Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycan be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Lloyd Parker wrote:
> And the US refusing to buy any military hardware from Airbus isn't a form of
> subsidy to Boeing?
>
Nope. Lockheed, Northrop-Grumman, and even Gulfstream and Cessna are
free to submit bids also. Its restricting military contracting to US
companies, and I have no problem with that.
> And the US refusing to buy any military hardware from Airbus isn't a form of
> subsidy to Boeing?
>
Nope. Lockheed, Northrop-Grumman, and even Gulfstream and Cessna are
free to submit bids also. Its restricting military contracting to US
companies, and I have no problem with that.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycan be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Lloyd Parker wrote:
> And the US refusing to buy any military hardware from Airbus isn't a form of
> subsidy to Boeing?
>
Nope. Lockheed, Northrop-Grumman, and even Gulfstream and Cessna are
free to submit bids also. Its restricting military contracting to US
companies, and I have no problem with that.
> And the US refusing to buy any military hardware from Airbus isn't a form of
> subsidy to Boeing?
>
Nope. Lockheed, Northrop-Grumman, and even Gulfstream and Cessna are
free to submit bids also. Its restricting military contracting to US
companies, and I have no problem with that.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycan be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Lloyd Parker wrote:
> And the US refusing to buy any military hardware from Airbus isn't a form of
> subsidy to Boeing?
>
Nope. Lockheed, Northrop-Grumman, and even Gulfstream and Cessna are
free to submit bids also. Its restricting military contracting to US
companies, and I have no problem with that.
> And the US refusing to buy any military hardware from Airbus isn't a form of
> subsidy to Boeing?
>
Nope. Lockheed, Northrop-Grumman, and even Gulfstream and Cessna are
free to submit bids also. Its restricting military contracting to US
companies, and I have no problem with that.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycan be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Lloyd Parker wrote:
> In article <MoqdndHLHYgo8lOiRTvUqA@texas.net>, Steve <no@spam.thanks> wrote:
>
>>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>>Oh, sure it does, Ed, if recognized as "marriage" they then get huge tax
>>>>>and benefits advantages, all of which are denied singles.
>>>>
>>>>The "new class of civil union" would cover that just fine.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>Didn't "separate but equal" get discredited in the 1950s?
>>
>>Don't try to pretend that its about discrimination against homosexuals.
>>Many heterosexual couples would also take advantage of a new class of
>>civil union that didn't incorporate the religion-based term "marriage."
>>
>>Since suppressing religion is right up your alley, you ought to be
>>loving the idea.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> But there are no tax benefits to "civil unions", no inheritance benefits, no
> insurance benefits, etc.
Sure there would be. That's the whole point of creating the "new class
of civil union." "Duh" is the only appropriate response.
> In article <MoqdndHLHYgo8lOiRTvUqA@texas.net>, Steve <no@spam.thanks> wrote:
>
>>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>>Oh, sure it does, Ed, if recognized as "marriage" they then get huge tax
>>>>>and benefits advantages, all of which are denied singles.
>>>>
>>>>The "new class of civil union" would cover that just fine.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>Didn't "separate but equal" get discredited in the 1950s?
>>
>>Don't try to pretend that its about discrimination against homosexuals.
>>Many heterosexual couples would also take advantage of a new class of
>>civil union that didn't incorporate the religion-based term "marriage."
>>
>>Since suppressing religion is right up your alley, you ought to be
>>loving the idea.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> But there are no tax benefits to "civil unions", no inheritance benefits, no
> insurance benefits, etc.
Sure there would be. That's the whole point of creating the "new class
of civil union." "Duh" is the only appropriate response.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycan be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Lloyd Parker wrote:
> In article <MoqdndHLHYgo8lOiRTvUqA@texas.net>, Steve <no@spam.thanks> wrote:
>
>>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>>Oh, sure it does, Ed, if recognized as "marriage" they then get huge tax
>>>>>and benefits advantages, all of which are denied singles.
>>>>
>>>>The "new class of civil union" would cover that just fine.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>Didn't "separate but equal" get discredited in the 1950s?
>>
>>Don't try to pretend that its about discrimination against homosexuals.
>>Many heterosexual couples would also take advantage of a new class of
>>civil union that didn't incorporate the religion-based term "marriage."
>>
>>Since suppressing religion is right up your alley, you ought to be
>>loving the idea.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> But there are no tax benefits to "civil unions", no inheritance benefits, no
> insurance benefits, etc.
Sure there would be. That's the whole point of creating the "new class
of civil union." "Duh" is the only appropriate response.
