Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers

  • Thread starter Dianelos Georgoudis
  • Start date
This site contains affiliate links for which LandyZone may be compensated if you make a purchase.


Lloyd Parker wrote:

> >I have admitted nothing about myself. It is an established fact that
> >millions of people are against redefining marriage to include same sex
> >unions.
>
> In the 19th century, the same could be said about popular opposition to ending
> slavery.

And yet slavery was ended (at least in the US). And it wasn't ended by redefining
the word slave to mean something else. You keep equating my distaste for the way
some groups want to implement a goal with a distate for the goal. This is not
correct. If you want to grant identical rights to same sex unions and marriage, go
ahead, just don't do it my having some judge decide the legal meaning of the word
"marriage" has magically changed to include same sex unions.

Ed

 

"Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "The Ancient One" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >"Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >> In article <[email protected]>,
> >> "The Ancient One" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >"Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> >news:[email protected]...
> >> >> In article <[email protected]>, Greg <[email protected]>
wrote:
> >> >> >Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> Yeah, it'd be terrible if everybody were covered and we spent
less
> >on
> >> >> health
> >> >> >> care, as Europe, Canada, and Japan do, wouldn't it? Terrible for
> >> >insurance
> >> >> >> companies, drug companies, HMOs, etc, that is.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Many HMOs are not even for profit.
> >> >>
> >> >> Huh? They're all run by insurance companies, and they sure are for
> >> >profit.
> >> >> In most states, even Blue Cross is now for profit.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> > And let's attack drug companies and put them
> >> >> >out of business.
> >> >>
> >> >> 1. They earn a greater return on capital than any other industry.
> >> >> 2. They take drugs discovered and tested with tax-funded research
and
> >make
> >> >> huge profits on them.
> >> >> 3. They do fine in other countries where they aren't allowed such
> >> >exorbitant
> >> >> profits.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> > After all we can all just invent our own miracle drugs,
> >> >>
> >> >> Most are -- most new drugs come out of government-funded university
> >> >research.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> >so who
> >> >> >needs pharmecutical companies? I'm sure you've contributed even
more
> >> >useful
> >> >> drugs
> >> >> >than average given your superior chemistry background. Finally,
> >having
> >> >the
> >> >> >government do as a monopoly what the private sector can do is
> >socialism
> >> >you'd
> >> >> end
> >> >> >up spending far more under your socialism plan.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> But why not a single-payer, like Canada then? You wouldn't have
> >> >national
> >> >> >> health care, just national health insurance.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Huh? Even HillaryClintonCare was forecast to cost in double digit
> >> >TRILLIONS
> >> >> of
> >> >> >dollars.
> >> >>
> >> >> And what do you think we spend now on health care?
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> > And yes, the Canada care system with its people fleeing to the US
to
> >get
> >> >> >needed healthcare would be an improvement in your alternate
reality.
> >> >>
> >> >> Totally false.
> >> >
> >> >Totally true, reported many times in the news. Stop lying Parker, it
> >doesn't
> >> >work, we are all smarter than you, even my dog.
> >>
> >> It's false. Totally, absolutely false. Read:
> >
> >Oh great, more of your left wing propaganda.
> >It's true Lloyd, learn to read, watch the news, open your mind. Consumer
> >Reports, give me a break, what a sorry source of left wing lies.
>
> I see your IQ is still below room temperature.

Mine is 162, what's your's Lloyd?
It's simple really. The Canadian Government allows X amount of money for
healthcare in a given year. When actual costs exceed that amount, the
patients must wait until more money is found. True costs are much higher
because people feel if they are paying for "free" healthcare then they are
going to use it.
For example, in America a guy wakes up with a headache, he takes two asperin
and goes about his business. In Canada the same guy would think, hey, I
could take two asperin, but I'm paying half my paycheck every week to the
Government for "free" healthcare, I'm going to get my moneys worth. So he
heads to the emergengy room for a full examination, at the end of which the
Doctor prescribes two asperin. THAT is why your health care plan falls short
in every single country it is used in, far to many people visiting the
Emergency room for minor ailments they could treat themselves, simply
because it's "free". Once the budget is spent though, you take a number and
wait for new budget appropriations, or you come to America where healthcare
comes before budget considerations. You bash our healthcare system, but
people come here from virtually every nation on Earth for treatment, because
we have the best hospitals, the best Technology, the best Treatment, Period.
Your plan would destroy all that, and not only hurt Americans, but every
criticaly ill patient on Earth who currently benifits from it.
I know this is to complex for your limited intellect to comprehend though,
so lets just say that you are wrong again, as you always are.




