Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study aboutsafetycanbemisinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On Thu, 4 Dec 2003, Steve wrote:
> Dan, living in America without medical coverage is stupid.
....and for a great many people, unavoidable.
> Decent health care is affordable here,
Perhaps that's the happy case where you live. It is far from universally
so, however. The fact remains there are a great many people in America who
do not have medical coverage. Not because they stupidly choose not to have
medical coverage, but because it is a choice between EITHER having
coverage OR getting enough to eat.
> someone in Canada. At least you get to PICK your coverage and your
> doctor here.
I have no idea where this idiotic canard about not getting to pick your
own doctor in Canada started, but despite its utter untruth, it refuses to
die.
DS
> Dan, living in America without medical coverage is stupid.
....and for a great many people, unavoidable.
> Decent health care is affordable here,
Perhaps that's the happy case where you live. It is far from universally
so, however. The fact remains there are a great many people in America who
do not have medical coverage. Not because they stupidly choose not to have
medical coverage, but because it is a choice between EITHER having
coverage OR getting enough to eat.
> someone in Canada. At least you get to PICK your coverage and your
> doctor here.
I have no idea where this idiotic canard about not getting to pick your
own doctor in Canada started, but despite its utter untruth, it refuses to
die.
DS
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study aboutsafetycanbemisinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On Thu, 4 Dec 2003, Steve wrote:
> Dan, living in America without medical coverage is stupid.
....and for a great many people, unavoidable.
> Decent health care is affordable here,
Perhaps that's the happy case where you live. It is far from universally
so, however. The fact remains there are a great many people in America who
do not have medical coverage. Not because they stupidly choose not to have
medical coverage, but because it is a choice between EITHER having
coverage OR getting enough to eat.
> someone in Canada. At least you get to PICK your coverage and your
> doctor here.
I have no idea where this idiotic canard about not getting to pick your
own doctor in Canada started, but despite its utter untruth, it refuses to
die.
DS
> Dan, living in America without medical coverage is stupid.
....and for a great many people, unavoidable.
> Decent health care is affordable here,
Perhaps that's the happy case where you live. It is far from universally
so, however. The fact remains there are a great many people in America who
do not have medical coverage. Not because they stupidly choose not to have
medical coverage, but because it is a choice between EITHER having
coverage OR getting enough to eat.
> someone in Canada. At least you get to PICK your coverage and your
> doctor here.
I have no idea where this idiotic canard about not getting to pick your
own doctor in Canada started, but despite its utter untruth, it refuses to
die.
DS
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study aboutsafetycanbemisinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On Thu, 4 Dec 2003, Steve wrote:
> Dan, living in America without medical coverage is stupid.
....and for a great many people, unavoidable.
> Decent health care is affordable here,
Perhaps that's the happy case where you live. It is far from universally
so, however. The fact remains there are a great many people in America who
do not have medical coverage. Not because they stupidly choose not to have
medical coverage, but because it is a choice between EITHER having
coverage OR getting enough to eat.
> someone in Canada. At least you get to PICK your coverage and your
> doctor here.
I have no idea where this idiotic canard about not getting to pick your
own doctor in Canada started, but despite its utter untruth, it refuses to
die.
DS
> Dan, living in America without medical coverage is stupid.
....and for a great many people, unavoidable.
> Decent health care is affordable here,
Perhaps that's the happy case where you live. It is far from universally
so, however. The fact remains there are a great many people in America who
do not have medical coverage. Not because they stupidly choose not to have
medical coverage, but because it is a choice between EITHER having
coverage OR getting enough to eat.
> someone in Canada. At least you get to PICK your coverage and your
> doctor here.
I have no idea where this idiotic canard about not getting to pick your
own doctor in Canada started, but despite its utter untruth, it refuses to
die.
DS
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycanbemisinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On Thu, 4 Dec 2003, David J. Allen wrote:
> Traditional marriage with it's meaningfulness for families (read children)
> serves a meaningful purpose to the benefit of all of us, which is providing
> a stable place for children to be raised to be production members of
> society. It ADDS to society. Gay marriage does what? It allows gay
> couples the benefits of marriage (inheretence, insurance, etc.) but serves
> no other useful purpose to society. And NO I'm NOT arguing against marriage
> for childless couples.
Well, either you're arguing against marriage for sterile or childless
heterosexuals, or you're being disingenuous and two-faced. Which is it?
