Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers

M

Mike Romain

Guest

• Dec 4, 2003

• #2,061

Please stop abusing groups with your cross posts.

Mike

Steve wrote:
>
> Daniel J. Stern wrote:
>
> > 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
> >
>
> Dan, living in America without medical coverage is stupid. I don't have
> any patience for people who are deliberately stupid, nor do I want to
> subsidize them. Decent health care is affordable here, so let's stick to
> comparing someone in the US who HAS coverage (not lots of money) to
> someone in Canada. At least you get to PICK your coverage and your
> doctor here.

 

J

Jeepers

Guest

• Dec 4, 2003

• #2,062

In article <xDMzb.23558$o9.6912@fed1read07>,
"Nick N" <[email protected]> wrote:

> or just keep crossposting.
> Please everyone. Stop.
> Nick
>
>

As if.


-----= 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! =-----

 

M

Mike Romain

Guest

• Dec 4, 2003

• #2,063

Please stop abusing groups with your cross posts.

Mike

Steve 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.

 

M

Mike Romain

Guest

• Dec 4, 2003

• #2,064

Please stop abusing groups with your cross posts.

Mike

Steve wrote:
>
> Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
> > In article <[email protected]>, Steve <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >>Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>>>Oh, sure it does, Ed, if recognized as "marriage" they then get huge tax
> >>>>>and benefits advantages, all of which are denied singles.
> >>>>
> >>>>The "new class of civil union" would cover that just fine.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>Didn't "separate but equal" get discredited in the 1950s?
> >>
> >>Don't try to pretend that its about discrimination against homosexuals.
> >>Many heterosexual couples would also take advantage of a new class of
> >>civil union that didn't incorporate the religion-based term "marriage."
> >>
> >>Since suppressing religion is right up your alley, you ought to be
> >>loving the idea.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> > But there are no tax benefits to "civil unions", no inheritance benefits, no
> > insurance benefits, etc.
>
> Sure there would be. That's the whole point of creating the "new class
> of civil union." "Duh" is the only appropriate response.

 

M

Mike Romain

Guest

• Dec 4, 2003

• #2,065

Please stop abusing groups with your cross posts.

Mike

Steve wrote:
>
> Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
> >>
> >>Consumer Reports???
> >>You've GOT to be kidding.
> >>
> >
> > Why is it all the right-wing Taliban here would believe anything an HMO or
> > drug company tells them but reject the main voice for the consumer?
>
> Why is it the left-wing Stalinists belive a propaganda rag and can't use
> multiple sources for reference?

 

M

Mike Romain

Guest

• Dec 4, 2003

• #2,066

Please stop abusing groups with your cross posts.

Mike

Steve wrote:
>
> C. E. White wrote:
>
> >
> > Del Rawlins wrote:
> >
> >
> >>The only equitable solution is for the government to get out of the
> >>marriage business completely. That ought to **** off everyone equally.
> >
> >
> > I can agree with this idea!
> >
> > Ed
>
> Saves me taxes. I like it.

 

M

Mike Romain

Guest

• Dec 4, 2003

• #2,067

Please stop abusing groups with your cross posts.

