Jerry McG wrote:

> "C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:3F7CE3E2.B772E342@mindspring.com...
>
>>
>>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>
>>
>>>So are conservatives -- telling people what kind of --- 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
>>--- 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.
>>
>>Ed
>
>
> 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.

 

In article <bql0eg$c29$3@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
> Because the Clean Air Act only exempts _maintenance_ not _modifications_.

So this is not about the environment, it's about government power and
buracratic nonsense if you are correct. If this were about the
environment the regulations would not be all-or-nothing. Because quite
clearly modifications that improve the performance of the power plant
and reduce emissions are good for the environment and should be allowed
even if the whole plant isn't redone to meet the standards of new equipment.
Part-way is better for the environment than doing nothing.

 

In article <bql0eg$c29$3@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
> Because the Clean Air Act only exempts _maintenance_ not _modifications_.

So this is not about the environment, it's about government power and
buracratic nonsense if you are correct. If this were about the
environment the regulations would not be all-or-nothing. Because quite
clearly modifications that improve the performance of the power plant
and reduce emissions are good for the environment and should be allowed
even if the whole plant isn't redone to meet the standards of new equipment.
Part-way is better for the environment than doing nothing.

 

In article <bql0eg$c29$3@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
> Because the Clean Air Act only exempts _maintenance_ not _modifications_.

So this is not about the environment, it's about government power and
buracratic nonsense if you are correct. If this were about the
environment the regulations would not be all-or-nothing. Because quite
clearly modifications that improve the performance of the power plant
and reduce emissions are good for the environment and should be allowed
even if the whole plant isn't redone to meet the standards of new equipment.
Part-way is better for the environment than doing nothing.

 

Lloyd Parker wrote:

> >Since when to conservatives as an aggregate tell people what kind of --- 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

 

Lloyd Parker wrote:

> >Since when to conservatives as an aggregate tell people what kind of --- 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

 

Lloyd Parker wrote:

> >Since when to conservatives as an aggregate tell people what kind of --- 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

 

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. If you
> don't want to live in a society, you can leave. Nobody's keeping you here.

Doesn't the same apply when "society" makes rules about ---, abortion, marriage,
etc., etc., etc.?

Ed

 

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. If you
> don't want to live in a society, you can leave. Nobody's keeping you here.

Doesn't the same apply when "society" makes rules about ---, abortion, marriage,
etc., etc., etc.?

Ed

 

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. If you
> don't want to live in a society, you can leave. Nobody's keeping you here.

Doesn't the same apply when "society" makes rules about ---, abortion, marriage,
etc., etc., etc.?

Ed