> I don't really even buy the argument that there are benefits gay couples
> can't have without marriage.
Oh? So if rights of succession, inheritance, social security, joint tax
filing and so forth aren't benefits, what are they, then?
> To me, it's part of an agenda to normalize gays in society in every way
Maybe that's what they mean when they march through the street hollering
"We're here, we're queer, get used to it."
> When we devalue the family unit then marriage becomes less relevent
Seems to me heterosexuals, with their plus-fifty-percent divorce rate,
have managed to devalue the family unit and trivialize marriage very well
without any assistance from gays.
> This shouldn't be a civil rights argument.
That's exactly what it is, whether you like it or not.
DS
> Traditional marriage with it's meaningfulness for families (read children)
> serves a meaningful purpose to the benefit of all of us, which is providing
> a stable place for children to be raised to be production members of
> society. It ADDS to society. Gay marriage does what? It allows gay
> couples the benefits of marriage (inheretence, insurance, etc.) but serves
> no other useful purpose to society. And NO I'm NOT arguing against marriage
> for childless couples.
Well, either you're arguing against marriage for sterile or childless
heterosexuals, or you're being disingenuous and two-faced. Which is it?
> I don't really even buy the argument that there are benefits gay couples
> can't have without marriage.
Oh? So if rights of succession, inheritance, social security, joint tax
filing and so forth aren't benefits, what are they, then?
> To me, it's part of an agenda to normalize gays in society in every way
Maybe that's what they mean when they march through the street hollering
"We're here, we're queer, get used to it."
> When we devalue the family unit then marriage becomes less relevent
Seems to me heterosexuals, with their plus-fifty-percent divorce rate,
have managed to devalue the family unit and trivialize marriage very well
without any assistance from gays.
> This shouldn't be a civil rights argument.
That's exactly what it is, whether you like it or not.
DS
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycanbemisinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On Thu, 4 Dec 2003, David J. Allen wrote:
> Traditional marriage with it's meaningfulness for families (read children)
> serves a meaningful purpose to the benefit of all of us, which is providing
> a stable place for children to be raised to be production members of
> society. It ADDS to society. Gay marriage does what? It allows gay
> couples the benefits of marriage (inheretence, insurance, etc.) but serves
> no other useful purpose to society. And NO I'm NOT arguing against marriage
> for childless couples.
Well, either you're arguing against marriage for sterile or childless
heterosexuals, or you're being disingenuous and two-faced. Which is it?
> I don't really even buy the argument that there are benefits gay couples
> can't have without marriage.
Oh? So if rights of succession, inheritance, social security, joint tax
filing and so forth aren't benefits, what are they, then?
> To me, it's part of an agenda to normalize gays in society in every way
Maybe that's what they mean when they march through the street hollering
"We're here, we're queer, get used to it."
> When we devalue the family unit then marriage becomes less relevent
Seems to me heterosexuals, with their plus-fifty-percent divorce rate,
have managed to devalue the family unit and trivialize marriage very well
without any assistance from gays.
> This shouldn't be a civil rights argument.
That's exactly what it is, whether you like it or not.
DS
> Traditional marriage with it's meaningfulness for families (read children)
> serves a meaningful purpose to the benefit of all of us, which is providing
> a stable place for children to be raised to be production members of
> society. It ADDS to society. Gay marriage does what? It allows gay
> couples the benefits of marriage (inheretence, insurance, etc.) but serves
> no other useful purpose to society. And NO I'm NOT arguing against marriage
> for childless couples.
Well, either you're arguing against marriage for sterile or childless
heterosexuals, or you're being disingenuous and two-faced. Which is it?
> I don't really even buy the argument that there are benefits gay couples
> can't have without marriage.
Oh? So if rights of succession, inheritance, social security, joint tax
filing and so forth aren't benefits, what are they, then?
> To me, it's part of an agenda to normalize gays in society in every way
Maybe that's what they mean when they march through the street hollering
"We're here, we're queer, get used to it."
> When we devalue the family unit then marriage becomes less relevent
Seems to me heterosexuals, with their plus-fifty-percent divorce rate,
have managed to devalue the family unit and trivialize marriage very well
without any assistance from gays.
> This shouldn't be a civil rights argument.
That's exactly what it is, whether you like it or not.
