Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers

"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

> Now you're going over the edge. Extreme environmentalists have written a
> check against science that has insufficient funds to cash. A true scientist
> would not entangle himself with left wing politics and recognize the
> limitations of the current state of science. There's a nexus between
> extreme environmentalism and anti-capitalist/anti-corporate politics. You
> can see it in the anti-corporate, anti-global trade demonstrations. You can
> see it in the Kyoto protocol. You can see it in the Green party platform.
>
> Lefties have been waving around the terms "moral" and "science" in a whole
> new way, redefined to fit their points of view and replace traditional
> definitions. The argument on global warming and what to do about it would
> be more productive if it only were just a scientific discussion.

Interesting syllogism.
Most climatologists, geologists, etc. agree with the general concept
of manmade global warming, though disagree on details, and this model
and its implications are an issue to leftists (among others).;
Leftists demonstrate against corporations.
Therefore, climatologists, geologists, etc. who find results that
support manmade global warming are politically motivated.

Bill Putney <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> z wrote:
> >
> > ...It all started with that
> > sonofabitch Galileo and his immoral socialist assertion that the sun
> > did not revolve around the earth, as the bible clearly states.
>
> Oh? And where would that be stated. As the cliché says: "Chapter and
> verse, please."

UnGodly one, knowest thou not thy Scripture?

In the heavens hath the Lord set a tabernacle for the sun, which is
like a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, rejoicing as a giant in
running his course. His going forth is from the high heaven, and his
circuit unto the ends of it.
Psalms 19:4

The world also is established that it cannot be moved.
Psalms 93:7

The sun rises and sets and returns to his own place.
Ecclesiastes 1:5

And the sun stood still and the moon stayed, until the nation took
vengeance on their enemies.
Joshua 10:12

John S <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> z wrote:
>
> > [email protected] (Brent P) wrote in message news:<O0Lyb.274685$ao4.944751@attbi_s51>...
> > > In article <[email protected]>, z wrote:
> > >
> > > > They are going to move production of CO2 to China? All those
> > > > inefficient old coal-fired power plants are going to China?
> > >
> > > What is better? An old inefficient regulated to be as clean as feasiable
> > > coal power plant in the USA feeding a factory with electricity or a
> > > quick-and-dirty-old-tech-soviet-style coal plant in china feeding a
> > > factory? Which is better for the environment?
> > >
> > > And why do we have old coal plants in the USA? Because any new plants
> > > are opposed on environmental grounds. And new and better means of
> > > generation are opposed on environmental grounds. So what we get
> > > is the status quo. The status quo remains because change is not
> > > possible.
> >
> > Yeah, the old rightwing fantasy factory rides again. Do you recall the
> > Clean Air Act? Do you recall that the power companies piteously pled
> > for and were granted an exemption for their old coal and oil fuelled
> > plants, since the power companies promised that they were going to be
> > all mothballed soon anyway and it would be purely wasteful to upgrade
> > them for the short time they will be in operation? Well, it's thirty
> > years later now, and here in CT, half the electricity is still being
> > produced by those old 'soon to be mothballed' plants, known locally as
> > the Filthy Five. This is not because the utility companies are just
> > dying to build some expensive clean new plants and the
> > environmentalists just won't let them. It's purely because it's much
> > cheaper to run these monstrosities unmodified than it is to build new
> > plants, despite the environmentalists screaming to trade them for
> > clean new plants or else update them. The Reagan and Bush I
> > administrations refused to enforce the part of the Clean Air Act that
> > requires the companies to install upgraded pollution controls if they
> > were doing significant expansions to the plants, in contrast to
> > routine maintenance, allowing the Filthy Five to actually expand their
> > filthy emissions. The Clinton administration finally starts to enforce
> > this provision, and what happens? The Bush junta reverses the
> > enforcement decision. And in response to this boondoggle, the
> > utilities raise their rates 10%.
>
> That's not true at all. First of all, the Bush I administration SIGNED the Clean Air Act
> amendments in 1990 into law, which strenghthened, not weakened the Clean Air Act. ...

