Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <f4ussvo9j315a0hms7l9tfirlc77672p8s@4ax.com>,
Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 03 Dec 03 11:09:23 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>wrote:
>
>>In article <3F7CE3E2.B772E342@mindspring.com>,
>> "C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>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.
>>>
>>
>>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.
>Seperate bathrooms.
Which laws mandate that?
>Voting age.
You really think telling a 5-year old he can't vote is like telling an adult
whom he can't marry?
>Drinking age.
>And on and on.
>Discrimination per se is not wrong; it's how it's applied that can be
>wrong.
>
Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 03 Dec 03 11:09:23 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>wrote:
>
>>In article <3F7CE3E2.B772E342@mindspring.com>,
>> "C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>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.
>>>
>>
>>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.
>Seperate bathrooms.
Which laws mandate that?
>Voting age.
You really think telling a 5-year old he can't vote is like telling an adult
whom he can't marry?
>Drinking age.
>And on and on.
>Discrimination per se is not wrong; it's how it's applied that can be
>wrong.
>
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <f4ussvo9j315a0hms7l9tfirlc77672p8s@4ax.com>,
Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 03 Dec 03 11:09:23 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>wrote:
>
>>In article <3F7CE3E2.B772E342@mindspring.com>,
>> "C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>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.
>>>
>>
>>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.
>Seperate bathrooms.
Which laws mandate that?
>Voting age.
You really think telling a 5-year old he can't vote is like telling an adult
whom he can't marry?
>Drinking age.
>And on and on.
>Discrimination per se is not wrong; it's how it's applied that can be
>wrong.
>
Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 03 Dec 03 11:09:23 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>wrote:
>
>>In article <3F7CE3E2.B772E342@mindspring.com>,
>> "C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>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.
>>>
>>
>>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.
>Seperate bathrooms.
Which laws mandate that?
>Voting age.
You really think telling a 5-year old he can't vote is like telling an adult
whom he can't marry?
>Drinking age.
>And on and on.
>Discrimination per se is not wrong; it's how it's applied that can be
>wrong.
>
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety canbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <v9ussv00ls72uabkpvvbs5kd2pnpv1v4ho@4ax.com>,
Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 18:21:10 GMT, Brandon Sommerville
><grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 13:00:25 -0500, "C. E. White"
>><cewhite3@mindspring.com> 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 --- union. If there
are
>>>particular laws related to the term "marriage" that make "marriages"
beneficial
>>>and same --- 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.
>
Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 18:21:10 GMT, Brandon Sommerville
><grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 13:00:25 -0500, "C. E. White"
>><cewhite3@mindspring.com> 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 --- union. If there
are
>>>particular laws related to the term "marriage" that make "marriages"
beneficial
>>>and same --- 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.
>
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety canbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <v9ussv00ls72uabkpvvbs5kd2pnpv1v4ho@4ax.com>,
Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 18:21:10 GMT, Brandon Sommerville
><grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 13:00:25 -0500, "C. E. White"
>><cewhite3@mindspring.com> 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 --- union. If there
are
>>>particular laws related to the term "marriage" that make "marriages"
beneficial
>>>and same --- 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.
>
Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 18:21:10 GMT, Brandon Sommerville
><grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 13:00:25 -0500, "C. E. White"
>><cewhite3@mindspring.com> 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 --- union. If there
are
>>>particular laws related to the term "marriage" that make "marriages"
beneficial
>>>and same --- 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.
>
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety canbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <v9ussv00ls72uabkpvvbs5kd2pnpv1v4ho@4ax.com>,
Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 18:21:10 GMT, Brandon Sommerville
><grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 13:00:25 -0500, "C. E. White"
>><cewhite3@mindspring.com> 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 --- union. If there
are
>>>particular laws related to the term "marriage" that make "marriages"
beneficial
>>>and same --- 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.
>
Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 18:21:10 GMT, Brandon Sommerville
><grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 13:00:25 -0500, "C. E. White"
>><cewhite3@mindspring.com> 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 --- union. If there
are
>>>particular laws related to the term "marriage" that make "marriages"
beneficial
>>>and same --- 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.
>
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycanbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <3FCE7BE1.7BFFC94A@kinez.net>,
Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net> wrote:
>
>
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>
>> In article <3FCD281D.ED699881@kinez.net>,
>> Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> >>
>> >> So are conservatives -- telling people what kind of --- 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! =-----
Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net> wrote:
>
>
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>
>> In article <3FCD281D.ED699881@kinez.net>,
>> Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> >>
>> >> So are conservatives -- telling people what kind of --- 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! =-----
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycanbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <3FCE7BE1.7BFFC94A@kinez.net>,
Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net> wrote:
>
>
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>
>> In article <3FCD281D.ED699881@kinez.net>,
>> Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> >>
>> >> So are conservatives -- telling people what kind of --- 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! =-----
Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net> wrote:
>
>
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>
>> In article <3FCD281D.ED699881@kinez.net>,
>> Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> >>
>> >> So are conservatives -- telling people what kind of --- 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! =-----
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycanbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <3FCE7BE1.7BFFC94A@kinez.net>,
Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net> wrote:
>
>
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>
>> In article <3FCD281D.ED699881@kinez.net>,
>> Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> >>
>> >> So are conservatives -- telling people what kind of --- 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! =-----
Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net> wrote:
>
>
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>
>> In article <3FCD281D.ED699881@kinez.net>,
>> Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> >>
>> >> So are conservatives -- telling people what kind of --- 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! =-----
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycanbemisinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <3FCE7CC4.EC8B0498@kinez.net>,
Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net> wrote:
>
>
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>
>> In article <3FCD297E.ACDFBAB3@kinez.net>,
>> Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net> 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! =-----
Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net> wrote:
>
>
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>
>> In article <3FCD297E.ACDFBAB3@kinez.net>,
>> Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net> 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! =-----
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycanbemisinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <3FCE7CC4.EC8B0498@kinez.net>,
Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net> wrote:
>
>
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>
>> In article <3FCD297E.ACDFBAB3@kinez.net>,
>> Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net> 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! =-----
Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net> wrote:
>
>
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>
>> In article <3FCD297E.ACDFBAB3@kinez.net>,
>> Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net> 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! =-----