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.
In article <[email protected]>,
"C. E. White" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>>
>> >The "new class of civil union" would cover that just fine.
>> >
>>
>> Didn't "separate but equal" get discredited in the 1950s?
>
>This statement is the sort of crap uttered by psudeo-liberals that I find
>particularly offensive. Trying to redine the word "marriage" to cover same
sex
>unions is not discrimination.
>
>Ed
>
Why is telling some people they don't have a right others have NOT
discrimination?
 
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.

>
>The arguments for and against Sodomy laws and Adultery laws each have
merit.

Sure, so did those against integration. To bigots.

>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).


>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.
>> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >
>> >
>
>
 
In article <[email protected]>,
"Larry St. Regis" <lstregis@DONT_SPAM_HEREi4putt.com> wrote:
>
>"C. E. White" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>>
>>
>> Brandon Sommerville wrote:
>>
>> > On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 13:00:25 -0500, "C. E. White"
>> > <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> > >
>> > >> 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?
>> > >
>> > >I am not suggesting that the government institutionalize
>discrimination. Marriage
>> > >is a union between a man and a woman. It is not a same sex union. If
>there are
>> > >particular laws related to the term "marriage" that make "marriages"
>beneficial
>> > >and same sex unions feel they deserve these benefits, then change the
>law, or
>> > >have the law ruled unconstitutional. Don't try to circumvent the
>process by
>> > >redefining the word.
>> >
>> > 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 is not a marriage. I am not opposed to people of the same sex entering
>into a
>> commited relationship, but that is not the same thing as a traditional
>marriage. If
>> there are benefits related to a traditional marriage that same sex couple
>feel they
>> are entitled to, then they should petition their representatives to pass
>laws to
>> extend these benefits to them and not try to duck the process by
>redefining an
>> establishment that has long been in place.
>>
>> Ed
>>
>
>Out here in Ahnold's Kalifonia, we have a "domestic partners" registry that
>allows partners OF THE SAME SEX to register their relationship. In most
>"progressive" companies, mine included, registered domestic partners are
>eligible for the same benefits that married couples enjoy.
>
>The problem I have with the situation is that OPPOSITE sex partners do not
>get the same consideration! My wife and I lived together for five years
>before getting married. We were denied the ability to register as domestic
>partners, with the cited reason being "you are eligible to be legally
>married". Hmmph.
>

The rationale behind that is opposite sex partners CAN get married; same sex
partners cannot.

>Larry
>
 
In article <[email protected]>,
"C. E. White" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>Brandon Sommerville wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 13:00:25 -0500, "C. E. White"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> >
>> >> 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?
>> >
>> >I am not suggesting that the government institutionalize discrimination.
Marriage
>> >is a union between a man and a woman. It is not a same sex union. If there
are
>> >particular laws related to the term "marriage" that make "marriages"
beneficial
>> >and same sex unions feel they deserve these benefits, then change the law,
or
>> >have the law ruled unconstitutional. Don't try to circumvent the process
by
>> >redefining the word.
>>
>> 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 is not a marriage. I am not opposed to people of the same sex entering
into a
>commited relationship, but that is not the same thing as a traditional
marriage. If
>there are benefits related to a traditional marriage that same sex couple
feel they
>are entitled to, then they should petition their representatives to pass laws
to
>extend these benefits to them and not try to duck the process by redefining
an
>establishment that has long been in place.
>
>Ed
>
Slavery was an instutition that was "long in place" too. Just because a form
of discrimination has lasted a long time isn't any reason to resist changing
it.
 
In article <[email protected]>,
"C. E. White" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> "C. E. White" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> >
>> >> >Since when to conservatives as an aggregate tell people what kind of
sex
>> to
>> >> >have??? You're posting from an alternate reality again.
>> >> >
>> >> Sodomy laws?
>> >
>> >Have any new ones been enacted recently? I thought almost all such laws
were
>> >enacted many years ago and were definitely middle of the road sort of laws
at
>> the
>> >time.
>> >
>> >Ed
>> >
>> Which states kept them until just recently, and fought for them in the
>> courts? Texas, Georgia, conservative states. Which USSC justices wanted
to
>> uphold them? Thomas, Scalia, the conservative justices.
>
>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.
 
