Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#6061
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycanbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <RfKzb.419548$HS4.3342099@attbi_s01>,
tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:.
..
-----= 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! =-----
tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:.
..
-----= 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! =-----
#6062
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On Thu, 04 Dec 03 10:04:32 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:
>In article <3fce1e95.263879672@news.mi.comcast.giganews.com >,
> mielkman@excite.com (John Mielke) wrote:
>>On Wed, 03 Dec 03 10:54:53 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In article <2c7qsvgrtldnv0d50g0u57c2j0cadcc7if@4ax.com>,
>>> Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>>>>On Tue, 02 Dec 03 15:37:02 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>In article <Us5zb.282500$275.1000782@attbi_s53>,
>>>>> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>>>>>In article <bqinb6$him$8@puck.cc.emory.edu>, 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.e...cs/HealthCare/
>Co
>>>nsumerReports-Sep92.html.gz#Does%20Canada%20Have%20The%20Answer?
>>
>>
>>So now a simple google search is "right-wing propaganda"? Every one
>>of 2,280,000 pages is right wing? No wonder people have such a low
>>opinion of you.
>
>If you cite right-web web sites, and medical-insurance-drug industry sites,
>then, yes, they're propaganda. Consumer Reports analyzed the health care
>situation from a consumer's point of view.
First, please explain what a "right-web web site" is.
Second, I didn't realize a highly-regarded internet search engine
would stoop to such filtering. And as a matter of fact, they do not.
If you had bothered to look, within the first page of links, there are
articles indicating that the Canadian system works reasonably well.
But because it returns sites supporting both sides of the issue, you
claim it's right-wing? Sounds pretty "neutral" to me.
Today's google search site count is 2,350,000 sites that you haven't
seen vs one (1) eleven year old study that you have seen (and that
you keep referring to as if it were gospel).
Open that closed mind of yours and read what people are saying TODAY
before leaping to conclusions.
(And if you do, in fact, bother to do some research, and look at
CURRENT web sites supporting both sides of the issue and still feel
that it's better than the US "system" (or lack thereof), I wouldn't
disagree with you.)
wrote:
>In article <3fce1e95.263879672@news.mi.comcast.giganews.com >,
> mielkman@excite.com (John Mielke) wrote:
>>On Wed, 03 Dec 03 10:54:53 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In article <2c7qsvgrtldnv0d50g0u57c2j0cadcc7if@4ax.com>,
>>> Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>>>>On Tue, 02 Dec 03 15:37:02 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>In article <Us5zb.282500$275.1000782@attbi_s53>,
>>>>> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>>>>>In article <bqinb6$him$8@puck.cc.emory.edu>, 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.e...cs/HealthCare/
>Co
>>>nsumerReports-Sep92.html.gz#Does%20Canada%20Have%20The%20Answer?
>>
>>
>>So now a simple google search is "right-wing propaganda"? Every one
>>of 2,280,000 pages is right wing? No wonder people have such a low
>>opinion of you.
>
>If you cite right-web web sites, and medical-insurance-drug industry sites,
>then, yes, they're propaganda. Consumer Reports analyzed the health care
>situation from a consumer's point of view.
First, please explain what a "right-web web site" is.
Second, I didn't realize a highly-regarded internet search engine
would stoop to such filtering. And as a matter of fact, they do not.
If you had bothered to look, within the first page of links, there are
articles indicating that the Canadian system works reasonably well.
But because it returns sites supporting both sides of the issue, you
claim it's right-wing? Sounds pretty "neutral" to me.
Today's google search site count is 2,350,000 sites that you haven't
seen vs one (1) eleven year old study that you have seen (and that
you keep referring to as if it were gospel).
Open that closed mind of yours and read what people are saying TODAY
before leaping to conclusions.
(And if you do, in fact, bother to do some research, and look at
CURRENT web sites supporting both sides of the issue and still feel
that it's better than the US "system" (or lack thereof), I wouldn't
disagree with you.)
#6063
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On Thu, 04 Dec 03 10:04:32 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:
>In article <3fce1e95.263879672@news.mi.comcast.giganews.com >,
> mielkman@excite.com (John Mielke) wrote:
>>On Wed, 03 Dec 03 10:54:53 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In article <2c7qsvgrtldnv0d50g0u57c2j0cadcc7if@4ax.com>,
>>> Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>>>>On Tue, 02 Dec 03 15:37:02 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>In article <Us5zb.282500$275.1000782@attbi_s53>,
>>>>> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>>>>>In article <bqinb6$him$8@puck.cc.emory.edu>, 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.e...cs/HealthCare/
>Co
>>>nsumerReports-Sep92.html.gz#Does%20Canada%20Have%20The%20Answer?