> The problem is that the Clinton administration started treating routine maintenance on plants as
> "new source" creation, which was contrary to the actual written law. Treating it this way
> subjected the plants specifically exempted from the statue to the requirements of new plants.



Perhaps you should enlighten the folks at the GAO regarding your
little fairy tale.
'Since its inception in 1977, the New Source Review (NSR) Program—one
of the Clean Air Act's (CAA) key mechanisms for maintaining air
quality to protect public health—has prevented the emission of
millions of tons of harmful pollutants. It has done so by requiring
newly built industrial facilities, and existing industrial facilities
undergoing major modifications to equipment or operating procedures,
to install modern air pollution controls.1The Congress allowed
existing facilities to defer installation of such controls until a
major modification was made with the expectation that, over time, all
facilities would install such equipment, and this would lead to lower
overall emissions.'
<www.gao.gov/new.items/d0458.pdf>

>This
> had the perverse incentive of indicating to plant owners that routine maintenance is a BAD IDEA to
> do, because the Government will come after you for doing it. Better to defer maintenance and not
> keep plants in the most effiicent manner they can be reasonably operated in. But the effect of
> this is that when routine maintenance and minor upgrades become to expensive because of overzealous
> regulation, the effect is that nothing is done and instead the most polluting plants are left in
> operation as is, with no improvements all. The WSJ has reported extensively on this, and
> specifically about how the Clinton EPA chief was upset that plants were TOO CLEAN because they
> needed something to rail against to publicity. This was all recorded in memos.
>
> The Bush plan restores the EPA's mandated New Source Review. But it's easier for people to make
> silly attacks on Bush, because they cannot comprehend the actual laws, the reason why they were
> written, the actual effects that they have, the effect of enforcing non-laws, or what is going on
> in general.
>
> ------
> "In one famous case, DTE Energy Corp., parent of Detroit Edison Co., tried to replace older, less
> efficient propeller blades in several steam turbines at its biggest coal-fired plant. The new
> blades were 15% more efficient than the old, meaning they could generate 15% more power using the
> same amount of energy--more power, less pollution. But the Clinton EPA threatened to invoke New
> Source Review anyway, so the plan was scrapped.
>
> Not that Detroit Edison and others are avoiding heavy pollution-fighting expenses. At the very same
> plant, Detroit Edison is spending $650 million to meet new nitrogen oxide standards--an expense
> that won't generate a single new kilowatt of electricity.
>
> Bureaucrats, of course, interpret such a rational response to perverse rules as a sign of corporate
> greed. So when the Clinton administration found that at least 80% of the nation's utilities were
> violating its New Source Review guidelines, it didn't bother to ask whether something might be
> wrong with its policies. It simply filed an avalanche of lawsuits demanding huge fines.
>
> Yet EPA data clearly show that emissions of nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide, the two main
> industrial pollutants, have declined substantially despite a tripling of coal usage. Future Clean
> Air targets will reduce emissions a further 50%." -WSJ 11/26/02

[email protected] (Brent P) wrote in message news:<rP5zb.5650$_M.25172@attbi_s54>...
> In article <[email protected]>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
> > Wrong. They started treating major modifications as new sources, which was
> > exactly what the law allowed (and required). If during 10 years of routine
> > maintenance you replace each part, you've got a new source, yet under your and
> > Bush's plan, it'd never trigger the latest pollution controls because you
> > replaced it one piece at a time, as part of each year's maintenance.
>
> > But if the plants get modified instead of just "serviced and cleaned", that's
> > precisely what the law intended. That's why the EPA sued a number of utility
> > companies, why a number of them settled, and why the suits continued until
> > Bush decided to "reinterpet" the law just this year.
>
> So what was put together was an all-or-nothing policy. Either the power
> companies did everything or nothing. When they did some modernization
> they were to be penalized. This sounds like a government power trip
> more than sensible regulation to protect the environment the way you
> describe it, parker.
>
> 1) Old plant, old tech = bad for the environment.
> 2) old plant, slowly moderized = better for the environment.
> 3) old plant, totally redone at one time = same as 3) with faster results.
> 4) New plant = best option for the environment.
>
> Interesting how the regulation by your interpetation punishes a company for
> doing 2) but not for doing 1). Was this supposed to be about the
> environment or politics?

