay marriage. They are not impossible in
> >> a sibling marriage.
> >
> >Then why ban gay, sibling marriages, or marriages between sterilized
siblings where
> >children are impossible?
>
> An interesting question. Now that I think about it, incest was fairly
> common amongst royalty in a number of different cultures.
>
> Do I support it? No. Why? Because it's far simpler to ban
> incestuous marriages in total than to just ban specific types based on
> testing. Suppose the tests were wrong?
>
> Now, back to the real question, what do you specifically have against
> gay marriage?
Maybe you've missed many of the earlier posts.
> --
> Brandon Sommerville
> remove ".gov" to e-mail
>
> Definition of "Lottery":
> Millions of stupid people contributing
> to make one stupid person look smart.