>>
>>
>>So now a simple google search is "right-wing propaganda"? Every one
>>of 2,280,000 pages is right wing? No wonder people have such a low
>>opinion of you.
>
>If you cite right-web web sites, and medical-insurance-drug industry sites,
>then, yes, they're propaganda. Consumer Reports analyzed the health care
>situation from a consumer's point of view.
First, please explain what a "right-web web site" is.
Second, I didn't realize a highly-regarded internet search engine
would stoop to such filtering. And as a matter of fact, they do not.
If you had bothered to look, within the first page of links, there are
articles indicating that the Canadian system works reasonably well.
But because it returns sites supporting both sides of the issue, you
claim it's right-wing? Sounds pretty "neutral" to me.
Today's google search site count is 2,350,000 sites that you haven't
seen vs one (1) eleven year old study that you have seen (and that
you keep referring to as if it were gospel).
Open that closed mind of yours and read what people are saying TODAY
before leaping to conclusions.
(And if you do, in fact, bother to do some research, and look at
CURRENT web sites supporting both sides of the issue and still feel
that it's better than the US "system" (or lack thereof), I wouldn't
disagree with you.)
wrote:
>In article <3fce1e95.263879672@news.mi.comcast.giganews.com >,
> mielkman@excite.com (John Mielke) wrote:
>>On Wed, 03 Dec 03 10:54:53 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In article <2c7qsvgrtldnv0d50g0u57c2j0cadcc7if@4ax.com>,
>>> Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>>>>On Tue, 02 Dec 03 15:37:02 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>In article <Us5zb.282500$275.1000782@attbi_s53>,
>>>>> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>>>>>In article <bqinb6$him$8@puck.cc.emory.edu>, 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.e...cs/HealthCare/
>Co
>>>nsumerReports-Sep92.html.gz#Does%20Canada%20Have%20The%20Answer?
>>
>>
>>So now a simple google search is "right-wing propaganda"? Every one
>>of 2,280,000 pages is right wing? No wonder people have such a low
>>opinion of you.
>
>If you cite right-web web sites, and medical-insurance-drug industry sites,
>then, yes, they're propaganda. Consumer Reports analyzed the health care
>situation from a consumer's point of view.
First, please explain what a "right-web web site" is.
Second, I didn't realize a highly-regarded internet search engine
would stoop to such filtering. And as a matter of fact, they do not.
If you had bothered to look, within the first page of links, there are
articles indicating that the Canadian system works reasonably well.
But because it returns sites supporting both sides of the issue, you
claim it's right-wing? Sounds pretty "neutral" to me.
Today's google search site count is 2,350,000 sites that you haven't
seen vs one (1) eleven year old study that you have seen (and that
you keep referring to as if it were gospel).
Open that closed mind of yours and read what people are saying TODAY
before leaping to conclusions.
(And if you do, in fact, bother to do some research, and look at
CURRENT web sites supporting both sides of the issue and still feel
that it's better than the US "system" (or lack thereof), I wouldn't
disagree with you.)
#6064
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On Thu, 04 Dec 03 10:04:32 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:
>In article <3fce1e95.263879672@news.mi.comcast.giganews.com >,
> mielkman@excite.com (John Mielke) wrote:
>>On Wed, 03 Dec 03 10:54:53 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In article <2c7qsvgrtldnv0d50g0u57c2j0cadcc7if@4ax.com>,
>>> Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>>>>On Tue, 02 Dec 03 15:37:02 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>In article <Us5zb.282500$275.1000782@attbi_s53>,
>>>>> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>>>>>In article <bqinb6$him$8@puck.cc.emory.edu>, 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.e...cs/HealthCare/
>Co
>>>nsumerReports-Sep92.html.gz#Does%20Canada%20Have%20The%20Answer?
>>
>>
>>So now a simple google search is "right-wing propaganda"? Every one
>>of 2,280,000 pages is right wing? No wonder people have such a low
>>opinion of you.
>
>If you cite right-web web sites, and medical-insurance-drug industry sites,
>then, yes, they're propaganda. Consumer Reports analyzed the health care
>situation from a consumer's point of view.
First, please explain what a "right-web web site" is.
Second, I didn't realize a highly-regarded internet search engine
would stoop to such filtering. And as a matter of fact, they do not.
If you had bothered to look, within the first page of links, there are
articles indicating that the Canadian system works reasonably well.
But because it returns sites supporting both sides of the issue, you
claim it's right-wing? Sounds pretty "neutral" to me.
