On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 23:13:45 -0700, Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com>
wrote:

>On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 02:20:31 GMT, Brandon Sommerville
><grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote:
>
>>>Ok, I have a problem with unreferrenced pronouns.
>>>What is the "it" here?
>>>Marriage? Gay marriage? The idea of gay marriage?
>>>The rankling?
>>
>>That's not an explanation of why gay marriage rankles, it's an
>>explanation of what gay marriage is.
>
>Are you sure?
>Since the definition of marriage is so closely tied to religion, those
>who adhere to the religious beliefs are rankled by the idea of gay
>marriage because 'it's against God's law'.
>That's not a definition of Gay marriage.

Sorry, I went back and re-read what the original post was. I can
understand the confusion that my post generated since I was confused
by it! This is what it should have read:

>Marriage, in our culture (Judeo/Christian) has been historically
>defined by the religious society, and then codified by the
>governments.

That's not an explanation of why gay marriage rankles, it's an
explanation of what marriage is.
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail

Definition of "Lottery":
Millions of stupid people contributing
to make one stupid person look smart.

 

On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 23:13:45 -0700, Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com>
wrote:

>On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 02:20:31 GMT, Brandon Sommerville
><grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote:
>
>>>Ok, I have a problem with unreferrenced pronouns.
>>>What is the "it" here?
>>>Marriage? Gay marriage? The idea of gay marriage?
>>>The rankling?
>>
>>That's not an explanation of why gay marriage rankles, it's an
>>explanation of what gay marriage is.
>
>Are you sure?
>Since the definition of marriage is so closely tied to religion, those
>who adhere to the religious beliefs are rankled by the idea of gay
>marriage because 'it's against God's law'.
>That's not a definition of Gay marriage.

Sorry, I went back and re-read what the original post was. I can
understand the confusion that my post generated since I was confused
by it! This is what it should have read:

>Marriage, in our culture (Judeo/Christian) has been historically
>defined by the religious society, and then codified by the
>governments.

That's not an explanation of why gay marriage rankles, it's an
explanation of what marriage is.
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail

Definition of "Lottery":
Millions of stupid people contributing
to make one stupid person look smart.

 

In article <vt1c6ukotbih6b@corp.supernews.com>,
"Douglas A. Shrader" <dshrader@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:bqq8jt$ikt$7@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> In article <vsv15g1jlv50f8@corp.supernews.com>,
>> "The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote in message
>> >news:a1Lzb.3199$WT6.3101@twister.socal.rr.com.. .
>> >>
>> >> "Daniel J. Stern" <dastern@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
>> >> news:Pine.SOL.4.44.0312031922420.21202-100000@alumni.engin.umich.edu...
>> >> > On Wed, 3 Dec 2003, Bill Putney wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > > Canada's healthcare system sucks.
>> >> >
>> >> > I daresay you don't know what you're talking about. I'm an American
>> >living
>> >> > here in Canada, and guess what? Canada's healthcare system is
>*vastly*
>> >> > better than the US system in the vast majority of cases. Are there
>> >> > exceptions? Surely. There's no such thing as perfection. But the
>> >Canadian
>> >> > system does a much better job of handling most of the healthcare
>needs
>> >of
>> >> > most of the people at a reasonable cost.
>> >> >
>> >> > DS
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> That's great. My experience in a French system was that it did fine
>for
>> >> everyday stuff: bandages, pain killers, antibiotics. Even then it
>could
>> >be
>> >> a littel scary depending on the doctor you see. I was in an accident
>and
>> >> hurt my hand and wrist. No big deal, but I was rushed to the hospital
>in
>> >a
>> >> scary ambulance ride (for sprain wrist!) and then when I got there,
>they
>> >> took my vitals and then took care of my hand. All went well enough
>until
>> >> the doctor saw my pulse rate. She thought is was too slow, dangerously
>> >so,
>> >> and so perscribed some pills (in a plastic bag) to speed my heart up.
>> >When
>> >> I got home I promply threw them away. I think my heart rate was in the
>> >> 50's, which is not too slow. I felt great. No different than I ever
>did.
>> >>
>> >> A friend of mine had a more serious condition and even though he had
>the
>> >> money to see a private doctor, went to the clinic. He went home in a
>box
>> >> because they didn't misdiagnosed his condition.
>> >>
>> >> The problem was, in my view, that the best doctors wouldn't come near
>the
>> >> socialized system, which paid poorly and rationed care. You cannot
>avoid
>> >> the trade-offs of a socialized system and a private competitive system.
>A
>> >> private system will leave some behind. A socialized system will give
>> >> everyone less quality and quantity overall. It's true with any
>"product".
>> >
>> >For a local example just look at the VA hospitals.
>> >
>> >
>> Ask any veteran if he or she would give that up. Please. Then duck.
>
>My Dad was a Veteran Lloyd, he died because the VA cared more about slashing
>costs than providing quality care. Easier, and cheaper, to make an off the
>shoulder diagnosis than to run expensive tests. When he was admitted for
>pnuemonia they finally decided to run some test to see what was causing it
>and found he was riddled with cancer, which any good hospital would have
>detected years earlier. He died 8 days later, at home, even though he begged
>them to let him stay in the hospital. Hospital beds cost money, and they had
>to cut costs, so a dying man was sent home. That is the kind of low quality,
>one kind treats all health system you want Lloyd, and it stinks. Now shut up
>and stop posting your lies and crap on this or any group.
>
>
And if he'd had no insurance or lots of money, how far do you think he would
have gotten in trying to get a private hospital to do this?