 
On Thu, 4 Dec 2003, Dan Gates wrote:

2> Canada does a pretty good job at emergency care, but you don't see many
2> new innotative surgeries, drugs, and techniques coming out of Canada at
2> all.

> Actually, our research facilities and findings are second to none. Since
> we don't have too many "Designer Clinics" you are right, we don't
> develop needless, high-cost surgical practises that are funded by the
> very richest individuals, but our advancement of transplant
> technologies, cancer therapies, etc has been significant (for a country
> with 1/10th the population of the Excited States). Admittedly, the
> government healthcare system will not pay for un-proven, touchy-feely
> "treatments" advanced by some shaman from Mexico! If it is proven in a
> properly-designed, double-blind study to be effective, it is normally
> added to the "covered" list.

....it's worth noting here that massage therapy for a wide range of
ailments and injuries *is* covered under OHIP. The training and licencing
standards for LMTs are accordingly tougher. This is a great example of how
the Canadian system doesn't just toss everyone an aspirin and say "get
lost" as those who've no direct experience with it seem to think.

DS

 

"Daniel J. Stern" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:p[email protected]...
> On Wed, 3 Dec 2003, Jerry McG wrote:
>
> > > I daresay you don't know what you're talking about. I'm an American
living
> > > here in Canada, and guess what? Canada's healthcare system is *vastly*
> > > better than the US system in the vast majority of cases. Are there
> > > exceptions? Surely. There's no such thing as perfection. But the
Canadian
> > > system does a much better job of handling most of the healthcare needs
of
> > > most of the people at a reasonable cost.
>
> > I had exposure to both the UKs socialized medicine and Canadian health
> > care....run away! A Brit friend was visiting our offices in the States
and
> > took a run up to Toronto to see the Company's Canadian operations. While
> > there she got the unmistakable signs of appendicitis. The Canadians
basicaly
> > forced her onto a plane to get her over the border to the USA, telling
her
> > she wanted NOTHING to do with the Canadian health care system. EMS met
her
> > at the airport, rushed her to the hospital where she had an emergency
> > appendectomy within minutes of arrival. She then convalesced for four
days
> > "in hospital", as the Brits would say.
>
> So your perception of Canadian healthcare is based on the experience of a
> friend of yours who was warned off the system by some unknown other
> individuals.
>
> Mine is based on getting very suddenly struck down with a large and lodged
> kidney stone at 4 in the morning while in Toronto. Extremely painful, but
> not life threatening. I was diagnosed, treated, operated upon and
> prescribed suitable meds in a fast, efficient, capable, thorough manner.

You were lucky they still had money in the budget at that time, otherwise
you would have been placed on a waiting list.

>
> I think my firsthand experience beats your fourth-hand crapola.
>
> DS
>


 

"Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Jerry McG" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >"Daniel J. Stern" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:p[email protected]...
> >> On Wed, 3 Dec 2003, Jerry McG wrote:
> >>
> >> > > I daresay you don't know what you're talking about. I'm an American
> >living
> >> > > here in Canada, and guess what? Canada's healthcare system is
*vastly*
> >> > > better than the US system in the vast majority of cases. Are there
> >> > > exceptions? Surely. There's no such thing as perfection. But the
> >Canadian
> >> > > system does a much better job of handling most of the healthcare
needs
> >of
> >> > > most of the people at a reasonable cost.
> >>
> >> > I had exposure to both the UKs socialized medicine and Canadian
health
> >> > care....run away! A Brit friend was visiting our offices in the
States
> >and
> >> > took a run up to Toronto to see the Company's Canadian operations.
While
> >> > there she got the unmistakable signs of appendicitis. The Canadians
> >basicaly
> >> > forced her onto a plane to get her over the border to the USA,
telling
> >her
> >> > she wanted NOTHING to do with the Canadian health care system. EMS
met
> >her
> >> > at the airport, rushed her to the hospital where she had an emergency
> >> > appendectomy within minutes of arrival. She then convalesced for four
> >days
> >> > "in hospital", as the Brits would say.
> >>
> >> So your perception of Canadian healthcare is based on the experience of
a
> >> friend of yours who was warned off the system by some unknown other
> >> individuals.
> >>
> >> Mine is based on getting very suddenly struck down with a large and
lodged
> >> kidney stone at 4 in the morning while in Toronto. Extremely painful,
but
> >> not life threatening. I was diagnosed, treated, operated upon and
> >> prescribed suitable meds in a fast, efficient, capable, thorough
manner.
> >>
> >> I think my firsthand experience beats your fourth-hand crapola.
> >>
> >> DS
> >
> >Mr. Stern, the individual in question reported this to me firsthand, and
is
> >a UK citizen with full knowledge of their "system". The Canadians in
> >question are my friends. I do not appreciate your characterization of my
> >references as "crapola", sorry you don't agree. Americans are being fed a
> >pile of **** about the so called "superior" Canadian health care system,
or
> >the socialized meds of Europe. Both systems are institutionalized
mediocrity
> >at best. When their own citizens live in fear of receiving timely
TREATMENT
> >of illness, the system is a crock.
> >
> >
> Obejctive studies find the opposite, and I hardly think a right-wing shill
> like you has much credibility on the issue anyway.