Today's google search site count is 2,350,000 sites that you haven't
seen vs one (1) eleven year old study that you have seen (and that
you keep referring to as if it were gospel).
Open that closed mind of yours and read what people are saying TODAY
before leaping to conclusions.
(And if you do, in fact, bother to do some research, and look at
CURRENT web sites supporting both sides of the issue and still feel
that it's better than the US "system" (or lack thereof), I wouldn't
disagree with you.)
wrote:
>In article <3fce1e95.263879672@news.mi.comcast.giganews.com >,
> mielkman@excite.com (John Mielke) wrote:
>>On Wed, 03 Dec 03 10:54:53 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In article <2c7qsvgrtldnv0d50g0u57c2j0cadcc7if@4ax.com>,
>>> Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>>>>On Tue, 02 Dec 03 15:37:02 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>In article <Us5zb.282500$275.1000782@attbi_s53>,
>>>>> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>>>>>In article <bqinb6$him$8@puck.cc.emory.edu>, 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.e...cs/HealthCare/
>Co
>>>nsumerReports-Sep92.html.gz#Does%20Canada%20Have%20The%20Answer?
>>
>>
>>So now a simple google search is "right-wing propaganda"? Every one
>>of 2,280,000 pages is right wing? No wonder people have such a low
>>opinion of you.
>
>If you cite right-web web sites, and medical-insurance-drug industry sites,
>then, yes, they're propaganda. Consumer Reports analyzed the health care
>situation from a consumer's point of view.
First, please explain what a "right-web web site" is.
Second, I didn't realize a highly-regarded internet search engine
would stoop to such filtering. And as a matter of fact, they do not.
If you had bothered to look, within the first page of links, there are
articles indicating that the Canadian system works reasonably well.
But because it returns sites supporting both sides of the issue, you
claim it's right-wing? Sounds pretty "neutral" to me.
Today's google search site count is 2,350,000 sites that you haven't
seen vs one (1) eleven year old study that you have seen (and that
you keep referring to as if it were gospel).
Open that closed mind of yours and read what people are saying TODAY
before leaping to conclusions.
(And if you do, in fact, bother to do some research, and look at
CURRENT web sites supporting both sides of the issue and still feel
that it's better than the US "system" (or lack thereof), I wouldn't
disagree with you.)
#6065
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycanbemisinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <u9WdneG8IseY7FKiRVn-gQ@magma.ca>,
Dan Gates <dgates@kellerengineering.com> wrote:
> C. E. White wrote:
> > "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"
> >
> > Dan Gates wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Daniel J. Stern wrote:
> >>
>
> I know, BUT .. .. I .. .. JUST .. .. COULDN'T .. .. HELP .. .. MYSELF.
>
> Even as I was replying, I was thinking the same thing you were but, but,
> but,
>
> |>)
>
> Dan
>
>
..
-----= 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! =-----
Dan Gates <dgates@kellerengineering.com> wrote:
> C. E. White wrote:
> > "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"
> >
> > Dan Gates wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Daniel J. Stern wrote:
> >>
>
> I know, BUT .. .. I .. .. JUST .. .. COULDN'T .. .. HELP .. .. MYSELF.
>
> Even as I was replying, I was thinking the same thing you were but, but,
> but,
>
> |>)
>
> Dan
>
>
..
-----= 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! =-----
#6066
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycanbemisinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <u9WdneG8IseY7FKiRVn-gQ@magma.ca>,
Dan Gates <dgates@kellerengineering.com> wrote:
> C. E. White wrote:
> > "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"
> >
> > Dan Gates wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Daniel J. Stern wrote:
> >>
>
> I know, BUT .. .. I .. .. JUST .. .. COULDN'T .. .. HELP .. .. MYSELF.
>
> Even as I was replying, I was thinking the same thing you were but, but,
> but,
>
> |>)
>
> Dan
>
>
..
-----= 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! =-----
Dan Gates <dgates@kellerengineering.com> wrote:
> C. E. White wrote:
> > "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"
> >
> > Dan Gates wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Daniel J. Stern wrote:
> >>
>
> I know, BUT .. .. I .. .. JUST .. .. COULDN'T .. .. HELP .. .. MYSELF.
>
> Even as I was replying, I was thinking the same thing you were but, but,
> but,
>
> |>)
>
> Dan
>
>
..
-----= 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! =-----
#6067
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycanbemisinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <u9WdneG8IseY7FKiRVn-gQ@magma.ca>,
Dan Gates <dgates@kellerengineering.com> wrote:
> C. E. White wrote:
> > "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"
> >
> > Dan Gates wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Daniel J. Stern wrote:
> >>
>
> I know, BUT .. .. I .. .. JUST .. .. COULDN'T .. .. HELP .. .. MYSELF.