 

In article <vt1c6ukotbih6b@corp.supernews.com>,
"Douglas A. Shrader" <dshrader@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:bqq8jt$ikt$7@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> In article <vsv15g1jlv50f8@corp.supernews.com>,
>> "The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote in message
>> >news:a1Lzb.3199$WT6.3101@twister.socal.rr.com.. .
>> >>
>> >> "Daniel J. Stern" <dastern@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
>> >> news:Pine.SOL.4.44.0312031922420.21202-100000@alumni.engin.umich.edu...
>> >> > On Wed, 3 Dec 2003, Bill Putney wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > > Canada's healthcare system sucks.
>> >> >
>> >> > I daresay you don't know what you're talking about. I'm an American
>> >living
>> >> > here in Canada, and guess what? Canada's healthcare system is
>*vastly*
>> >> > better than the US system in the vast majority of cases. Are there
>> >> > exceptions? Surely. There's no such thing as perfection. But the
>> >Canadian
>> >> > system does a much better job of handling most of the healthcare
>needs
>> >of
>> >> > most of the people at a reasonable cost.
>> >> >
>> >> > DS
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> That's great. My experience in a French system was that it did fine
>for
>> >> everyday stuff: bandages, pain killers, antibiotics. Even then it
>could
>> >be
>> >> a littel scary depending on the doctor you see. I was in an accident
>and
>> >> hurt my hand and wrist. No big deal, but I was rushed to the hospital
>in
>> >a
>> >> scary ambulance ride (for sprain wrist!) and then when I got there,
>they
>> >> took my vitals and then took care of my hand. All went well enough
>until
>> >> the doctor saw my pulse rate. She thought is was too slow, dangerously
>> >so,
>> >> and so perscribed some pills (in a plastic bag) to speed my heart up.
>> >When
>> >> I got home I promply threw them away. I think my heart rate was in the
>> >> 50's, which is not too slow. I felt great. No different than I ever
>did.
>> >>
>> >> A friend of mine had a more serious condition and even though he had
>the
>> >> money to see a private doctor, went to the clinic. He went home in a
>box
>> >> because they didn't misdiagnosed his condition.
>> >>
>> >> The problem was, in my view, that the best doctors wouldn't come near
>the
>> >> socialized system, which paid poorly and rationed care. You cannot
>avoid
>> >> the trade-offs of a socialized system and a private competitive system.
>A
>> >> private system will leave some behind. A socialized system will give
>> >> everyone less quality and quantity overall. It's true with any
>"product".
>> >
>> >For a local example just look at the VA hospitals.
>> >
>> >
>> Ask any veteran if he or she would give that up. Please. Then duck.
>
>My Dad was a Veteran Lloyd, he died because the VA cared more about slashing
>costs than providing quality care. Easier, and cheaper, to make an off the
>shoulder diagnosis than to run expensive tests. When he was admitted for
>pnuemonia they finally decided to run some test to see what was causing it
>and found he was riddled with cancer, which any good hospital would have
>detected years earlier. He died 8 days later, at home, even though he begged
>them to let him stay in the hospital. Hospital beds cost money, and they had
>to cut costs, so a dying man was sent home. That is the kind of low quality,
>one kind treats all health system you want Lloyd, and it stinks. Now shut up
>and stop posting your lies and crap on this or any group.
>
>
And if he'd had no insurance or lots of money, how far do you think he would
have gotten in trying to get a private hospital to do this?