Your lying again Lloyd, and Richard Nixon has more credibility than you.


 
In article <[email protected]>, David J. Allen wrote:

> Okay, I can't go toe to toe with you on that, but my point was more about
> being able to respond to demand. One of the reasons Verizon and Sprint
> haven't used Nokia phones is Nokia's foot dragging with respect to CDMA
> phones.

There are alot of reasons why a company could lose a handset deal with
a carrier.

> For Nokia, the world revolves around GSM and they came marching
> into the US thinking they could call the shots... after all, they have such
> a huge worldwide marketshare and so much of the world uses GSM. But in the
> US, there are competing technologies and competing providers and if you want
> to maximize your presence you better be able and willing to respond to
> demand. There is less of that atmosphere in Europe. It's all one standard.

I worked on GSM product. The demands are just as great. And because it
is all one standard the competition is even tougher. There is nobody
locked in to your product, or with few other choices. Constant improvement
was a requirement. Things like dual band, and tri-band GSM phones. GPRS,
etc. Being the first to market with them and selling as many of them
as possible before competitors came out with their models.

In the USA the different systems would allow for a company to get way
ahead in or two of the MAs or even have captive customers like NEXTEL.

> I think it's similar to the European attitude that accepts that government
> can provide healthcare for all. It works at a certain level and people have
> decided they can accept the consequences, good and bad, of that kind of
> system. People here are different. There are competing models for
> healthcare here.

No it's not similar at all. GSM is like the european standards for
headlamps and other technical things. A unification so that one can
go easily from one country to the next. I would be like if someone
who lived in ohio drove on the left while those in IN drove on the right
side of the road if they didn't do this. Such technology concerns are
an outgrowth of being close together.


> For us to hand it over to the government for a single
> monolithic model is analogous to us handing over telecommunications to the
> government and specifying a single standard. Would it work? Sure. Just
> like in Europe.

> But I think you have to accept that CDMA is pushing the
> technology in wireless.

This was because it was decided to use CDMA for 3G. A world-wide decision
on a standard. Yep, the very process you are arguing against.

> I think phone features is another issue. I believe
> that Verizon and Sprint have more power to specify phone features in the
> CDMA marketplace as providers than the phone manufacturers do. It's less
> about GSM or CDMA than it is about resonding to demand pressures. It's
> Verizon and Sprint that are specifying phone features, not Nokia. That was
> my point about the difference between European and US markets.

Features come about in two ways, the manufacturers come up with ideas
and try to sell them or the carrier decides they want X and the
manufacturers try to make it work.

 


Lloyd Parker wrote:

>
> >It is commendable that you have appointed yourself the voice of science. I
> >wonder if all scientist would agree with the appointment?
>
> Do you have any idea how many scientists agree with me on GW? About the same
> percentage that'd you'd find agreeing that evolution is real, for example.

I don't know. Is there a poll available? And when you say they agree with you -
do you mean completely agree with you, or agree with certain points. For
instance, they may agree that the concept of global warming due to CO2 is valid
but they may disagree on the magnitude, effects, or the suggested remedies. I
think you overstate the level of agreement in an attempt to give more weight to
your particular beliefs. But that is just my personal opinion (not backed by any
other group).