> In article <MoqdndHLHYgo8lOiRTvUqA@texas.net>, Steve <no@spam.thanks> wrote:
>
>>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>>Oh, sure it does, Ed, if recognized as "marriage" they then get huge tax
>>>>>and benefits advantages, all of which are denied singles.
>>>>
>>>>The "new class of civil union" would cover that just fine.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>Didn't "separate but equal" get discredited in the 1950s?
>>
>>Don't try to pretend that its about discrimination against homosexuals.
>>Many heterosexual couples would also take advantage of a new class of
>>civil union that didn't incorporate the religion-based term "marriage."
>>
>>Since suppressing religion is right up your alley, you ought to be
>>loving the idea.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> But there are no tax benefits to "civil unions", no inheritance benefits, no
> insurance benefits, etc.
Sure there would be. That's the whole point of creating the "new class
of civil union." "Duh" is the only appropriate response.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycan be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Lloyd Parker wrote:
> In article <MoqdndHLHYgo8lOiRTvUqA@texas.net>, Steve <no@spam.thanks> wrote:
>
>>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>>Oh, sure it does, Ed, if recognized as "marriage" they then get huge tax
>>>>>and benefits advantages, all of which are denied singles.
>>>>
>>>>The "new class of civil union" would cover that just fine.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>Didn't "separate but equal" get discredited in the 1950s?
>>
>>Don't try to pretend that its about discrimination against homosexuals.
>>Many heterosexual couples would also take advantage of a new class of
>>civil union that didn't incorporate the religion-based term "marriage."
>>
>>Since suppressing religion is right up your alley, you ought to be
>>loving the idea.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> But there are no tax benefits to "civil unions", no inheritance benefits, no
> insurance benefits, etc.
Sure there would be. That's the whole point of creating the "new class
of civil union." "Duh" is the only appropriate response.
> In article <MoqdndHLHYgo8lOiRTvUqA@texas.net>, Steve <no@spam.thanks> wrote:
>
>>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>>Oh, sure it does, Ed, if recognized as "marriage" they then get huge tax
>>>>>and benefits advantages, all of which are denied singles.
>>>>
>>>>The "new class of civil union" would cover that just fine.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>Didn't "separate but equal" get discredited in the 1950s?
>>
>>Don't try to pretend that its about discrimination against homosexuals.
>>Many heterosexual couples would also take advantage of a new class of
>>civil union that didn't incorporate the religion-based term "marriage."
>>
>>Since suppressing religion is right up your alley, you ought to be
>>loving the idea.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> But there are no tax benefits to "civil unions", no inheritance benefits, no
> insurance benefits, etc.
Sure there would be. That's the whole point of creating the "new class
of civil union." "Duh" is the only appropriate response.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycanbemisinterpretedby SUV drivers)
Steve wrote:
> Daniel J. Stern wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 4 Dec 2003, Jenn Wasdyke wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> So your perception of Canadian healthcare is based on the experience
>>>> of a
>>>> friend of yours who was warned off the system by some unknown other
>>>> individuals.
>>>> Mine is based on getting very suddenly struck down with a large and
>>>> lodged
>>>> kidney stone at 4 in the morning while in Toronto. Extremely
>>>> painful, but
>>>> not life threatening. I was diagnosed, treated, operated upon and
>>>> prescribed suitable meds in a fast, efficient, capable, thorough
>>>> manner.
>>
>>
>>
>>> As opposed to the American health care system where kidney stone
>>> patients are tossed out on the street and beaten before being put out of
>>> their misery...
>>
>>
>>
>> Try getting a lodged kidney stone in America without medical coverage or
>> lots of money, then get back to us.
>>
>> DS
>>
>
> Dan, living in America without medical coverage is stupid. I don't have
> any patience for people who are deliberately stupid, nor do I want to
> subsidize them. Decent health care is affordable here, so let's stick to
> comparing someone in the US who HAS coverage (not lots of money) to
> someone in Canada. At least you get to PICK your coverage and your
> doctor here.
>
Um, I get to pick my doctor here, well, my wife did (in fact, my doctor
is a very attractive woman!). I pick which hospital I go to (I pick the
closest, normally because it is only three blocks away). I consult my
doctor as to which specialist I should see if I need it, and she sets it up.
Where do you get the idea that we get shoved where the "government"
wants us to go?
In small communities, there may be only one choice, but that is because
there is not enough sickness to go around |>) or because doctors don't
want to live in small communities!
Speak not of what you do not know!