 

In article <vt1c6ukotbih6b@corp.supernews.com>,
"Douglas A. Shrader" <dshrader@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:bqq8jt$ikt$7@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> In article <vsv15g1jlv50f8@corp.supernews.com>,
>> "The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote in message
>> >news:a1Lzb.3199$WT6.3101@twister.socal.rr.com.. .
>> >>
>> >> "Daniel J. Stern" <dastern@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
>> >> news:Pine.SOL.4.44.0312031922420.21202-100000@alumni.engin.umich.edu...
>> >> > On Wed, 3 Dec 2003, Bill Putney wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > > Canada's healthcare system sucks.
>> >> >
>> >> > I daresay you don't know what you're talking about. I'm an American
>> >living
>> >> > here in Canada, and guess what? Canada's healthcare system is
>*vastly*
>> >> > better than the US system in the vast majority of cases. Are there
>> >> > exceptions? Surely. There's no such thing as perfection. But the
>> >Canadian
>> >> > system does a much better job of handling most of the healthcare
>needs
>> >of
>> >> > most of the people at a reasonable cost.
>> >> >
>> >> > DS
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> That's great. My experience in a French system was that it did fine
>for
>> >> everyday stuff: bandages, pain killers, antibiotics. Even then it
>could
>> >be
>> >> a littel scary depending on the doctor you see. I was in an accident
>and
>> >> hurt my hand and wrist. No big deal, but I was rushed to the hospital
>in
>> >a
>> >> scary ambulance ride (for sprain wrist!) and then when I got there,
>they
>> >> took my vitals and then took care of my hand. All went well enough
>until
>> >> the doctor saw my pulse rate. She thought is was too slow, dangerously
>> >so,
>> >> and so perscribed some pills (in a plastic bag) to speed my heart up.
>> >When
>> >> I got home I promply threw them away. I think my heart rate was in the
>> >> 50's, which is not too slow. I felt great. No different than I ever
>did.
>> >>
>> >> A friend of mine had a more serious condition and even though he had
>the
>> >> money to see a private doctor, went to the clinic. He went home in a
>box
>> >> because they didn't misdiagnosed his condition.
>> >>
>> >> The problem was, in my view, that the best doctors wouldn't come near
>the
>> >> socialized system, which paid poorly and rationed care. You cannot
>avoid
>> >> the trade-offs of a socialized system and a private competitive system.
>A
>> >> private system will leave some behind. A socialized system will give
>> >> everyone less quality and quantity overall. It's true with any
>"product".
>> >
>> >For a local example just look at the VA hospitals.
>> >
>> >
>> Ask any veteran if he or she would give that up. Please. Then duck.
>
>My Dad was a Veteran Lloyd, he died because the VA cared more about slashing
>costs than providing quality care. Easier, and cheaper, to make an off the
>shoulder diagnosis than to run expensive tests. When he was admitted for
>pnuemonia they finally decided to run some test to see what was causing it
>and found he was riddled with cancer, which any good hospital would have
>detected years earlier. He died 8 days later, at home, even though he begged
>them to let him stay in the hospital. Hospital beds cost money, and they had
>to cut costs, so a dying man was sent home. That is the kind of low quality,
>one kind treats all health system you want Lloyd, and it stinks. Now shut up
>and stop posting your lies and crap on this or any group.
>
>
And if he'd had no insurance or lots of money, how far do you think he would
have gotten in trying to get a private hospital to do this?

 

In article <WK2Ab.158$ng6.18@twister.socal.rr.com>,
"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:bqq8t9$ikt$13@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> In article <tdudnVxyI7goDlKiRTvUqA@texas.net>, Steve <no@spam.thanks>
>wrote:
>> >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.
>> >
>> It's subsidizing US companies by giving only them government contracts.
>
>That's not "subsidizing". Total BS. Boeing competes in the worldwide
>marketplace and gets no help from the feds.

Just guaranteed profits on all the planes it sells to the defense dept.
Listen to what Sen. McCain has been saying about the huge multi-billion dollar
lease of tankers to the Air Force by Boeing. Huge profit deal.


> The defense business is less
>competitive, but for good reason (security).
>
>On the other hand, Airbus has received around $30 billion in member state
>subsidies since it's inception.
>
>
To get started; it receives nothing now and paid back the earlier ones.