Sigh. See, the problem is that the industry, and now with Bush
backing, want your scenarios 1 2 and 3 to all put out the same crap as
scenario 1. Which is not hardly 'better for the environment'.
see, if the owners modernizing the plants actually made them 'better
for the environment', they wouldn't be trying to evade having to meet
tests that would prove whether they are better for the environment,
would they?

Bill Funk wrote:
> On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 12:29:05 -0500, Dan Gates
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>Bill Funk wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 19:22:36 GMT, Brandon Sommerville
>>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>You can always pay for more care here, if you want a chiropractor or
>>>>you want to go to some sort of therapist or something along those
>>>>lines. What you *don't* get is the right to skip to the head of the
>>>>line because you've got more disposable income if you need or want a
>>>>non-critical procedure.
>>>
>>>
>>>Really?
>>>So your health system is non-competitive, in the sense that doctors
>>>can't work outside the system?
>>>
>>
>>
>>In most provinces, charging extra for a "covered service" is illegal.
>>If a service is not covered, then you can charge whatever the market
>>will pay (ie, purely cosmetic surgery, etc). Most physicians that wish
>>to increase their income work for an emergency department or after-hours
>>clinic. The employer charges the province for the service, and the
>>doctor gets paid either by salary or by the hour.
>>
>>Dan
>
>
> I have no first-hand experience with Canadian healthcare, so I ask
> questions.
> When Branden wrote, "What you *don't* get is the right to skip to the
> head of the line because you've got more disposable income if you need
> or want a non-critical procedure", that seems to say that money won't
> get you medical care any faster than what the government system
> provides.
> You're saying the opposite.
>
> Unless "the line" means the line for the government's system only, and
> the line for care outside the system is a different line those with
> more money can get into.
>

No, that is not what I said. The College of Physicians and Surgeons
gets together with the Ministry of Health and decides what are "Covered
Services". This would be anything that is deemed medically necessary
and effective. So if you had cancer and needed treatment, and studies
proper studies had been performed which proved therapy X worked, it
would be covered. If you decided that you needed magic mushrooms from
Mexico, it would not be covered, even if you cousin's girlfriend's aunt
said it cured her. It includes regular physicals, not more than
annually, if you have no outstanding conditions, it does not include
dental work, except in an emergency, or eyeglass prescriptions. Most of
us also have to pay for our own pharmaceuticals, unless you are on
welfare or over 65.

Once a service is listed as a "covered service", you cannot charge for
that service. "Beauty Enhancement" surgery is not covered, accident
reconstruction is covered. There is a whole list.

In most provinces (it is a federal mandate, administered by the
provinces, and funded by both federal and provincial governments), there
is no "outside system", some pay-per-service clinics are being set up in
some provinces, but being challenged in the courts.
I think that sports franchises "donate" certain equipment to local
hospitals so that their players can be diagnosed immediately. The local
population benefits because the equipment is available for general use
most of the time. Franchises also have their own doctors on salary, so
there is no issue about them going to the "front of the line" in the
public system.

If you have a "bum knee" that you got playing football in university and
decide it is time to have it looked at, you will get a replacement when
it is your turn. If you are injured today and cannot walk for your
work, but need to, you will get put further up the line, because you are
more "needy" of the service. You might still have to wait, but not
nearly as long as the recreational replacement!