Dan
> Daniel J. Stern wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 4 Dec 2003, Jenn Wasdyke wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> So your perception of Canadian healthcare is based on the experience
>>>> of a
>>>> friend of yours who was warned off the system by some unknown other
>>>> individuals.
>>>> Mine is based on getting very suddenly struck down with a large and
>>>> lodged
>>>> kidney stone at 4 in the morning while in Toronto. Extremely
>>>> painful, but
>>>> not life threatening. I was diagnosed, treated, operated upon and
>>>> prescribed suitable meds in a fast, efficient, capable, thorough
>>>> manner.
>>
>>
>>
>>> As opposed to the American health care system where kidney stone
>>> patients are tossed out on the street and beaten before being put out of
>>> their misery...
>>
>>
>>
>> Try getting a lodged kidney stone in America without medical coverage or
>> lots of money, then get back to us.
>>
>> DS
>>
>
> Dan, living in America without medical coverage is stupid. I don't have
> any patience for people who are deliberately stupid, nor do I want to
> subsidize them. Decent health care is affordable here, so let's stick to
> comparing someone in the US who HAS coverage (not lots of money) to
> someone in Canada. At least you get to PICK your coverage and your
> doctor here.
>
Um, I get to pick my doctor here, well, my wife did (in fact, my doctor
is a very attractive woman!). I pick which hospital I go to (I pick the
closest, normally because it is only three blocks away). I consult my
doctor as to which specialist I should see if I need it, and she sets it up.
Where do you get the idea that we get shoved where the "government"
wants us to go?
In small communities, there may be only one choice, but that is because
there is not enough sickness to go around |>) or because doctors don't
want to live in small communities!
Speak not of what you do not know!
Dan
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycanbemisinterpretedby SUV drivers)
Steve wrote:
> Daniel J. Stern wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 4 Dec 2003, Jenn Wasdyke wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> So your perception of Canadian healthcare is based on the experience
>>>> of a
>>>> friend of yours who was warned off the system by some unknown other
>>>> individuals.
>>>> Mine is based on getting very suddenly struck down with a large and
>>>> lodged
>>>> kidney stone at 4 in the morning while in Toronto. Extremely
>>>> painful, but
>>>> not life threatening. I was diagnosed, treated, operated upon and
>>>> prescribed suitable meds in a fast, efficient, capable, thorough
>>>> manner.
>>
>>
>>
>>> As opposed to the American health care system where kidney stone
>>> patients are tossed out on the street and beaten before being put out of
>>> their misery...
>>
>>
>>
>> Try getting a lodged kidney stone in America without medical coverage or
>> lots of money, then get back to us.
>>
>> DS
>>
>
> Dan, living in America without medical coverage is stupid. I don't have
> any patience for people who are deliberately stupid, nor do I want to
> subsidize them. Decent health care is affordable here, so let's stick to
> comparing someone in the US who HAS coverage (not lots of money) to
> someone in Canada. At least you get to PICK your coverage and your
> doctor here.
>
Um, I get to pick my doctor here, well, my wife did (in fact, my doctor
is a very attractive woman!). I pick which hospital I go to (I pick the
closest, normally because it is only three blocks away). I consult my
doctor as to which specialist I should see if I need it, and she sets it up.
Where do you get the idea that we get shoved where the "government"
wants us to go?
In small communities, there may be only one choice, but that is because
there is not enough sickness to go around |>) or because doctors don't
want to live in small communities!
Speak not of what you do not know!
Dan
> Daniel J. Stern wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 4 Dec 2003, Jenn Wasdyke wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> So your perception of Canadian healthcare is based on the experience
>>>> of a
>>>> friend of yours who was warned off the system by some unknown other
>>>> individuals.
>>>> Mine is based on getting very suddenly struck down with a large and
>>>> lodged
>>>> kidney stone at 4 in the morning while in Toronto. Extremely
>>>> painful, but
>>>> not life threatening. I was diagnosed, treated, operated upon and
>>>> prescribed suitable meds in a fast, efficient, capable, thorough
>>>> manner.
>>
>>
>>
>>> As opposed to the American health care system where kidney stone
>>> patients are tossed out on the street and beaten before being put out of
>>> their misery...
>>
>>
>>
>> Try getting a lodged kidney stone in America without medical coverage or
>> lots of money, then get back to us.
>>
>> DS
>>
>
> Dan, living in America without medical coverage is stupid. I don't have
> any patience for people who are deliberately stupid, nor do I want to
> subsidize them. Decent health care is affordable here, so let's stick to
> comparing someone in the US who HAS coverage (not lots of money) to
> someone in Canada. At least you get to PICK your coverage and your
> doctor here.