Mike

"David J. Allen" wrote:
>
> "Brandon Sommerville" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 15:49:21 GMT, "David J. Allen"
> > <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >"Brandon Sommerville" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > >news:[email protected]...
> > >> On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 18:17:50 GMT, "David J. Allen"
> > >> <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> >The Europeans and Canadians choose to tax themsleves to provide cradle
> to
> > >> >grave care for health care. It's a choice they make. Good for them.
> > >> >There's a price they pay for that. There's far less innovation and
> change
> > >> >in Europe than there is in the US. They tend to stick with the status
> quo.
> > >> >In the US, the competitive juices among companies are often too much
> for
> > >> >European companies. Airbus was subsidized for years to support
> foreign
> > >> >sales. Another example is telecommunications. Nokia has struggled
> with
> > >> >CDMA technology in the US because of the constant change and forward
> > >> >movement in technology here. Europe would be happy to stay with GSM
> as a
> > >> >universal standard while US companies are pushing the technological
> > >> >envelope. Is the most efficient? Maybe not, but it's the price we
> pay for
> > >> >innovation and new technologies. High energy competition is dollar
> driven
> > >> >(oh, how evil.... the greed!). The European model severely dampens
> that
> > >> >energy.
> > >>
> > >> Enron was dollar driven as well.
> > >
> > >Your point? Maybe that the profit motive is akin to corruption? If you
> > >want to go there, be prepared to point the finger at more than corporate
> > >corruption.
> >
> > No, that dollar driven isn't by definition a good thing. I'm not
> > saying that it's a bad thing, but you appear to be saying that it
> > simply makes it better by being that way. If you really want the
> > latest in techno gadgets you have to look at the Japanese market, not
> > the American.
> >
>
> Then we agree. The profit motive is key to a market driven ecnomy, which
> works as opposed to central planning. Techno gadgets? Hmph. The point is
> an economy that allows supply and demand to work and allows hard work and
> innovation (read create wealth) to occur will respond to demand more
> readily.
>
> > >> >You can see the desparation to bring in outside money in Europe;
> > >> >like government subsidies, their selling of weapons systems (France,
> > >> >Germany) to ANYONE (read Saddam Hussein), willingness to accept
> despotism in
> > >> >exchange for lucrative trade deals (do you really think France opposed
> the
> > >> >war on "moral" grounds?).
> > >>
> > >> Give me a break. American companies were perfectly happy to sell to
> > >> Saddam as well and as far as "accepting despotism" who do you think
> > >> put him there in the first place and kept him there for years?
> > >
> > >Saddam's ledger is a long list of German, French and Russian companies.
> > >France's reputation for selling to anyone for the right price is decades
> > >old.
> >
> > And American companies didn't sell to him at all, right? You don't
> > seriously believe that, do you?
>
> Don't know and don't think it matters. There's always somebody out there
> willing to do anything to make a buck. If they did, they broke the law.
>
> >
> > >The US did tolerate despotism in some countries, but not for money. You
> > >just had to be anti-communist (or in Iraq's case a counterweight to
> Iran).
> > >It was cold war politics and it was a calculated risk. Were they
> mistakes?
> > >Probably. You can focus on the consequences of supporting a despot to
> run a
> > >country, but don't forget to wonder how things would had gone had
> Communism
> > >not been contained.
> >
> > The US has demonstrated that it's willing to support a friendly
> > dictator to a democracy that doesn't agree with them many times over,
> > regardless of the cost to the people involved. Claiming that they
> > were going to go communist is a good way of justifying the actions,
> > but that's all it is.
>
> Bull. You don't understand the cold war for what it was. You look at bad
> things that happened and extrapolate to the strategy as if the whole
> strategy was flawed and designed to make (or not prevent) bad things happen.
> The west had a strategy that ended up working. Some bad things happened
> along the way.
>
> The French were purposefully subverting the agreed upon UN strategy in Iraq.
> It wasn't an accident or byproduct. There's a culture of "me and mine"
> there that was the point I was making previously.
>
> > --
> > Brandon Sommerville
> > remove ".gov" to e-mail
> >
> > Definition of "Lottery":
> > Millions of stupid people contributing
> > to make one stupid person look smart.

 

M

Mike Romain

Guest

• Dec 4, 2003

• #2,068

You are wrong!

Some newsgroups actually do have a charter and you cross posting bull
**** on them is not accepted.

ISP's these days do frown on usenet abuse, including supernews.