Dan

In article <[email protected]>, z wrote:
> [email protected] (Brent P) wrote in message news:<rP5zb.5650$_M.25172@attbi_s54>...
>> In article <[email protected]>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>
>> > Wrong. They started treating major modifications as new sources, which was
>> > exactly what the law allowed (and required). If during 10 years of routine
>> > maintenance you replace each part, you've got a new source, yet under your and
>> > Bush's plan, it'd never trigger the latest pollution controls because you
>> > replaced it one piece at a time, as part of each year's maintenance.
>>
>> > But if the plants get modified instead of just "serviced and cleaned", that's
>> > precisely what the law intended. That's why the EPA sued a number of utility
>> > companies, why a number of them settled, and why the suits continued until
>> > Bush decided to "reinterpet" the law just this year.
>>
>> So what was put together was an all-or-nothing policy. Either the power
>> companies did everything or nothing. When they did some modernization
>> they were to be penalized. This sounds like a government power trip
>> more than sensible regulation to protect the environment the way you
>> describe it, parker.
>>
>> 1) Old plant, old tech = bad for the environment.
>> 2) old plant, slowly moderized = better for the environment.
>> 3) old plant, totally redone at one time = same as 3) with faster results.
>> 4) New plant = best option for the environment.
>>
>> Interesting how the regulation by your interpetation punishes a company for
>> doing 2) but not for doing 1). Was this supposed to be about the
>> environment or politics?
>
> Sigh. See, the problem is that the industry, and now with Bush
> backing, want your scenarios 1 2 and 3 to all put out the same crap as
> scenario 1.

Cite?

> Which is not hardly 'better for the environment'.
> see, if the owners modernizing the plants actually made them 'better
> for the environment', they wouldn't be trying to evade having to meet
> tests that would prove whether they are better for the environment,
> would they?

If environmentalists were about protecting the environment they wouldn't
oppose every new cleaner source of energy that comes along.

That aside, companies wouldn't modernize a plant unless there was
a return on investment. That return is more electicity at the same or
lower cost.

How does the company reduce costs? Well I know they don't do it with
burning more fuel than they have to.

Bill Putney <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> z wrote:
> >
> > [email protected] (Brent P) wrote in message news:<qG3xb.234391$275.877138@attbi_s53>...
>
> > > You put down alot of words but say nothing. Why is CO2 released in
> > > China less harmful than CO2 released in the USA?
> >
> > Cause there's less of it?
> > It's like the guy with the huge boombox on wheels car stereo
> > complaining it's unfair he has to keep it down when his neighbor
> > doesn't have to muffle his 2 inch wind chimes. After all, it's all
> > noise.
>
> Do you not understand that the question is about moving the production
> and therefore the same CO2 output from the U.S. to China due to
> double-standard rules, and that therefore the damage to the world
> environment is independent of the number of people in the country of
> origin and the same (or worse in China), only originating from China
> instead of the U.S.
>
> Hence, Brent's very valid question: "Why is CO2 released in China less
> harmful than CO2 released in the USA?"
>
> Unless your goal is not really to reduce world polution as you claim,
> but instead do harm to the U.S. (i.e. introduce artificial
> inefficiencies into only the U.S. economy to redistribute world wealth),
> the question should make perfect sense. Your pretended ignorance of the
> question only reinforces the argument about the dishonesty of the
> so-called enviromentalists who are trying to "save the world" when it is
> clear what their real goals are.


Because currently the US is not only the world's worst offendor in
terms of global warming emissions, but also the one with the most
resources to do something about it.
And because this picture of CO2 emission regulation being the deciding
factor in the movement of jobs overseas is just silly, given that the
process is proceeding as fast as possible anyway.

Dan Gates wrote:
>
> Daniel J Stern wrote:

> > ...HillaryCare did a terrific job of scaring Americans off any changes
> > whatsoever to the current system. I have little doubt that was, in fact,
> > one of the primary main goals behind it.
> >
> Speaking of Texas, "The" CBC is running a report tonight on hospitals in
> Texas turning people away and choosing the "least expensive" option
> rather than the "most therapeutic", all because of lack of money!!
>
> Hmmmmm. Big difference eh?

Hmmm - do you think it might have something to do with resource
depletion due to having to treat *ILLEGAL* *ALIENS*!?

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! =-----

Brandon Sommerville wrote:
>
> ...There's
> such a huge shame factor associated with our bodies over here that
> it's disgusting, and that comes directly from those Puritans that I
> mentioned earlier. A friend of mine has a neighbour who firmly
> believes that the only time you should be naked is when changing
> clothes or having a bath and that kids who run around naked will have
> body issues. Only the mother should change the baby and then in
> private because other people seeing the baby naked will give the baby
> stress. Very Victorian, absolutely disgusting...