In article <[email protected]>,
"The Ancient One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> "OrygunGuy" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >A technical paper that appeared in July, 2003 in GSA Today, a journal of
>the
>> >Geological Society of America, gave evidence that the periodic cooling
>and
>> >warming of the planet over the past millions of years is cyclical and is
>> >caused by a complex interplay between solar activity and cosmic rays. It
>> >concluded that carbon dioxide emissions are not the main "driver" of
>climate
>> >change.
>> >
>> >Dr. Nir Shaviv, an astrophysicist from the Racah Institute of Physics of
>the
>> >Hebrew University of Jerusalem, and Prof. Jan Veiser a geochemist at the
>> >University of Ottawa in Canada, say that temperature variations are due
>more
>> >to cosmic forces than to the actions of man.
>> >
>> >In the article, Shaviv and Veiser tell of their studies illustrating a
>> >correlation between past cosmic ray flux - the high-energy particles
>> >reaching us from stellar explosions - and long-term climate variability,
>as
>> >recorded by oxygen isotopes trapped in rocks formed by ancient marine
>> >fossils. The level of cosmic ray activity reaching the earth and its
>> >atmosphere was reconstructed using another isotopic record in meteorites.
>> >
>> >The study showed that peak periods of cosmic rays reaching the earth over
>> >the past 550 million years coincided with lower global temperatures,
>> >apparently due to the way that the cosmic rays promote low-level cloud
>> >formation, hence blocking out the sun. No correlation was obtained,
>> >however, with the changing amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide.
>> >
>> >The conclusion of the two scientists is that celestial processes seem to
>be
>> >the dominant influence on climate change, and that increased carbon
>dioxide
>> >release, while certainly not beneficial, is only secondary to those
>forces
>> >which are beyond our control.
>>
>> But we know that the warming TODAY is due to CO2.
>
>No, we don't.

Sorry, when I said "we" I meant "we who are in the field of science."

>
> It doesn't matter that
>> warmings in the past may have had other causes. That's like arguing that
>> since exercise raised your body temp. yesterday, a virus cannot be the
>cause
>> of your fever today.
>
>
>Still using the same feeble arguments I see.

Sorry if the concept of an "analogy" confused you. Bet you bombed the SATs.

