Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers

B

Bill Funk

Guest

• Dec 5, 2003

• #2,121

On Thu, 4 Dec 2003 17:06:23 -0500, "Daniel J. Stern"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>> The issue is not discrimination.
>
>That's exactly what's at issue. When one group of people is systematically
>denied specific civil rights others have, that's invidious discrimination.

Damn right!
I want the right to use womens' restrooms!

--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"

 

B

Bill Funk

Guest

• Dec 5, 2003

• #2,122

On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 16:43:37 -0600, Jeepers
<[email protected]> wrote:

>In article
><[email protected]>,
> "Daniel J. Stern" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>Daniel Stern just doesn't get it.
>
>He Is CROSSPOSTING WITH EACH REPLY!
>
>STOP! Trim your headers!

Would you please demonstrate that no one in your particular newsgroup
(whichever one it is) is contributing to this thread (besides you, of
course).

--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"

 

B

Bill Funk

Guest

• Dec 5, 2003

• #2,123

On Thu, 04 Dec 03 10:19:03 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:

>But there are no tax benefits to "civil unions", no inheritance benefits, no
>insurance benefits, etc.

You've never heard of common law marriage?

--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"

 

B

Bill Funk

Guest

• Dec 5, 2003

• #2,124

On Thu, 4 Dec 2003 15:49:09 -0700, "Nick N" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Lloyd parker [email protected] started this mess. See
>http://tinyurl.com/xrz7 for a look at over 55 thousand messages. To this
>day, probably two months later, him and other people are keeping this way OT
>thread alive and clogging our newsgroups with THOUSANDS of messages. It is
>time to kill this or take it elsewhere!
>Lloyd has already being reported to his university and the other people who
>keep posting multiple times are also slowly being reported to their
>according abuse@ addresses. for example, abuse@mci abuse@umich abuse@rogers
>(you know who you are) and a few others. We at Jeep+willys newsgroup are
>fed up and fighting back. I would guess many people are going to start
>having isp problems unless they quit this abuse. On the other hand, I have
>no problem if they just start maybe a yahoo group or someplace they can
>argue tell their blue. Steve, I don't know what newsgroup you originate
>from but I appreciate your interest and support.
>Nick

Do you get to speak for rthe Jeep+willys newsgroup?
You have not yet demonstrated that no one who uses that newsgroup
responds here, or that no one there wants the thread to continue.

--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"

 

M

Mike Romain

Guest

• Dec 5, 2003

• #2,125

Please stop abusing groups with your cross posts.

Mike

Bill Putney wrote:
>
> Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > "C. E. White" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > >And? Why is it that some groups (psudeo-liberals is my term for them) always
> > what
> > >to create laws they like out of thin air through judicial action and ignore
> > >legitimate ,if distasteful, laws because they don't like them. There is a
> > process
> > >for adding and removing laws. If insisting that these procedures be followed
> > >makes me a conservative, then I guess I am guilty. Unfortunately, most of the
> > >people I know who claim to be conservatives don't agree with many of my
> > ideas, so
> > >I guess I am lost in the wilderness.
> > >
> > >Ed
> > >
> > How is letting people do what they want in the privacy of their home with
> > another consenting adult "creating laws"? That's something any conservative
> > or libertarian should want the government to stay out of.
>
> Heard a story on the radio today about a gentleman in Germany who
> advertises for people to volunteer to be tied to a slab or bed or
> something and slowly cut to death with a knife and literally eaten piece
> by piece - apparently some sexual thrill involved. He has killed at
> least one volunteer that way and video taped it while the volunteer kept
> encouraging him to keep cuttin' and eatin' - some others he cut loose
> and let go when they changed their minds in the middle of the process -
> what a kind man. They say the man has no problem getting volunteers for
> it- there's apparently a couple hundred or more that chat regularly on
> the internet about it and there's a waiting list. So i guess it's OK
> because it's two consenting adults in the privacy of one of their
> homes. Didn't know you were such an absolute libertarian, Parker.
>
> 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! =-----

 

M

Mike Romain

Guest

• Dec 5, 2003

• #2,126

Please stop abusing groups with your cross posts.

Mike

Bill Putney wrote:
>
> Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >
> > In article <[email protected]>, Steve <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > >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.
>
> Everybody all together now: "aaaawww!."
>
> 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! =-----

 

M

Mike Romain

Guest

• Dec 5, 2003

• #2,127

Please stop abusing groups with your cross posts.

Mike

Bill Putney wrote:
>
> Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >
> > In article <[email protected]>, Steve <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > >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.
>
> Everybody all together now: "aaaawww!"
>
> 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! =-----

 

M

Mike Romain

Guest

• Dec 5, 2003

• #2,128

Please stop abusing groups with your cross posts.