You're painting with a pretty broad brush, and the example you gave is
pretty extreme and atypical - so atypical, that one has to wonder why
you bring it up. I think the pendulum has swung plenty far in the other
extreme in the recent past - to the point where *THAT* has gotten pretty
disgusting. There is a reasonable balance.

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! =-----

z wrote:
>
> Bill Putney <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> > z wrote:
> > >
> > > ...It all started with that
> > > sonofabitch Galileo and his immoral socialist assertion that the sun
> > > did not revolve around the earth, as the bible clearly states.
> >
> > Oh? And where would that be stated. As the cliché says: "Chapter and
> > verse, please."
>
> UnGodly one, knowest thou not thy Scripture?
>
> In the heavens hath the Lord set a tabernacle for the sun, which is
> like a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, rejoicing as a giant in
> running his course. His going forth is from the high heaven, and his
> circuit unto the ends of it.
> Psalms 19:4
>
> The world also is established that it cannot be moved.
> Psalms 93:7
>
> The sun rises and sets and returns to his own place.
> Ecclesiastes 1:5
>
> And the sun stood still and the moon stayed, until the nation took
> vengeance on their enemies.
> Joshua 10:12

Pretty laughable. So if you yourself ever refer to the sun as setting
or rising, then by your own example, that means that you believe that
the the earth is stationary relative to the universe?

Ever hear of "relative postion" and "relative velocity" (which are the
terms that human beings commonly refer to their own position or velocity
without even realizing it)? I bet you even talk about driving your car
at, say "55 mph", when in reality, that's only one component in the
combination of linear and angular velocities that you are doing relative
to the earth *PLUS* the earth's velocity relative to the universe. So,
again, by giving speed and position references relative to the earth,
you must be implying that the earth is staionary in the universe and
that the sun moves around the earth. I bet you even refer to people as
"standing still".

I won't even get into figurative and prophetic language.

Say what you will to elevate man's "wisdom" above God's, the Word of God
will be standing when your human logic is long gone.

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! =-----

On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 17:18:53 GMT, Brandon Sommerville
<[email protected]> wrote:

>The problem with this assumption is that you appear to be assuming
>that gays fall into the moral anarchy group. There are a lot more
>straight moral anarchists than gay, many of whom just want the same
>things from a relationship that you and I do (minus kids for most, of
>course).

Most of us don't care if you are gay or straight, we just don't want
homosexuality forced on our children. Most gays don't, but too many
do.

I support equal treatment for everybody, but gays are asking for more
equal treatment, which I am against.

On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 11:05:36 -0700, Bill Funk <[email protected]>
wrote:

>On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 17:43:43 GMT, Brandon Sommerville
><[email protected]> wrote:

>>And the rights that Americans view as "God given" are derived from the
>>original framework of what America is. Under that agreement that
>>formed the state were some rights that the state is not allowed to
>>take away. Remove the state however and those rights no longer exist.
>
>So the right to life is dependant on the existance of a government?

Without a government, how do you protect your right to life? If might
makes right, you can lose your life very easily.

>More particularly, the American government?
>I have a hard time understanding how that can be said.

The rights to which I were referring to were access to courts, freedom
of speech, that sort of thing.
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail

Definition of "Lottery":
Millions of stupid people contributing
to make one stupid person look smart.

On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 11:03:15 -0700, Bill Funk <[email protected]>
wrote:

>I have no first-hand experience with Canadian healthcare, so I ask
>questions.
>When Branden wrote, "What you *don't* get is the right to skip to the
>head of the line because you've got more disposable income if you need
>or want a non-critical procedure", that seems to say that money won't
>get you medical care any faster than what the government system
>provides.
>You're saying the opposite.

I've been reading Dan's stuff and he seems to know a lot more about
the topic than I do. If there's a discrepancy between what we say,
I'd believe him.
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail

Definition of "Lottery":
Millions of stupid people contributing
to make one stupid person look smart.

On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 10:58:55 -0700, Bill Funk <[email protected]>
wrote:

>On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 17:18:53 GMT, Brandon Sommerville
><[email protected]> wrote:

>>You can pay for elective care if you want it, it's just that the
>>necessities are all covered by the gov't. If there is too much of a
>>need for a specific procedure then setting it up on a fee basis simply
>>means that the wealthy will be able to get ahead of those who can't
>>afford to pay for the procedure.
>
>But that's not "equal access to health care".
>That's access for all.
>Two very different things.