>
>>
>> >
>> >For me I think I'll do what I see Frank say all of the time...
>> >
>> >
>> >yeah see if you can find out some thing about the trails
>> >
>> >
>> >Frank. Sling some mud for me!!!!!!!
>> >Braille trail 4 wheelers
>> >we wheel by feel
>> >79 chev 3/4 bb
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >"z" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> >news:[email protected]...
>> >> "Douglas A. Shrader" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> >news:<[email protected]>...
>> >> > "z" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> >> > news:[email protected]...
>> >> > > "C. E. White" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> >> > news:<[email protected]>...
>> >> > > > Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > > >Fact: we don't *know* why there were warming periods in the
>past.
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > > Irrelevant. We know why there's one now.
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > No we don't!
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > Some scientist believe the reason is an increase in the
>atmospheric
>> >> > concentration
>> >> > > > of CO2. They may be right or not. Your agreement with their
>belief
>> >does
>> >> > not prove
>> >> > > > it. Citing papers, even peer reviewed papers, still doesn't prove
>> >> > anything. The
>> >> > > > global climate is a very complicated system with lots of inputs.
>> >Looking
>> >> > at one
>> >> > > > input and one change and declaring they are cause and effect is
>BS.
>> >As a
>> >> > > > scientist you should know this. The scientist doing climate
>research
>> >> > don't even
>> >> > > > have really good data on the solar constant for more than the
>last
>> >few
>> >> > years.
>> >> > > > They are estimating historic temperatures from sketchy data or
>> >trying to
>> >> > infere
>> >> > > > it from effects that they believe are related to the temperature.
>> >The
>> >> > errors
>> >> > > > associated with these measurement are much greater than the
>changes
>> >they
>> >> > are
>> >> > > > claiming. It is junk science. They decided on the conclusion and
>> >then
>> >> > groomed the
>> >> > > > data to fit it. Anyone that doesn't agree with the establishment
>is
>> >> > treated as a
>> >> > > > loon.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > The IPCC model of climate change is hardly "Looking at one input
>and
>> >> > > one change and declaring they are cause and effect". In fact, all
>> >> > > inputs we currently know of as affecting climate are considered,
>and
>> >> > > the best estimate of their effects are calculated, complete with
>> >> > > confidence limits. What makes you think otherwise? What are you
>> >> > > reading that says it was "Looking at one input and one change and
>> >> > > declaring they are cause and effect"? What makes you say they
>"decided
>> >> > > on the conclusion and then groomed the data to fit it"? Was there
>some
>> >> > > kind of big meeting where environmentalists or liberals or the
>> >> > > climatology establishment or somebody decided that we should screw
>the
>> >> > > economy and the best way to do so was to pretend there was global
>> >> > > warming? Isn't it a bit more likely that the energy industries et
>al
>> >> > > have an axe to grind regarding preventing any restrictions on their
>> >> > > operation?
>> >> > > And there are plenty of scientists who disagree with the
>establishment
>> >> > > who are no treated as loons, in addition to the actual loons.
>> >> >
>> >> > I believe they are wrong. They discount solar influence when IMHO it
>is
>> >a
>> >> > far more likely cause. WE know solar output is variable, we know how
>> >great a
>> >> > temperature change can result from moderate changes in solar heating
>> >(think
>> >> > seasons), and anyone who dismisses Solar influence as a major force
>> >behind
>> >> > global warming (Hi LP) is, IMHO, in denial.
>> >>
>> >> Well, here are the estimated magnitudes of the components in the IPCC
>> >> model, with confidence limits <pws.prserv.net/gzuckier/warming.jpg>.
>> >> Compare the magnitude of the solar component, though large, with the
>> >> magnitude of the CO2 component, even with the max end of the solar
>> >> confidence limit and the min end of the CO2 confidence limit. The
>> >> thing being, that the reasons for the IPCC adopting these estimates
>> >> are given in the report along with references to the published
>> >> studies, etc. A far cry from just saying they 'discount' solar
>> >> warming. So do you have any such evidence for your more solar
>> >> position? (This wan't meant to be as hostile a challenge as it sounds
>> >> on reading it, just a conversational inquiry tone).
>> >
>> >
>
>
 
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.


>>
>>
>http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/user/clamen/misc/politics/HealthCare/
>Co
>> nsumerReports-Sep92.html.gz#Does%20Canada%20Have%20The%20Answer?
>>
 