Complaints can be sent to [email protected]

Mike

The Ancient One wrote:
>
> "Mike Romain" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Please stop abusing groups with your cross posts.
>
> When I think it is time to stop posting I will. It is not abuse. Have a good
> day.
>
> >
> > Mike
> >
> > The Ancient One wrote:
> > >
> > > "David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote in message
> > > news:[email protected]...
> > > >
> > > > "Daniel J. Stern" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > >
> news[email protected]...
> > > > > 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
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > That's great. My experience in a French system was that it did fine
> for
> > > > everyday stuff: bandages, pain killers, antibiotics. Even then it
> could
> > > be
> > > > a littel scary depending on the doctor you see. I was in an accident
> and
> > > > hurt my hand and wrist. No big deal, but I was rushed to the hospital
> in
> > > a
> > > > scary ambulance ride (for sprain wrist!) and then when I got there,
> they
> > > > took my vitals and then took care of my hand. All went well enough
> until
> > > > the doctor saw my pulse rate. She thought is was too slow,
> dangerously
> > > so,
> > > > and so perscribed some pills (in a plastic bag) to speed my heart up.
> > > When
> > > > I got home I promply threw them away. I think my heart rate was in
> the
> > > > 50's, which is not too slow. I felt great. No different than I ever
> did.
> > > >
> > > > A friend of mine had a more serious condition and even though he had
> the
> > > > money to see a private doctor, went to the clinic. He went home in a
> box
> > > > because they didn't misdiagnosed his condition.
> > > >
> > > > The problem was, in my view, that the best doctors wouldn't come near
> the
> > > > socialized system, which paid poorly and rationed care. You cannot
> avoid
> > > > the trade-offs of a socialized system and a private competitive
> system. A
> > > > private system will leave some behind. A socialized system will give
> > > > everyone less quality and quantity overall. It's true with any
> "product".
> > >
> > > For a local example just look at the VA hospitals.

 

M

Mike Romain

Guest

• Dec 4, 2003

• #2,069

Please stop abusing groups with your cross posts.

Mike

Dan Gates wrote:
>
> Steve wrote:
> > Daniel J. Stern wrote:
> >
> >> 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
> >>
> >
> > Dan, living in America without medical coverage is stupid. I don't have
> > any patience for people who are deliberately stupid, nor do I want to
> > subsidize them. Decent health care is affordable here, so let's stick to
> > comparing someone in the US who HAS coverage (not lots of money) to
> > someone in Canada. At least you get to PICK your coverage and your
> > doctor here.
> >
>
> Um, I get to pick my doctor here, well, my wife did (in fact, my doctor
> is a very attractive woman!). I pick which hospital I go to (I pick the
> closest, normally because it is only three blocks away). I consult my
> doctor as to which specialist I should see if I need it, and she sets it up.
>
> Where do you get the idea that we get shoved where the "government"
> wants us to go?
>
> In small communities, there may be only one choice, but that is because
> there is not enough sickness to go around |>) or because doctors don't
> want to live in small communities!
>
> Speak not of what you do not know!
>
> Dan

 

D

David J. Allen

Guest

• Dec 4, 2003

• #2,070

"Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
> >
> >"Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >> In article <[email protected]>,
> >> "David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> So are conservatives -- telling people what kind of sex to have,
what
> >> >genders
> >> >> can marry, what a woman can do with her body, etc.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >This one again? Ok, I'll repeat myself. Conservatives believe some
> >rights
> >> >are reserved to states and individuals to decide how they want to
govern
> >> >themselves. That includes the rights of states and communities,
through
> >> >their legislatures, to rule on sexual behaviors, abortion, and
marriage.
> >> >It's the Dems who want to nationalize these things and force all
> >communities
> >> >nationwide to accept their new age definitions of morality and
religion.
> >>
> >> Why wouldn't the most intimate relationships between people be a right
> >> reserved to the people themselves (9th amendment)? Surely if there are
> >any
> >> "inherent" or "God-given" rights, it would be those that have to do
with
> >> intimate relationships and behaviors. Aren't you arguing the 9th
> >amendment is
> >> meaningless, that any rights not enumerated are reserved just to the
> >states?
> >>
> >
> >Not at all. It's just not the business of the feds.
>
> Interpretting the US constitution is the business of the feds, and it's
the US
> constitution that reserves certain unenumerated rights to the people. Who
> else but the courts can interpret that and say what those rights are?
>
>
> > There's multiple
> >jurisdiction below federal. State, county, city. The juridiction
arguments
> >among these entities for rights reserved to them is up to them
individually.
>
> None of them has the jurisdiction to interpret the US constitution.
>

You're hopeless Lloyd. Rights reserved to the states and to the people can
be decided upon by the states and the people. No interpretation of the US
constitution is required for those to be decided upon.