>
> Even as I was replying, I was thinking the same thing you were but, but,
> but,
>
> |>)
>
> Dan
>
>
..
-----= 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! =-----
Dan Gates <dgates@kellerengineering.com> wrote:
> C. E. White wrote:
> > "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"
> >
> > Dan Gates wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Daniel J. Stern wrote:
> >>
>
> I know, BUT .. .. I .. .. JUST .. .. COULDN'T .. .. HELP .. .. MYSELF.
>
> Even as I was replying, I was thinking the same thing you were but, but,
> but,
>
> |>)
>
> Dan
>
>
..
-----= 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! =-----
#6068
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
"Daniel J. Stern" <dastern@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:Pine.SOL.4.44.0312031404140.10934-100000@alumni.engin.umich.edu...
> On Wed, 3 Dec 2003, David J. Allen wrote:
>
> > 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. Should local governments be able to prohibit it?
>
> Does it matter? The divorce rate is sky-high in states with and without
> no-fault divorce, in states with conservative and with liberal governors
> and legislatures, in states with high and with low church attendance.
>
Certainly, today, those laws are totally useless. They're completely
unsupportable. It doesn't matter who's party is in control.
>
> > 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.
>
> Disregarding for the moment your ignorance of the fact that correlation
> does not imply causation, do you *really* think some law is going to cause
> some shiftless idiot to stick around and be a father?
>
Our local laws reflect our values. Our values don't derive from our laws.
That's my point. Sorry you missed it.
> > 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.
>
> Much better when the religious values you tout so highly held such sway
> that pregnant teens -- of whom there were just as many as there are now --
> were shipped off to live with a remote aunt or simply disowned...eh?
>
Stupid teenagers today are indulged with the idea that they can raise
children and are encouraged to keep them. They can go right out and sign up
for AFDC. That's the difference. Instead of being raised with the promise
a stable family they're made "baggage" from the get go.
> DS
>
#6069
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
"Daniel J. Stern" <dastern@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:Pine.SOL.4.44.0312031404140.10934-100000@alumni.engin.umich.edu...
> On Wed, 3 Dec 2003, David J. Allen wrote:
>
> > 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. Should local governments be able to prohibit it?
>
> Does it matter? The divorce rate is sky-high in states with and without
> no-fault divorce, in states with conservative and with liberal governors
> and legislatures, in states with high and with low church attendance.
>
Certainly, today, those laws are totally useless. They're completely
unsupportable. It doesn't matter who's party is in control.
>
> > 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.
>
> Disregarding for the moment your ignorance of the fact that correlation
> does not imply causation, do you *really* think some law is going to cause
> some shiftless idiot to stick around and be a father?
>
Our local laws reflect our values. Our values don't derive from our laws.
That's my point. Sorry you missed it.
> > 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.
>
> Much better when the religious values you tout so highly held such sway
> that pregnant teens -- of whom there were just as many as there are now --
> were shipped off to live with a remote aunt or simply disowned...eh?
>
Stupid teenagers today are indulged with the idea that they can raise
children and are encouraged to keep them. They can go right out and sign up
for AFDC. That's the difference. Instead of being raised with the promise
a stable family they're made "baggage" from the get go.
> DS
>
#6070
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
"Daniel J. Stern" <dastern@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:Pine.SOL.4.44.0312031404140.10934-100000@alumni.engin.umich.edu...
> On Wed, 3 Dec 2003, David J. Allen wrote:
>
> > 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. Should local governments be able to prohibit it?
>
> Does it matter? The divorce rate is sky-high in states with and without
> no-fault divorce, in states with conservative and with liberal governors
> and legislatures, in states with high and with low church attendance.
>
Certainly, today, those laws are totally useless. They're completely
unsupportable. It doesn't matter who's party is in control.
>
> > 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.
>
> Disregarding for the moment your ignorance of the fact that correlation
> does not imply causation, do you *really* think some law is going to cause
> some shiftless idiot to stick around and be a father?
>
Our local laws reflect our values. Our values don't derive from our laws.
That's my point. Sorry you missed it.
> > 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.
>
> Much better when the religious values you tout so highly held such sway
> that pregnant teens -- of whom there were just as many as there are now --
> were shipped off to live with a remote aunt or simply disowned...eh?
>
Stupid teenagers today are indulged with the idea that they can raise
children and are encouraged to keep them. They can go right out and sign up
for AFDC. That's the difference. Instead of being raised with the promise
a stable family they're made "baggage" from the get go.
> DS
>