Mike

Bill Putney wrote:
>
> Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > Bill Putney <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >Lloyd Parker wrote:
> > >> It's called living in a society. Society has the right to compel you to
> > pay
> > >> taxes, and it's the height of idiocy to call it stealing or theft...
> > >
> > >You're thinking of a pure democracy without any Consitutional
> > >protections, wherein if 50.0000000001% of the people vote to confiscate
> > >your property, then it's legal for them to do so. Society, under a
> > >constituional republic, can only tax to the degree that their
> > >constitution allows them to.
> >
> > OK, show me anywhere the US constitution caps taxes.
> >
> > I'm waiting....
>
> Who said anything about capping taxes - how about the purposes to which they're
> put - but you knew that.
>
> 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! =-----

 

M

Mike Romain

Guest

• Dec 5, 2003

• #2,129

Please stop abusing groups with your cross posts.

Mike

Bill Putney wrote:
>
> Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > Bill Funk <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > >Seperate bathrooms.
> >
> > Which laws mandate that?
>
> I suppose you've heard about your buddies trying to get laws passed to
> make it legal for consenting male adults to have sex in public
> restrooms.
>
> 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! =-----

 

M

Mike Romain

Guest

• Dec 5, 2003

• #2,130

Please stop abusing groups with your cross posts.

Mike

Bill Putney wrote:
>
> Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > Bill Putney <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > >> Sodomy laws. Liberals didn't pass them.
> > >
> > >To the same degree that that's true, nor did liberals pass pedophilia
> > >laws.
> >
> > I see the Taliban is at it again, equating child rape with what 2 consenting
> > adults do. What's next, integration was the same as genocide?
>
> Just saying that liberals (ACLU, etc.) would not support anti-sodomy
> laws but they would also not make it a top priority to pass
> anti-pedophilia laws. The word "equate" does not apply here - look it
> up in the dictionary. Both acts are morally repugnant, but not equal.
> Integration is not repugnant. Genocide is. But, once again, you knew
> all of that. I started to say you are just pretending to be stupid, but
> that wouldn't be exactly accurate either.
>
> 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! =-----

 

B

Bill Funk

Guest

• Dec 5, 2003

• #2,131

On Thu, 4 Dec 2003 12:27:03 -0700, "Nick N" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Please stop your crossposting! This has gone on to long!

The word is "too", not "to".
Why do *you* get to determine when "too long" is?

--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"

 

T

The Ancient One

Guest

• Dec 5, 2003

• #2,132

"Brandon Sommerville" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 4 Dec 2003 13:16:23 -0500, "The Ancient One"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >And yet the exodus from Canada to the US for treatment continues
unabaited.
> >To be so bad here it is amazing that so many come here from so many
> >countries, giving up free care for prompt, high quality care here. You
get
> >reallly sick there, you get a tumor that requires immediate surgery, but
the
> >system is over budget and you're put on a six to twelve month waiting
list,
> >and then we'll see how fast you come running to America for immediate
> >treatment.
>
> It's not quite that simple. If you need a procedure, they evaluate
> how urgent it is. If it's extremely urgent you get bumped to the top
> of the list. If it's not so urgent, you get on the waiting list and
> get done after others who have been waiting longer are processed. If
> you don't want to wait and can afford it, you go to somewhere that you
> can pay for the procedure, which is down south. A great system if
> you're wealthy.
>
> I know that no matter what happens, if I blow out my knee I'm going to
> get an MRI. It may take 8 weeks, but I'll get it and it won't cost me
> anything extra. Can you say the same thing?

I have a friend who went to the Doctor for a routine physical. The Doctor
did not like whaat he saw on the treadmill test and checked him into the
hospital, where he had a balloon angioplasty that same afternoon. How long
would he have waited "on the list" in Canada for the same treatment,
considering he was outwardly healthy and active. Would he have lived that
long? How could he have been sure?
I know if I need medical treatment I can get it, NOW, now later. To me, that
is important. I really don't care how Canada does it, if you're happy great.
I'm just against Lloyd and his cronies trying to change ours, which would
stifle it, and lower the quaility of care for everyone, including Canadians.

 

B

Bill Funk

Guest

• Dec 5, 2003

• #2,133

On Thu, 04 Dec 03 10:23:56 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:

>>Marriage, in our culture (Judeo/Christian) has been historically
>
>But the US government, not being JudeoChristian or any religion, should not
>reflect religious bias, should it?

Depends on how you look at it.
The government is made up of 'the people'.
Those people's lives are, at least in part, shaped by their religion.
To expect their government to be completely divorced from that
religion (whatever religion it is, or even the combination of
religions it is here) is being unrealistic. It's asking the people to
ignore what they believe in.

It is a goal of our government, at this time, to attempt to divorce
itself from all religion. Is that good?
How can we expect our government to come up with laws that have no
base? No anchor at all? How can we possibly expect to base our laws on
the human experience, and then expect to deny a large part of that
experience?

I'm not proposing a theocracy, but I do think that trying to deny all
religious beliefs is simply impossible, and, as such, should be
recognized.