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]>,
>> >> "David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >"C. E. White" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> >> >news:[email protected]...
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> "David J. Allen" wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Reminds me of my experience in a country a few years ago that had
>> >"free"
>> >> >> > (i.e., rationed) medical care for all. The demand for care
>> >outstripped
>> >> >the
>> >> >> > supply and the only people who got decent medical care were the
>> >people
>> >> >with
>> >> >> > money, who could pay for a private doctor. Everyone else had to
>go
>> >wait
>> >> >in
>> >> >> > line at the clinic and hope for decent care.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> So now you live in a country where health care is ridiculously
>> >expensive.
>> >> >Most
>> >> >> of the money goes to insurance companies. Nurses in the emergency
>room
>> >> >spend
>> >> >> more time filling out paperwork than looking after patients. Doctors
>> >live
>> >> >in
>> >> >> fear of making an honest mistake because the sharks are circulating
>> >just
>> >> >out of
>> >> >> sight ready to pounce. If you are poor the health care is still
>> >"free."
>> >> >If you
>> >> >> are rich or have really good insurance, then the system is great.
>> >However
>> >> >if you
>> >> >> are somewhere in between, chances are your insurance company will
>try
>> >to
>> >> >screw
>> >> >> you, while the hospital tries to bleed your dry (to pay for the
>> >> >administrators,
>> >> >> paper pushers, and to cover the cost of the "free" health care for
>the
>> >> >poor).
>> >> >> The fact is, we do have National Health Care in the US. The sad part
>> >is,
>> >> >we have
>> >> >> just about the worst possible system you can imagine. Personally I
>see
>> >> >only two
>> >> >> ways out - 1) A true National Health Care system with restrictions
>on
>> >> >"private"
>> >> >> practices, 2) Outlaw all health insurance and shoot anyone who even
>> >> >suggests
>> >> >> that companies provide health insurance. Everyone pays their own
>bills.
>> >If
>> >> >you
>> >> >> can't afford the treatment, you can apply for welfare (which would
>be
>> >> >generously
>> >> >> granted based on need).
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >There's no shortage of things to criticize about health care in the
>US.
>> >> >But, with the right perspective, it can be judged a very good system.
>I
>> >> >remember getting my first job and insurance was completely paid for by
>> >the
>> >> >company and there were no co-pays and only a small deductible. The
>> >problem
>> >> >with that is that it's so inflationary; patients didn't care what the
>> >cost
>> >> >was. Over the last 15 years the cost burden is being "shared" more
>and
>> >more
>> >> >with the patients. The cost of care is not distributed evenly. Those
>> >who
>> >> >pay, pay a lot. The cost of developing drugs and procedures is very
>> >> >expensive. You're right about the cost of providing free care to the
>> >poor
>> >> >and paying for malpractice litigation. Managed care puts the brakes
>on
>> >> >demand making it frustrating for patients whose health is at stake.
>> >> >
>> >> >With managed care, when you do your homework as a "consumer" of
>medical
>> >care
>> >> >and understand how the HMO system works, you CAN get what you need.
>As
>> >> >consumers, we have to do our part and understand what you're paying
>for
>> >and
>> >> >what the contract says. Then work with it. Unfortunately, it's
>complex
>> >and
>> >> >not real easy since there's three parties... you, the provider and the
>> >> >insurer. But it is possible.
>> >> >
>> >> >I think a National Health Care system sounds very scary. If we want
>an
>> >> >abundant supply of medical care in this country you can't take the
>supply
>> >> >and demand components out of the system. The minute you do, there
>won't
>> >be
>> >> >enough care and it will be substandard. There will be a constant
>> >struggle
>> >> >to keep the system from bankrupting the national treasury. I think it
>> >will
>> >> >just become a giant sized version of an HMO run by the government with
>no
>> >> >competitors.
>> >>
>> >> 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.
>> >>
>> >
>> >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.
>
>
>Your lying Lloyd, it happens every week. Crawl out of your shell and learn,
>repeatedly denying the existance of problems does not make them go away.
>>
>> Read, for example,
>> http://www.worldpolicy.org/globalrights/econrights/canada-health.html
>>
>> or
>>
>>
>http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/user/clamen/misc/politics/HealthCare/
>Co
>> nsumerReports-Sep92.html.gz#Does%20Canada%20Have%20The%20Answer?
>>
>
>Consumer Reports have no more credibility than you do Lloyd, which is 0.
>
>

"The cowardly one" just continues to show how stupid he is.
 
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.
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Bill Funk <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Wed, 03 Dec 03 10:56:52 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker)
>wrote:
>
>>>You're free to pay for their healthcare any time you want. But what
>>>idiot believes that they have the right to reach into my pocket and take
>>>what is mine (it's called stealing). So - really - who is preventing
>>>you and anyone who feels that way from paying for the treatment of these
>>>people? You have that right, as do I - but by freedom of will - not by
>>>confiscation.
>>>
>>
>>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. If you
>>don't want to live in a society, you can leave. Nobody's keeping you here.
>
>That assumes that all taxes are for legimitate purposes.
>And that's hardly the case.
>
And you get to decide that? Sorry, that would be anarchy. In our society,
our elected government decides that.
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Bill Funk <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Wed, 03 Dec 03 10:54:53 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker)
>wrote:
>
>>In article <[email protected]>,
>> Bill Funk <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>On Tue, 02 Dec 03 15:37:02 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker)
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <Us5zb.282500$275.1000782@attbi_s53>,
>>>> [email protected] (Brent P) wrote:
>>>>>In article <[email protected]>, 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.
>>>>>
>>>>>How would we spend "less on health care" ? Instead of paying for health
>>>>>insurance we would pay *AT LEAST* that much in additional taxes.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>Why is it, then, that every western European nation, plus Canada and
Japan,
>>>>spend less per capita on health care than the US yet still cover
everybody?
>>>
>>>Lloyd, you might want to do a Google search on the keywords:
>>>canadian health care problems
>>>This would let you see reality instead of the utopia your liberal
>>>friends promise.
>>>
>>
>>Oh great, he wants me to absorb his right-wing propaganda.
>>
>>Try this:
>>
>>http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/user/clamen/misc/politics/HealthCare/
Co
>>nsumerReports-Sep92.html.gz#Does%20Canada%20Have%20The%20Answer?
>
>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?
 