> >
> >The arguments for and against Sodomy laws and Adultery laws each have
> merit.
>
> Sure, so did those against integration. To bigots.

There you go again. You just can't accept pro/con argument based on
principle.

>
> >Government intrusion in personal matters is a matter of great concern to
be
> >sure. Yet, the effect of adultery on families, children, cost to society
is
> >huge.
>
> Are you saying you cannot commit adultery except by sodomy? And even if
so,
> why was sodomy between unmarried people illegal? In fact, most of the
sodomy
> laws were only enforced for gays (thus unmarried people).
>

No, sodomy was not part of my comment above. It was all about adultery.

I don't know. I imagine local governments were anxious that their cities
and towns not become a gathering place for gays.

I see you didn't respond to the following arguments.

>
> >Should local governments be able to prohibit it? The sexual
> >revolution in the 60's made it "quaint" to expect intact families with
> >mothers AND fathers; to expect fidelity, which is tightly tied to
religious
> >values, is "old fashioned". Without religious values, we can behave as
the
> >animals and it's "okay".... individually. But that's where we got the
> >"single mom" phenomenon. It's effect on the black community has been
tragic
> >with 70% of babies born to unwed mothers.
> >
> >Child poverty is a direct result of this. Even worse than the poverty is
> >children with teeny bopper mothers more concerned with partying on Friday
> >night and finding someone... anyone... to watch their kids while they to
it.
> >They give no structure or limits to their children's lives and end up
> >producing more adults with no clue how to be productive members of
society.
> >
> >Personal choices? Hmph.
> >
> >> >
> >> >The conservative position has never been to nationalize any of these
> >issues,
> >> >but to allow local jurisdictions to choose for themselves. The only
time
> >> >conservatives do want to nationalize such issues is when the Libs find
a
> >> >liberal federal judge to overturn local law based and make it a
national
> >> >issue, i.e., unlimited federal government.
> >> >
> >> >Why can't you see the conservative vs. liberal debate as one based on
> >role
> >> >of federal government instead of merely accusing conservatives of
being
> >> >"rascist", "homophobe", "sexist", "bigoted". All those labels are
debate
> >> >enders. The issue of the role of government is a legitimate thing to
> >debate
> >> >with honorable arguments on both sides. Yet people like you never
engage
> >in
> >> >it. You resort to this name calling instead.
> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >
> >

 

D

David J. Allen

Guest

• Dec 4, 2003

• #2,071

"Daniel J. Stern" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
> 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.
>

There you go... religious convictions = feeling icky

> DS
>

 

D

David J. Allen

Guest

• Dec 4, 2003

• #2,072

"Brandon Sommerville" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 09:50:40 -0500, Jenn Wasdyke
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Brandon Sommerville wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 17:06:25 -0700, Bill Funk <[email protected]>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 18:21:10 GMT, Brandon Sommerville
> >> ><[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>This confuses me greatly. If two men or two women want to be joined
> >> >>as a family in a marriage, how does it detract from your marriage?
> >> >
> >> >It doesn't.
> >> >
> >> >Marriage, in our culture (Judeo/Christian) has been historically
> >> >defined by the religious society, and then codified by the
> >> >governments.
> >>
> >> 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?
>
> Good question. As long as they're all consenting adults, who cares?

Why not just outlaw marriage. That'll make it the same and fair for
everyone.

> --
> Brandon Sommerville
> remove ".gov" to e-mail
>
> Definition of "Lottery":
> Millions of stupid people contributing
> to make one stupid person look smart.

 

J

Jeepers

Guest

• Dec 4, 2003

• #2,073

In article <[email protected]>,
"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:

> No, sodomy was not part of my comment above. It was all about adultery.