--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"

 

T

The Ancient One

Guest

• Dec 5, 2003

• #2,134

"Brandon Sommerville" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 4 Dec 2003 13:59:59 -0500, "The Ancient One"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Brandon Sommerville" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >> On Thu, 4 Dec 2003 11:49:02 -0500, "The Ancient One"
> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >"Daniel J. Stern" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >>
>news[email protected]...
> >>
> >> >> 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.
> >>
> >> Have you ever been to Canada?
> >
> >Yes I have. I also have friends in Canada, England, Scotland, Japan and
> >Germany, and I have discussed their "free" healthcare with them many
times.
>
> It's just that your picture of Canadian health care is so divorced
> from the reality of living here that I have to wonder.

No more than your's is of the US. I'm happy with ours, you're happy with
your's. Now we just need to shut Lloyd up and we can all die happy.

 

T

The Ancient One

Guest

• Dec 5, 2003

• #2,135

"Brandon Sommerville" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 4 Dec 2003 14:25:36 -0500, "The Ancient One"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Government control of healthcare results in poorer healthcare than
private
> >control, but then you knew that already.
>
> Poorer health care for the elite maybe, but as one of the huddled
> masses, I'm grateful that I don't have to worry about a decision
> between seeing the doctor and making my mortgage payments.

I'm glad I don't have to wait six months for treatment of a condition that
worsens with time.

> --
> 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 5, 2003

• #2,136

Please stop abusing groups with your cross posts.

Mike

Bill Putney wrote:
>
> Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > Bill Putney <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >Lloyd Parker wrote:
> > >>
> > >> In article <[email protected]>,
> > >> Bill Putney <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >> ...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 made a statement, I proved it wrong. Still skirting (no pun
> intended).
>
> > Canada's a democracy; if their health care system is so bad, why haven't the
> > people gotten rid of it? England's is even more socialized, but even the
> > conservative Thatcher realized it was so popular she didn't dare touch it.
>
> Not sure what your point is, but, whatever.
>
> 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! =-----

 

B

Bill Funk

Guest

• Dec 5, 2003

• #2,137

On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 14:25:55 GMT, Brandon Sommerville
<[email protected]> 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.

I've been saying just that that.
>
>As far as the religious society, it's got a few issues of it's own to
>deal with before passing judgement on anyone else. Covering up
>pedophiles while condemning gay marriage seems a little hypocritical
>to me, don't you think?

Let's not confuse some Catholic churches with the whole of religious
society.
>
>>This is why the idea of gay marriage rankles so much.
>
>That's not an explanation of why it rankles, it's an explanation of
>what it is.

Ok, I have a problem with unreferrenced pronouns.
What is the "it" here?
Marriage? Gay marriage? The idea of gay marriage?
The rankling?

--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"

 

B

Bill Funk

Guest

• Dec 5, 2003

• #2,138

On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 09:50:40 -0500, Jenn Wasdyke
<[email protected]> 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?

I think that's already covered.
Such unions are called 'corporations'.

--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"

 

B

Bill Funk

Guest

• Dec 5, 2003

• #2,139

On Thu, 04 Dec 03 10:23:20 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
> Bill Funk <[email protected]> wrote:
>>On Wed, 03 Dec 03 11:09:23 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In article <[email protected]>,
>>> "C. E. White" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Lloyd Parker 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.
>>>>
>>>>It is not just conservatives who oppose the redefinition of "marriage."
>>>>Any reasonable person should oppose this sort of reckless redefinition
>>>>of a long established legal / social / religious institution. If same
>>>>sex couples want to form a long term commitment to each other, I think
>>>>that is fine. If they feel they need a governmental sanction to this
>>>>commitment, then pass a law that creates a new class of civil union. But
>>>>trying to call this a "marriage" is an insult to millions of American
>>>>and serves no useful purpose.
>>>>
>>>
>>>But why should government institutionalize discrimination? OK, no religion
>>>should be required to perform or recognize a marriage not in keeping with
>its
>>>creed (doesn't the catholic church not recognize marriages by divorced
>>>people?), but why should government discriminate?
>>>
>>>>Ed
>>
>>The government discriminates all the time:
>>Affirmative action.
>
>You probably thought segregation wasn't discrimination though.

Non sequitor.
>
>>Seperate bathrooms.
>
>Which laws mandate that?

Try going into one and find out.
Are you *really* this dumb?
>
>>Voting age.
>
>You really think telling a 5-year old he can't vote is like telling an adult
>whom he can't marry?

It's discrimination, based on age.
Or do you think differently?
>
>>Drinking age.
>>And on and on.
>>Discrimination per se is not wrong; it's how it's applied that can be
>>wrong.
>>

--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"

 

B

Bill Putney

Guest

• Dec 5, 2003

• #2,140

Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Bill Putney <[email protected]> wrote:
> >...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.

Oh yeah? Read it and weap:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Lesbian_and_Gay_Association
Here's another good one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAMBLA

A matter of public record - part of the Congressional record, no doubt.
You wanna dispute that?

I suppose you'll say that the Wikipedia is run by a right wing
organization. Notice how many times on the article it says that right
wing groups and politicians opposed the goings on of the gay community
in the situation - not once does it mention liberals as being
particularly outspoken about the UN's endorsement of such groups (and
the gay rights orgs. only acted when they saw that the publicity was
damaging their other "more palatable" causes).

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! =-----