Not necessarily. It's equal access to that which is essential to your
health. Anything else that you want you can pony up for on your own.
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail

Definition of "Lottery":
Millions of stupid people contributing
to make one stupid person look smart.

On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 18:20:38 -0500, Bill Putney <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>
>Brandon Sommerville wrote:
>>
>> ...There's
>> such a huge shame factor associated with our bodies over here that
>> it's disgusting, and that comes directly from those Puritans that I
>> mentioned earlier. A friend of mine has a neighbour who firmly
>> believes that the only time you should be naked is when changing
>> clothes or having a bath and that kids who run around naked will have
>> body issues. Only the mother should change the baby and then in
>> private because other people seeing the baby naked will give the baby
>> stress. Very Victorian, absolutely disgusting...
>
>You're painting with a pretty broad brush, and the example you gave is
>pretty extreme and atypical - so atypical, that one has to wonder why
>you bring it up. I think the pendulum has swung plenty far in the other
>extreme in the recent past - to the point where *THAT* has gotten pretty
>disgusting. There is a reasonable balance.

That neighbour is an extreme case, but she's firmly against any sort
of public nudity. What everyone is missing is that public nudity
doesn't have to be about sex. The only reason everyone gets so
excited about it is that it's forbidden. As I said, go to a topless
beach in Europe or Australia, no one notices it.
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail

Definition of "Lottery":
Millions of stupid people contributing
to make one stupid person look smart.

On Tue, 9 Dec 2003, DTJ wrote:

> Most of us don't care if you are gay or straight,

You apparently do, however. Witness what you wrote just a couple days ago:

--
From: DTJ ([email protected])
Subject: Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about
safetycanbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.4x4, rec.autos.driving,
rec.autos.makers.jeep+willys, rec.autos.makers.chrysler,
rec.autos.makers.ford.explorer
Date: 2003-12-06 07:27:15 PST

Homosexuality is a mental disorder. Until the liberal left decided to
force the issue by declaring it was genetic, even though there is proof it
is not genetic. So go ahead and spout you faggot views, intelligent people
know better.

---


> we just don't want homosexuality forced on our children. Most gays
> don't, but too many do.

Too many do...what, exactly? What is this "force" they exert on your
children, exactly?

> I support equal treatment for everybody, but gays are asking for more
> equal treatment

In what way? What special rights do you perceive gays asking for?

DS

> > > 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?


For Lloyd thats allowed because it's a leftist democrat's crony.
Just like Terry McAuliffe making millions off of Global Crossing just before
they went bankrupt. A bigger bankruptcy than Enron to boot. Then there's
also the book deal for which Hillary got an $8 million advance. Just like
Newt Gingrich except 3X the amount and Newt had to give his back because
there would be a conflict of interest since he was a Republican
Representative. Can we say double standard?
Of course Lloyd will now call me a right wing nazi racist idiot that needs
to learn some science.

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

"Brandon Sommerville" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 19:34:36 -0500, Greg <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >Brandon Sommerville wrote:
> >
> >> On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 12:23:43 -0500, Greg <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >Brandon Sommerville wrote:
>
> >> >> Now, back to the real question, what do you specifically have
against
> >> >> gay marriage?
> >> >
> >> >The inconsistencies of the arguments being used to promote it (gays
need to get "married"
> >> >to get the legal benefits, but providing the legal benefits doesn't
seem to be good
> >> >enough), claiming the need to redefine words but only narrowly when
convenient, among other
> >> >reasons already mentioned here.
> >>
> >> None of this explains why it is so repugnant to so many that gays be
> >> allowed to be legally married. Is your concept of marriage (a
> >> relationship between two people who love each other) so weak that it
> >> is threatened by gays expressing those same feelings and wanting to be
> >> recognized in the same fashion?
> >
> >Negative, nor is that what I said.
>
> I know it's not what you said. It's just that none of the arguments
> presented seem to be a substantive reason not to allow them to get
> married, just a desperate attempt to maintain the status quo.