Ed

 
On Thu, 4 Dec 2003, Dan Gates wrote:

> Canada's healthcare system has been cut to pieces by Reaganist
> neo-Conservatives.

Mike Harris did *tremendous* damage with thoughtless slashing once the
Federal government downloaded a lot of responsibility to the provinces.

> Savings had to be realized, clearly, but the cuts went to the bone,
> where they should have gone to the fat.

That said, even the results of Harris' hackjob are better than the US
"managed care" mess.

DS

 


Lloyd Parker wrote:

> >Married people have rights that unmarried people don't have. Is that
> >discrimination?
>
> No, but when you prevent an entire class from getting married so they CAN have
> those rights, that is.

Sigh, talk about circular arguments. The traditional legal definition of a
marriage is a union between a man and a woman. Without changing the definition of
the word, same sex couples can't get married in a legal sense. They could be
granted the same rights by passing a law that made same sex unions equivalent to a
traditional marriage. Why is this concept so hard for you to understand. When laws
were enacted to provide rights to married couples, no one conceived that it would
apply to same sex unions. I think it is desirable that same sex couple have those
same rights and responsibilities. I just don't think this should be implemented by
redefining the long established legal meaning of the word "marriage."

Ed

 

"Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Bill Putney <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >>
> >> In article <[email protected]>,
> >> Bill Putney <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > And yes, the Canada care system with its people fleeing to the US
to
> get
> >> >> >needed healthcare would be an improvement in your alternate
reality.
> >> >>
> >> >> Totally false.
> >> >
> >> >True. I personally witnessed this while actively spending over a year
> >> >on an internet forum strictly for parents of a certain childhood form
of
> >> >cancer. There were people from all over the world on there, but
> >> >particularly the U.S., Canada, and Britain. The gross malpractice
that
> >> >we witnessed on children in Canada due to its metered out healthcare
was
> >> >atrocious. The U.S. was the mecca of successful treatment.
> >>
> >> If you're rich.
> >
> >Uh - excuse me, but my daughter's medical bills in one year were more
> >than I gross in ten years. You still skirted the issue, which was that
> >Canada's healthcare system sucks.
>
> You've still provided no objective source for that, whereas I have.

You've never provided an objective source for anything in your life Lloyd.
Personally I read every article I can find on a subject that interest me,
and use all the information, From BOTH sides, to come to an informed
conclusion. You simply parrot what you read on left wing sites and call it
science. Your a lier, a fool, and an idiot. I only reply to you because it
is so much fun to remind you of your place at the bottom.

>
> Canada's a democracy; if their health care system is so bad, why haven't
the
> people gotten rid of it?

Because they can run to the emergency room every time they get a papercut or
nosebleed. May be popular, but the actual costs are far higher than care in
America is, where people handle minor issues themselves.

England's is even more socialized, but even the
> conservative Thatcher realized it was so popular she didn't dare touch it.

Bungee jumping is popular, doesn't mean I want the Government to require
everyone to do it.

>
> >
> >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! =-----


 
"Can't you three or four guys that are continuing this thread find some common
group to post to, rather than all of this crossposting?

Try alt.argumentative.idiots.wont.give.up"

Dan Gates wrote:

> Daniel J. Stern wrote:
> > On Wed, 3 Dec 2003, Bill Putney wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Canada's healthcare system sucks.
> >
> >
> > I daresay you don't know what you're talking about. I'm an American living
> > here in Canada, and guess what? Canada's healthcare system is *vastly*
> > better than the US system in the vast majority of cases. Are there
> > exceptions? Surely. There's no such thing as perfection. But the Canadian
> > system does a much better job of handling most of the healthcare needs of
> > most of the people at a reasonable cost.
> >
> > DS
> >
>
> Further, Canada's healthcare system has been cut to pieces by Reaganist
> neo-Conservatives. Savings had to be realized, clearly, but the cuts
> went to the bone, where they should have gone to the fat.
>
> My experience (ageing parents, two fairly recent children and their
> maladies, friends surviving cancer) has been extremely positive. Waits
> tend to be for MRIs, synthetic hip and knee replacements and such, 15
> years ago, how long did you have to wait for such things? About 10
> years! We keep forgetting that these are pretty new, expensive
> technologies, some of which have not proven to be any more effective
> than the old, cheap technologies.
>
> The best news that you can hope for when you take your child into the
> kids hospital here is that you have a long wait ahead of you! It means
> that your kid is going to be OK and you likely should have waited till
> morning and gone to your GP. If you get an orange sticker on your file
> and they grab the kid and run, call your family and your priest! The
> kid is in trouble. This I know from friends' experiences. I love to
> wait at the kids ER!!!
>
> Dan