DS
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycanbemisinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On Thu, 4 Dec 2003, David J. Allen wrote:
> Traditional marriage with it's meaningfulness for families (read children)
> serves a meaningful purpose to the benefit of all of us, which is providing
> a stable place for children to be raised to be production members of
> society. It ADDS to society. Gay marriage does what? It allows gay
> couples the benefits of marriage (inheretence, insurance, etc.) but serves
> no other useful purpose to society. And NO I'm NOT arguing against marriage
> for childless couples.
Well, either you're arguing against marriage for sterile or childless
heterosexuals, or you're being disingenuous and two-faced. Which is it?
> I don't really even buy the argument that there are benefits gay couples
> can't have without marriage.
Oh? So if rights of succession, inheritance, social security, joint tax
filing and so forth aren't benefits, what are they, then?
> To me, it's part of an agenda to normalize gays in society in every way
Maybe that's what they mean when they march through the street hollering
"We're here, we're queer, get used to it."
> When we devalue the family unit then marriage becomes less relevent
Seems to me heterosexuals, with their plus-fifty-percent divorce rate,
have managed to devalue the family unit and trivialize marriage very well
without any assistance from gays.
> This shouldn't be a civil rights argument.
That's exactly what it is, whether you like it or not.
DS
> Traditional marriage with it's meaningfulness for families (read children)
> serves a meaningful purpose to the benefit of all of us, which is providing
> a stable place for children to be raised to be production members of
> society. It ADDS to society. Gay marriage does what? It allows gay
> couples the benefits of marriage (inheretence, insurance, etc.) but serves
> no other useful purpose to society. And NO I'm NOT arguing against marriage
> for childless couples.
Well, either you're arguing against marriage for sterile or childless
heterosexuals, or you're being disingenuous and two-faced. Which is it?
> I don't really even buy the argument that there are benefits gay couples
> can't have without marriage.
Oh? So if rights of succession, inheritance, social security, joint tax
filing and so forth aren't benefits, what are they, then?
> To me, it's part of an agenda to normalize gays in society in every way
Maybe that's what they mean when they march through the street hollering
"We're here, we're queer, get used to it."
> When we devalue the family unit then marriage becomes less relevent
Seems to me heterosexuals, with their plus-fifty-percent divorce rate,
have managed to devalue the family unit and trivialize marriage very well
without any assistance from gays.
> This shouldn't be a civil rights argument.
That's exactly what it is, whether you like it or not.
DS
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycanbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On Thu, 4 Dec 2003, David J. Allen wrote:
> The issue is not discrimination.
That's exactly what's at issue. When one group of people is systematically
denied specific civil rights others have, that's invidious discrimination.
> Though it's useful for those who support
> gay marriage because of the strategy to make it analogous with civil rights
> for blacks.
Such authorities on the civil rights struggle for blacks as Coretta Scott
King agree with the analogy.
> If we all decide that gay marriage is cool, that's what we'll do and
> we'll live with it and it's consequences. If we discriminate against
> gays when it comes to marriage it's because people believe that the
> basic unit of our society ought to be the family and that it ought to be
> preserved and protected. Not everyone agrees with that. Fine. Vote
> your way.
If the majority is allowed to vote upon whether or not to grant equal
civil rights to minorities, minorities will never be accorded equal
rights. It's been demonstrated again and again and again.
DS
> The issue is not discrimination.
That's exactly what's at issue. When one group of people is systematically
denied specific civil rights others have, that's invidious discrimination.
> Though it's useful for those who support
> gay marriage because of the strategy to make it analogous with civil rights
> for blacks.
Such authorities on the civil rights struggle for blacks as Coretta Scott
King agree with the analogy.
> If we all decide that gay marriage is cool, that's what we'll do and
> we'll live with it and it's consequences. If we discriminate against
> gays when it comes to marriage it's because people believe that the
> basic unit of our society ought to be the family and that it ought to be
> preserved and protected. Not everyone agrees with that. Fine. Vote
> your way.
If the majority is allowed to vote upon whether or not to grant equal
civil rights to minorities, minorities will never be accorded equal
rights. It's been demonstrated again and again and again.
DS
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycanbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On Thu, 4 Dec 2003, David J. Allen wrote:
> The issue is not discrimination.
That's exactly what's at issue. When one group of people is systematically
denied specific civil rights others have, that's invidious discrimination.