You would know.


-----= 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! =-----

 

J

Jeepers

Guest

• Dec 4, 2003

• #2,074

In article <[email protected]>,
"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:

> There you go... religious convictions = feeling icky

figures


-----= 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! =-----

 

D

David J. Allen

Guest

• Dec 4, 2003

• #2,075

Does it hurt?

"Nick N" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:FgMzb.23553$o9.10836@fed1read07...
> Just a simple request. Thousands of messages have been crossposted to
> automotive newsgroups for the past month and it's gone on to long. Please
> stop crossposting.
> Nick
>
> "Jeepers" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > In article <TDLzb.23548$o9.11675@fed1read07>,
> > "Nick N" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > Please stop your crossposting.
> >
> > Or what?
> >
> >
> > -----= 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! =-----
>
>

 

M

Mike Romain

Guest

• Dec 4, 2003

• #2,076

Please stop abusing groups with your cross posts.

Mike

"David J. Allen" wrote:
>
> "Daniel J. Stern" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news[email protected]...
> > 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.
> >
>
> There you go... religious convictions = feeling icky
>
> > DS
> >

 

M

Mike Romain

Guest

• Dec 4, 2003

• #2,077

Please stop abusing groups with your cross posts.

Mike

"David J. Allen" wrote:
>
> "Brandon Sommerville" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 09:50:40 -0500, Jenn Wasdyke
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > >Brandon Sommerville wrote:
> > >
> > >> On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 17:06:25 -0700, Bill Funk <[email protected]>
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> >On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 18:21:10 GMT, Brandon Sommerville
> > >> ><[email protected]> wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> >>This confuses me greatly. If two men or two women want to be joined
> > >> >>as a family in a marriage, how does it detract from your marriage?
> > >> >
> > >> >It doesn't.
> > >> >
> > >> >Marriage, in our culture (Judeo/Christian) has been historically
> > >> >defined by the religious society, and then codified by the
> > >> >governments.
> > >>
> > >> 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?
> >
> > Good question. As long as they're all consenting adults, who cares?
>
> Why not just outlaw marriage. That'll make it the same and fair for
> everyone.
>
> > --
> > Brandon Sommerville
> > remove ".gov" to e-mail
> >
> > Definition of "Lottery":
> > Millions of stupid people contributing
> > to make one stupid person look smart.

 

M

Mike Romain

Guest

• Dec 4, 2003

• #2,078

It will only hurt you if everyone forwards your abusive posts to
[email protected].

Mike

"David J. Allen" wrote:
>
> Does it hurt?
>
> "Nick N" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:FgMzb.23553$o9.10836@fed1read07...
> > Just a simple request. Thousands of messages have been crossposted to
> > automotive newsgroups for the past month and it's gone on to long. Please
> > stop crossposting.
> > Nick
> >
> > "Jeepers" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > > In article <TDLzb.23548$o9.11675@fed1read07>,
> > > "Nick N" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Please stop your crossposting.
> > >
> > > Or what?
> > >
> > >
> > > -----= 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! =-----
> >
> >

 

J

Jeepers

Guest

• Dec 4, 2003

• #2,079

In article <[email protected]>,
"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:

> Why not just outlaw marriage. That'll make it the same and fair for
> everyone.

KNOCK IT OFF


-----= 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! =-----

 

D

Daniel J. Stern

Guest

• Dec 4, 2003

• #2,080

On Thu, 4 Dec 2003, Steve wrote:

> Dan, living in America without medical coverage is stupid.

....and for a great many people, unavoidable.

> Decent health care is affordable here,

Perhaps that's the happy case where you live. It is far from universally
so, however. The fact remains there are a great many people in America who
do not have medical coverage. Not because they stupidly choose not to have
medical coverage, but because it is a choice between EITHER having
coverage OR getting enough to eat.

> someone in Canada. At least you get to PICK your coverage and your
> doctor here.

I have no idea where this idiotic canard about not getting to pick your
own doctor in Canada started, but despite its utter untruth, it refuses to
die.

DS