 

"Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "The Ancient One" <[email protected]> wrote:

> >Consumer Reports have no more credibility than you do Lloyd, which is 0.
> >
> >
>
> "The cowardly one" just continues to show how stupid he is.

There, I trimmed the post for you LLoyd, I know that is beyond your
intellectual ability to manage. Lets see, out of all the arguments I've seen
you in, you've won 0. Perfect score Lloyd, you must be proud.


 
On Thu, 4 Dec 2003, Matthew Russotto wrote:

> >Mine is based on getting very suddenly struck down with a large and lodged
> >kidney stone at 4 in the morning while in Toronto. Extremely painful, but
> >not life threatening. I was diagnosed, treated, operated upon and
> >prescribed suitable meds in a fast, efficient, capable, thorough manner.

> And you'd likely get the same in the US.


....at *substantially* higher cost, start to finish, whether that cost was
directly to me for treatment, surgery and meds or indirectly via insurance
premiums.

DS

 

"Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Bill Funk <[email protected]> wrote:
> >On Wed, 03 Dec 03 10:53:28 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker)
> >wrote:
> >
> >>>Explain then Lloyd why bus loads of Canadians with life threating
health
> >>>problems are forced to come to the USA for treatment at their own
expense.
> >>>Sure they can get free care in Canada, IF they can wait 6 months to a
year
> >>>for treatment.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>Like asking why people travel to Mexico for Christmas trees. It simply
does
> >>not happen.
> >>
> >>Read, for example,
> >>http://www.worldpolicy.org/globalrights/econrights/canada-health.html
> >
> >Um, Lloyd...
> >Remember how you complain when we quote conservative sources?
> >
>
> Because CR is a consumer advocate group. Not liberal or conservative.
Now I
> know to you Taliban anybody to the left of Atilla the Hun is a liberal if
not
> a socialist, but the rest of us aren't stupid like that.


They don't speak for any consumers I know. Consumer Reports is a joke, used
by those people who lack the intelligence to invistigate an issue and learn
the truth.


 
On Thu, 4 Dec 2003, Jenn Wasdyke 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?

Same reason there's opposition to same-sex marriage: It makes people feel
icky.

DS

 

"Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Bill Putney <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >>
> >> In article <[email protected]>, Greg <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> >The only sources that appears to have credibility with you is the
Sierra
> Club
> >> and
> >> >Consumer Reports. Furthermore your slam against WSJ is false and you
> cannot
> >> >substantiate it.
> >>
> >> As I said, a newspaper that is avowedly pro-business cannot be
considered
> an
> >> objective source.
> >
> >Man, we couldn't make this stuff up.
> >
> >Wow, Lloyd - you make even the stuff that conservatives know is an
> >exageration of the what a sterotypical liberal is seem true. If I were
> >a reasonable liberal, I would be telling you to shut the heck up because
> >you're making us reasonable ones look foolish.
> >
> >There was a time not too many years ago when it was almost believable
> >that your kind were the bastions of human rights issues the world over,
> >and yet now you hate a decent man so much that you would let your hatred
> >of him cause you to be apologists and useful idiots for a man who
> >routinely did such things as have the eyes of a 3 month old baby gouged
> >out while interrogating the baby's father, put people in tree shredders,
> >kill and mutilate innocent people and send the body parts home to the
> >family to be left in front of the house, etc. Your ilk has lost the
> >claim to being the great supporters of human rights and decency for many
> >years to come. Your presidential contenders have so confused themselves
> >about what they pretended to believe is right and wrong that they now
> >don't know which way to point their peckers.
> >
> >You elevate above the authority of the U.S. government in our own
> >country the authority of an organization (the U.N.) that signed
> >under-the-table agreements with international gay rights organizations
> >to endorse and support NAMBLA (an organization that promotes and
> >aggressively fights to legalize pedophilia the world over), only to be
> >stopped by the U.S. Congress' officially adopting a resolution to stop
> >paying its dues until its endorsement and support of such organizations
> >ceased.
>
> Flat-out lie.
>
> >
> >And we're supposed to look to you to tell us what's right when it comes
> >to ethics, morality, and constituionality and set aside what we know to
> >be right and just and moral. I will take my imperfect principles above
> >your totally bankrupt sense of right and wrong *ANY* day.
>
> You're supposed to act like a rational adult; I guess I expected too much.

