"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bqnjba$e8j$17@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <jitssv8suj0cd099p9hi10snvtjud3sfg9@4ax.com>,
> Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
> >On Wed, 03 Dec 03 10:53:28 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (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/globalrig...da-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.


They don't speak for any consumers I know. Consumer Reports is a joke, used
by those people who lack the intelligence to invistigate an issue and learn
the truth.

 

"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bqnjba$e8j$17@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <jitssv8suj0cd099p9hi10snvtjud3sfg9@4ax.com>,
> Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
> >On Wed, 03 Dec 03 10:53:28 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (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/globalrig...da-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.


They don't speak for any consumers I know. Consumer Reports is a joke, used
by those people who lack the intelligence to invistigate an issue and learn
the truth.

 

"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bqnjmi$e8j$23@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <3FCE8679.C036BE53@kinez.net>,
> Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >>
> >> In article <3FCD3C1D.BE56D712@greg.greg>, Greg <greg@greg.greg> 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.

Lloyd once again demonstrates the complete lack of comprehension and
intelligence that has made him famous. His ignorance is equalled only by his
arrogance, either of which dwarfs every conceivable level formerly
established.

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

 

"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bqnjmi$e8j$23@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <3FCE8679.C036BE53@kinez.net>,
> Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >>
> >> In article <3FCD3C1D.BE56D712@greg.greg>, Greg <greg@greg.greg> 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.

Lloyd once again demonstrates the complete lack of comprehension and
intelligence that has made him famous. His ignorance is equalled only by his
arrogance, either of which dwarfs every conceivable level formerly
established.

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

 

"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bqnjmi$e8j$23@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <3FCE8679.C036BE53@kinez.net>,
> Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >>
> >> In article <3FCD3C1D.BE56D712@greg.greg>, Greg <greg@greg.greg> 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.

Lloyd once again demonstrates the complete lack of comprehension and
intelligence that has made him famous. His ignorance is equalled only by his
arrogance, either of which dwarfs every conceivable level formerly
established.

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

 

"The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote in message
news:vsssbnq5s1ju5a@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Bill Funk" <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote in message
> news:b0vrsvgbd88sbli7tt39qaiffmo7eogp5j@4ax.com...
> > On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 19:02:37 -0500, Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >> what a woman can do with her body, etc.
> > >
> > >When I and others are forced to pay for the consequences, yes. Don't
> > >make me and others pay for the consequences for her behavior, and I'll
> > >quit telling her what she can and can't do that I and others will have
> > >to pay for later.
> >
> > I always found the argument that we can't tell a woman what to do with
> > her body rather strange.
> > We most certainly can, and do, just that: it's illegal for a woman to
> > use illegal drugs on/in her body, for example. That destroys the
> > argument right there.
>
> Prostitution is illegal as well, even though the women make the choice
what
> to do with their bodies, the government tells them they can't. What's your
> answer to this Lloyd?
>

What's wrong Lloyd, no lame answer? One nice thing about you Lloyd, you make
everyone else greatful they aren't as dumb as you.

 

"The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote in message
news:vsssbnq5s1ju5a@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Bill Funk" <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote in message
> news:b0vrsvgbd88sbli7tt39qaiffmo7eogp5j@4ax.com...
> > On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 19:02:37 -0500, Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >> what a woman can do with her body, etc.
> > >
> > >When I and others are forced to pay for the consequences, yes. Don't
> > >make me and others pay for the consequences for her behavior, and I'll
> > >quit telling her what she can and can't do that I and others will have
> > >to pay for later.
> >
> > I always found the argument that we can't tell a woman what to do with
> > her body rather strange.
> > We most certainly can, and do, just that: it's illegal for a woman to
> > use illegal drugs on/in her body, for example. That destroys the
> > argument right there.
>
> Prostitution is illegal as well, even though the women make the choice
what
> to do with their bodies, the government tells them they can't. What's your
> answer to this Lloyd?
>

What's wrong Lloyd, no lame answer? One nice thing about you Lloyd, you make
everyone else greatful they aren't as dumb as you.

 

"The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote in message
news:vsssbnq5s1ju5a@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Bill Funk" <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote in message
> news:b0vrsvgbd88sbli7tt39qaiffmo7eogp5j@4ax.com...
> > On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 19:02:37 -0500, Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >> what a woman can do with her body, etc.
> > >
> > >When I and others are forced to pay for the consequences, yes. Don't
> > >make me and others pay for the consequences for her behavior, and I'll
> > >quit telling her what she can and can't do that I and others will have
> > >to pay for later.
> >
> > I always found the argument that we can't tell a woman what to do with
> > her body rather strange.
> > We most certainly can, and do, just that: it's illegal for a woman to
> > use illegal drugs on/in her body, for example. That destroys the
> > argument right there.
>
> Prostitution is illegal as well, even though the women make the choice
what
> to do with their bodies, the government tells them they can't. What's your
> answer to this Lloyd?
>

What's wrong Lloyd, no lame answer? One nice thing about you Lloyd, you make
everyone else greatful they aren't as dumb as you.

 

"Daniel J. Stern" wrote:

> On Thu, 4 Dec 2003, C. E. White wrote first this:
>
> > I know that in NC, a law was passed specifically validating interracial
> > marriages in order correct the harm done my an old law that declared
> > such marriages invalid. If a similar law was passed validating same ---
> > unions and recognizing then as a marriage, then I guess I'd be satisfied
> > if not delighted.
>
> Then this:
>
> > I am opposed to trying to implement this through the judiciary by
> > redefining the legal meaning of the word "marriage" as it has been
> > understood for many years.
>
> These two statements seem contradictory.

I'll try to clarify -

I do not have a problem with the idea that same --- couples should be granted
the same rights and responsibilities as people in a traditional man/woman
marriages. To implement this, my preference is that laws be enacted to grant
same --- unions rights equivalent to a traditional marriage where appropriate.
I'd prefer this be done without trying to redefine the legal meaning of the
word marriage. I am especially opposed to a judge deciding that the word
marriage means something different than the traditional legal definition. If a
law was passed that explicitly changed the definition, then I'd have to live
with it (I'd be satisfied but not delighted).

Ed

 

"Daniel J. Stern" wrote:

> On Thu, 4 Dec 2003, C. E. White wrote first this:
>
> > I know that in NC, a law was passed specifically validating interracial
> > marriages in order correct the harm done my an old law that declared
> > such marriages invalid. If a similar law was passed validating same ---
> > unions and recognizing then as a marriage, then I guess I'd be satisfied
> > if not delighted.
>
> Then this:
>
> > I am opposed to trying to implement this through the judiciary by
> > redefining the legal meaning of the word "marriage" as it has been
> > understood for many years.
>
> These two statements seem contradictory.

I'll try to clarify -

I do not have a problem with the idea that same --- couples should be granted
the same rights and responsibilities as people in a traditional man/woman
marriages. To implement this, my preference is that laws be enacted to grant
same --- unions rights equivalent to a traditional marriage where appropriate.
I'd prefer this be done without trying to redefine the legal meaning of the
word marriage. I am especially opposed to a judge deciding that the word
marriage means something different than the traditional legal definition. If a
law was passed that explicitly changed the definition, then I'd have to live
with it (I'd be satisfied but not delighted).

Ed