 

In article <WK2Ab.158$ng6.18@twister.socal.rr.com>,
"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:bqq8t9$ikt$13@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> In article <tdudnVxyI7goDlKiRTvUqA@texas.net>, Steve <no@spam.thanks>
>wrote:
>> >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.
>> >
>> It's subsidizing US companies by giving only them government contracts.
>
>That's not "subsidizing". Total BS. Boeing competes in the worldwide
>marketplace and gets no help from the feds.

Just guaranteed profits on all the planes it sells to the defense dept.
Listen to what Sen. McCain has been saying about the huge multi-billion dollar
lease of tankers to the Air Force by Boeing. Huge profit deal.


> The defense business is less
>competitive, but for good reason (security).
>
>On the other hand, Airbus has received around $30 billion in member state
>subsidies since it's inception.
>
>
To get started; it receives nothing now and paid back the earlier ones.

 

In article <WK2Ab.158$ng6.18@twister.socal.rr.com>,
"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:bqq8t9$ikt$13@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> In article <tdudnVxyI7goDlKiRTvUqA@texas.net>, Steve <no@spam.thanks>
>wrote:
>> >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.
>> >
>> It's subsidizing US companies by giving only them government contracts.
>
>That's not "subsidizing". Total BS. Boeing competes in the worldwide
>marketplace and gets no help from the feds.

Just guaranteed profits on all the planes it sells to the defense dept.
Listen to what Sen. McCain has been saying about the huge multi-billion dollar
lease of tankers to the Air Force by Boeing. Huge profit deal.


> The defense business is less
>competitive, but for good reason (security).
>
>On the other hand, Airbus has received around $30 billion in member state
>subsidies since it's inception.
>
>
To get started; it receives nothing now and paid back the earlier ones.

 

In article <VM2Ab.159$ng6.2@twister.socal.rr.com>,
"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:bqq9eg$ikt$18@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> In article <dbhvsvs6ful4cghb4b4hf0bnd6554s5kgv@4ax.com>,
>> Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>> >On Thu, 04 Dec 03 10:09:39 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>> >wrote:
>> >
>> >>What does that mean? There are plenty of innovations. Airbus now is
>> outdoing
>> >>Boeing in orders, for example. Why? Innovative ideas.
>> >
>> >Sure.
>> >Like Britain, France & Germany giving economic incentives (money) to
>> >their airlines to buy Airbus.
>>
>> Not nowadays. WTO would slap that down.
>>
>> >That's on top of the economic incentives those governments gave to
>> >Airbus (subsidies) to help Airbus products.
>>
>> They gave startup subsidies, all of which Airbus paid back, as it was
>required
>> to.
>
>
>Now the "subsidies" come in the form of "loans". No, this battle is still
>being waged.

Airbus receives no state subsidies, but Boeing has a hugely profitable lease
deal for tankers with the AF that Sen. McCain calls a rip-off of the
taxpayers.

>
>>
>> >Boeing doesn't get such help. They have to sell their products on
>> >merit.
>> >
>> Yeah, sure. That's funny.
>
>

 

In article <VM2Ab.159$ng6.2@twister.socal.rr.com>,
"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:bqq9eg$ikt$18@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> In article <dbhvsvs6ful4cghb4b4hf0bnd6554s5kgv@4ax.com>,
>> Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>> >On Thu, 04 Dec 03 10:09:39 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>> >wrote:
>> >
>> >>What does that mean? There are plenty of innovations. Airbus now is
>> outdoing
>> >>Boeing in orders, for example. Why? Innovative ideas.
>> >
>> >Sure.
>> >Like Britain, France & Germany giving economic incentives (money) to
>> >their airlines to buy Airbus.
>>
>> Not nowadays. WTO would slap that down.
>>
>> >That's on top of the economic incentives those governments gave to
>> >Airbus (subsidies) to help Airbus products.
>>
>> They gave startup subsidies, all of which Airbus paid back, as it was
>required
>> to.
>
>
>Now the "subsidies" come in the form of "loans". No, this battle is still
>being waged.

Airbus receives no state subsidies, but Boeing has a hugely profitable lease
deal for tankers with the AF that Sen. McCain calls a rip-off of the
taxpayers.

>
>>
>> >Boeing doesn't get such help. They have to sell their products on
>> >merit.
>> >
>> Yeah, sure. That's funny.
>
>