No. Your argument for gay marriage is to point out that so called lack of
an answer to the question of Why Not? or Why are you so threatened? I've
pointed out that it requires a redefinition of Marriage because,
traditionally, the over-arching purpose of marriage is to provide the best
possible place for children to be reared: the family. It is recognized,
aided and protected by the state not just for it's societal benefits, but
because of the value people have historically placed on it as a sacred
institution. A reflection of the people's values.

The religious connection is unavoidable. Traditional marraige is a covenant
between God, Man and Woman. A covenant of obedience to God, fidelity to
each other, but mostly as God's the way to bring children into the world,
love them and teach them faith in God. It really isn't so much about love
or a declaration of love. Religiously, love isn't a pre-requisite for
marriage... obedience to God is. Love is a commandment and as we *pactice*
love, we find it and happiness.

The decay or rejection of religious faith has effected marriage such that
there is a common acceptance of children outside of wedlock, divorce,
infidelity, selfishness and so on. It's become without purpose except to
gratify self. When that sours, it's off to the next exciting relationship.
Lost is the sense of religious obligation and the happiness that comes from
living it.

Redefining marriage as an expression of love between two people or a way of
recognizing the commitment between two people just shoots the middle right
out of it. It becomes an empty shell. The whole issue about protecting
marriage isn't about fairness or civil rights or gays or anything but what
it means religiously. Even if one isn't particularly religious. For me,
it's the sense that the community I live in is generally reflective of my
values and is blessed with the benefits that come from living them.

Sorry for the Sunday school lession. But it's obvious that marriage
revolves around it's religious roots.


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

"Brandon Sommerville" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 01:08:22 GMT, "David J. Allen"
> <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
> >
> >"Brandon Sommerville" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
>
> >> So since step parents can be harmful to the family unit should we
> >> disallow re-marriage?
> >
> >There are times that I might just think so. I have friends inwhich the
> >father left and now the mom is involved with a guy that is really a jerk
> >(she doesn't see it... she's so worried about being alone) and her kids
all
> >hate this guy. It looks like she's going to marry him any way. Makes me
> >think there ought to be a law.
>
> Would it have been better had the father been forced to stay?
>

No. My answer was a little fecetious. It would have been better had they
solved their problems quite frankly.

> >There was a time, pre- no fault divorce, that getting a divorce wasn't
easy.
>
> How do you prove emotional abuse?
>

That's one side of the blade. The other is making it too easy to give up.

> >There had to be justification. Our value shifts going away from
traditional
> >values has made that a quaint thing of the past. Again, my point of view
is
> >based on the principles of marriage and family being good and the right
> >thing for society. The trend is toward what's good and fair for the
> >individual based on a civil rights approach. That will never be
constrained
> >to just gay marriage.
>
> Having seen enough couples where one of the members was abusive, I'm
> glad that people are no longer forced to stay together if they don't
> want to.
>

When someone makes a mistake marrying the wrong person, it is a good thing
to be able to get out of it and have a second chance. I'm not arguing
against that.

> It's interesting that you suggest that marriage not be about what you
> can get for yourself. How many times have you heard women say that
> they will only marry a guy who makes at least X amount of money? Or
> guys who marry a woman based on how she looks?

I think it's true. Selfishness never was happiness.
> --
> Brandon Sommerville
> remove ".gov" to e-mail
>
> Definition of "Lottery":
> Millions of stupid people contributing
> to make one stupid person look smart.

"Bill Funk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 16:07:44 GMT, Brandon Sommerville
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >>Changing marriage into a civil right for <fill in the blank> rather than
an
> >>institution to bless our continued existence over the generations.
> >
> >And "our continued existence over the generations" means children,
> >doesn't it?
>
> In part, yes.
> It also means self-defense. Which, of course, doesn't involve marriage
> at all.
> Is children within marriage the sole reason for marriage? Obviously
> not, otherwise there would be a rule that any couple that gets married
> must have children.
> Marriage is a complex concept, and children, while a major part of
> marriage, do not define a marriage.

It's roots are religious. A covenant between God, husband and wife. God's
way for us to bring children into the world.

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