>
Um, I get to pick my doctor here, well, my wife did (in fact, my doctor
is a very attractive woman!). I pick which hospital I go to (I pick the
closest, normally because it is only three blocks away). I consult my
doctor as to which specialist I should see if I need it, and she sets it up.
Where do you get the idea that we get shoved where the "government"
wants us to go?
In small communities, there may be only one choice, but that is because
there is not enough sickness to go around |>) or because doctors don't
want to live in small communities!
Speak not of what you do not know!
Dan
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycanbemisinterpretedby SUV drivers)
Steve wrote:
> Daniel J. Stern wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 4 Dec 2003, Jenn Wasdyke wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> So your perception of Canadian healthcare is based on the experience
>>>> of a
>>>> friend of yours who was warned off the system by some unknown other
>>>> individuals.
>>>> Mine is based on getting very suddenly struck down with a large and
>>>> lodged
>>>> kidney stone at 4 in the morning while in Toronto. Extremely
>>>> painful, but
>>>> not life threatening. I was diagnosed, treated, operated upon and
>>>> prescribed suitable meds in a fast, efficient, capable, thorough
>>>> manner.
>>
>>
>>
>>> As opposed to the American health care system where kidney stone
>>> patients are tossed out on the street and beaten before being put out of
>>> their misery...
>>
>>
>>
>> Try getting a lodged kidney stone in America without medical coverage or
>> lots of money, then get back to us.
>>
>> DS
>>
>
> Dan, living in America without medical coverage is stupid. I don't have
> any patience for people who are deliberately stupid, nor do I want to
> subsidize them. Decent health care is affordable here, so let's stick to
> comparing someone in the US who HAS coverage (not lots of money) to
> someone in Canada. At least you get to PICK your coverage and your
> doctor here.
>
Um, I get to pick my doctor here, well, my wife did (in fact, my doctor
is a very attractive woman!). I pick which hospital I go to (I pick the
closest, normally because it is only three blocks away). I consult my
doctor as to which specialist I should see if I need it, and she sets it up.
Where do you get the idea that we get shoved where the "government"
wants us to go?
In small communities, there may be only one choice, but that is because
there is not enough sickness to go around |>) or because doctors don't
want to live in small communities!
Speak not of what you do not know!
Dan
> Daniel J. Stern wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 4 Dec 2003, Jenn Wasdyke wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> So your perception of Canadian healthcare is based on the experience
>>>> of a
>>>> friend of yours who was warned off the system by some unknown other
>>>> individuals.
>>>> Mine is based on getting very suddenly struck down with a large and
>>>> lodged
>>>> kidney stone at 4 in the morning while in Toronto. Extremely
>>>> painful, but
>>>> not life threatening. I was diagnosed, treated, operated upon and
>>>> prescribed suitable meds in a fast, efficient, capable, thorough
>>>> manner.
>>
>>
>>
>>> As opposed to the American health care system where kidney stone
>>> patients are tossed out on the street and beaten before being put out of
>>> their misery...
>>
>>
>>
>> Try getting a lodged kidney stone in America without medical coverage or
>> lots of money, then get back to us.
>>
>> DS
>>
>
> Dan, living in America without medical coverage is stupid. I don't have
> any patience for people who are deliberately stupid, nor do I want to
> subsidize them. Decent health care is affordable here, so let's stick to
> comparing someone in the US who HAS coverage (not lots of money) to
> someone in Canada. At least you get to PICK your coverage and your
> doctor here.
>
Um, I get to pick my doctor here, well, my wife did (in fact, my doctor
is a very attractive woman!). I pick which hospital I go to (I pick the
closest, normally because it is only three blocks away). I consult my
doctor as to which specialist I should see if I need it, and she sets it up.
Where do you get the idea that we get shoved where the "government"
wants us to go?
In small communities, there may be only one choice, but that is because
there is not enough sickness to go around |>) or because doctors don't
want to live in small communities!
Speak not of what you do not know!
Dan
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycan be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>
>>Consumer Reports???
>>You've GOT to be kidding.
>>
>
> Why is it all the right-wing Taliban here would believe anything an HMO or
> drug company tells them but reject the main voice for the consumer?
Why is it the left-wing Stalinists belive a propaganda rag and can't use
multiple sources for reference?
>>
>>Consumer Reports???
>>You've GOT to be kidding.
>>
>
> Why is it all the right-wing Taliban here would believe anything an HMO or
> drug company tells them but reject the main voice for the consumer?
Why is it the left-wing Stalinists belive a propaganda rag and can't use
multiple sources for reference?