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.
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Bill Putney <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> Bill Putney <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> >You're free to pay for their healthcare any time you want. But what
>> >idiot believes that they have the right to reach into my pocket and take
>> >what is mine (it's called stealing). So - really - who is preventing
>> >you and anyone who feels that way from paying for the treatment of these
>> >people? You have that right, as do I - but by freedom of will - not by
>> >confiscation.
>> >
>>
>> 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....


>Going beyond that is stealing regardless
>of liberals euphemistically calling the unauthorized confiscation
>"taxes".
>
>I always knew that your brand of liberal believed that the state had an
>unlimited right to my property, but I never thought any were so totally
>blind to basic principles as to openly admit that they believed that.
>Guess I was wrong.
>
>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

 
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.

>
>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! =-----
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Bill Funk <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 18:21:10 GMT, Brandon Sommerville
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 13:00:25 -0500, "C. E. White"
>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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?
>>>
>>>I am not suggesting that the government institutionalize discrimination.
Marriage
>>>is a union between a man and a woman. It is not a same sex union. If there
are
>>>particular laws related to the term "marriage" that make "marriages"
beneficial
>>>and same sex unions feel they deserve these benefits, then change the law,
or
>>>have the law ruled unconstitutional. Don't try to circumvent the process by
>>>redefining the word.
>>
>>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

But the US government, not being JudeoChristian or any religion, should not
reflect religious bias, should it?


>defined by the religious society, and then codified by the
>governments.
>This is why the idea of gay marriage rankles so much.
>
>In today's society, though, a "church wedding" means little more than
>a marriage in front of a JP. Just look at current divorce rates: 50%.
>Obviously, there's little 'sacred' about marriage in the US anymore.
>And, of course, being married by "Elvis" sure adds a lot to the whole
>thing. :-/
>
>Being married in front of a JP in an office is strictly a legal
>matter. As long as the rules are followed, the marriage is legal.
>Changing the rules, then, isn't that big a deal.
>
>Of course, Churches would still be able to say, "Not here."
>
>In my opinion, of course.
>
 
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.

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.

>
>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! =-----
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Bill Putney <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> Bill Putney <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> >>
>> >> So are conservatives -- telling people what kind of sex to have...
>> >
>> >Huh!?
>> >
>>
>> 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?


>Nor will they (the supposed owners of all human rights issues)
>actively participate in freeing women from the oppression they live
>under in Islamic countries.
>
>> >> , what genders
>> >> can marry,
>> >
>> >Well, yeah - the word "marriage" has a meaning.
>>
>> Why does a government decide who can get married though?
>
>Because that government is of, for, and by the people? Like I say, why
>aren't you re-defining "murder" as "whitewashing a fence"? Words have
>meaning (unless you're a liberal).
>
>> >But of course you want
>> >to re-define it. Why not redefine "murder" as meaning "whitewashing a
>> >fence", or "talking" as "combing your hair" - that would make just as
>> >much sense.
>> >
>> >> what a woman can do with her body, etc.
>> >
>> >When I and others are forced to pay for the consequences, yes.
>>
>> Actually, you want to force a woman to have the baby and then refuse to pay
>> for any expense of raising the child.
>
>Well, maybe just one, but only if she consents to sterilization - she
>doesn't have to consent, but in that case then neither do I then have to
>pay for her idiocy. It is her freedom to do so, but it is not her right
>to make me pay for 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! =-----
 
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.
 
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