> Though it's useful for those who support
> gay marriage because of the strategy to make it analogous with civil rights
> for blacks.
Such authorities on the civil rights struggle for blacks as Coretta Scott
King agree with the analogy.
> If we all decide that gay marriage is cool, that's what we'll do and
> we'll live with it and it's consequences. If we discriminate against
> gays when it comes to marriage it's because people believe that the
> basic unit of our society ought to be the family and that it ought to be
> preserved and protected. Not everyone agrees with that. Fine. Vote
> your way.
If the majority is allowed to vote upon whether or not to grant equal
civil rights to minorities, minorities will never be accorded equal
rights. It's been demonstrated again and again and again.
DS
> The issue is not discrimination.
That's exactly what's at issue. When one group of people is systematically
denied specific civil rights others have, that's invidious discrimination.
> Though it's useful for those who support
> gay marriage because of the strategy to make it analogous with civil rights
> for blacks.
Such authorities on the civil rights struggle for blacks as Coretta Scott
King agree with the analogy.
> If we all decide that gay marriage is cool, that's what we'll do and
> we'll live with it and it's consequences. If we discriminate against
> gays when it comes to marriage it's because people believe that the
> basic unit of our society ought to be the family and that it ought to be
> preserved and protected. Not everyone agrees with that. Fine. Vote
> your way.
If the majority is allowed to vote upon whether or not to grant equal
civil rights to minorities, minorities will never be accorded equal
rights. It's been demonstrated again and again and again.
DS
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycanbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On Thu, 4 Dec 2003, David J. Allen wrote:
> The issue is not discrimination.
That's exactly what's at issue. When one group of people is systematically
denied specific civil rights others have, that's invidious discrimination.
> Though it's useful for those who support
> gay marriage because of the strategy to make it analogous with civil rights
> for blacks.
Such authorities on the civil rights struggle for blacks as Coretta Scott
King agree with the analogy.
> If we all decide that gay marriage is cool, that's what we'll do and
> we'll live with it and it's consequences. If we discriminate against
> gays when it comes to marriage it's because people believe that the
> basic unit of our society ought to be the family and that it ought to be
> preserved and protected. Not everyone agrees with that. Fine. Vote
> your way.
If the majority is allowed to vote upon whether or not to grant equal
civil rights to minorities, minorities will never be accorded equal
rights. It's been demonstrated again and again and again.
DS
> The issue is not discrimination.
That's exactly what's at issue. When one group of people is systematically
denied specific civil rights others have, that's invidious discrimination.
> Though it's useful for those who support
> gay marriage because of the strategy to make it analogous with civil rights
> for blacks.
Such authorities on the civil rights struggle for blacks as Coretta Scott
King agree with the analogy.
> If we all decide that gay marriage is cool, that's what we'll do and
> we'll live with it and it's consequences. If we discriminate against
> gays when it comes to marriage it's because people believe that the
> basic unit of our society ought to be the family and that it ought to be
> preserved and protected. Not everyone agrees with that. Fine. Vote
> your way.
If the majority is allowed to vote upon whether or not to grant equal
civil rights to minorities, minorities will never be accorded equal
rights. It's been demonstrated again and again and again.
DS
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycanbemisinterpretedby SUV drivers)
Nick N wrote:
> "Steve" <no@spam.thanks> wrote in message
> news:tdudnVlyI7iWC1KiRTvUqA@texas.net...
>
>>C. E. White wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Del Rawlins wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>The only equitable solution is for the government to get out of the
>>>>marriage business completely. That ought to **** off everyone equally.
>
>
> or just keep crossposting.
> Please everyone. Stop.
> Nick
>
>
Fine. Exactly who started the crossposting? Which groups are "cross
posted" and which ones belong? Its clearly OT in any group in the "to" line.
> "Steve" <no@spam.thanks> wrote in message
> news:tdudnVlyI7iWC1KiRTvUqA@texas.net...
>
>>C. E. White wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Del Rawlins wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>The only equitable solution is for the government to get out of the
>>>>marriage business completely. That ought to **** off everyone equally.
>
>
> or just keep crossposting.
> Please everyone. Stop.
> Nick
>
>
Fine. Exactly who started the crossposting? Which groups are "cross
posted" and which ones belong? Its clearly OT in any group in the "to" line.