Lloyd once again demonstrates the complete lack of comprehension and
intelligence that has made him famous. His ignorance is equalled only by his
arrogance, either of which dwarfs every conceivable level formerly
established.

>
> >
> >I could go on, but I've said quite enough I think.
> >
> >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! =-----


 

"The Ancient One" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Bill Funk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 19:02:37 -0500, Bill Putney <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >> what a woman can do with her body, etc.
> > >
> > >When I and others are forced to pay for the consequences, yes. Don't
> > >make me and others pay for the consequences for her behavior, and I'll
> > >quit telling her what she can and can't do that I and others will have
> > >to pay for later.
> >
> > I always found the argument that we can't tell a woman what to do with
> > her body rather strange.
> > We most certainly can, and do, just that: it's illegal for a woman to
> > use illegal drugs on/in her body, for example. That destroys the
> > argument right there.
>
> Prostitution is illegal as well, even though the women make the choice
what
> to do with their bodies, the government tells them they can't. What's your
> answer to this Lloyd?
>

What's wrong Lloyd, no lame answer? One nice thing about you Lloyd, you make
everyone else greatful they aren't as dumb as you.


 


"Daniel J. Stern" wrote:

> On Thu, 4 Dec 2003, C. E. White wrote first this:
>
> > I know that in NC, a law was passed specifically validating interracial
> > marriages in order correct the harm done my an old law that declared
> > such marriages invalid. If a similar law was passed validating same sex
> > unions and recognizing then as a marriage, then I guess I'd be satisfied
> > if not delighted.
>
> Then this:
>
> > I am opposed to trying to implement this through the judiciary by
> > redefining the legal meaning of the word "marriage" as it has been
> > understood for many years.
>
> These two statements seem contradictory.

I'll try to clarify -

I do not have a problem with the idea that same sex couples should be granted
the same rights and responsibilities as people in a traditional man/woman
marriages. To implement this, my preference is that laws be enacted to grant
same sex unions rights equivalent to a traditional marriage where appropriate.
I'd prefer this be done without trying to redefine the legal meaning of the
word marriage. I am especially opposed to a judge deciding that the word
marriage means something different than the traditional legal definition. If a
law was passed that explicitly changed the definition, then I'd have to live
with it (I'd be satisfied but not delighted).

Ed


 
On Thu, 4 Dec 2003, Jenn Wasdyke wrote:

> > So your perception of Canadian healthcare is based on the experience of a
> > friend of yours who was warned off the system by some unknown other
> > individuals.
> > Mine is based on getting very suddenly struck down with a large and lodged
> > kidney stone at 4 in the morning while in Toronto. Extremely painful, but
> > not life threatening. I was diagnosed, treated, operated upon and
> > prescribed suitable meds in a fast, efficient, capable, thorough manner.

> As opposed to the American health care system where kidney stone
> patients are tossed out on the street and beaten before being put out of
> their misery...

Try getting a lodged kidney stone in America without medical coverage or
lots of money, then get back to us.

DS

 
In article <[email protected]>, Daniel J. Stern wrote:

> ...at *substantially* higher cost, start to finish, whether that cost was
> directly to me for treatment, surgery and meds or indirectly via insurance
> premiums.

or taxes for that purpose should the USA adopt such a system.


 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

S
Defenders Vs Insurers tomfoolery
Replies
1
Views
4K
lightning
lightning
300bhp/ton
Driven: New Defender - On & Off Road. Is it a Pretender?
2
Replies
30
Views
6K
lightning
lightning
P
Range Rover P38 EKA and BeCM Lockout
Replies
6
Views
5K
Doolinjames
D
natas
Hurricane Dorian survivor.
Replies
8
Views
2K
ProjectX
ProjectX
Alibro
How to recondition a VCU yourself.
15 16 17
Replies
325
Views
46K
Alibro
Alibro
Back
Top