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 <Gj3Ab.160$ng6.74@twister.socal.rr.com>,
"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:bqq8nm$ikt$8@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> In article <4PLzb.3204$WT6.364@twister.socal.rr.com>,
>> "David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> 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.
>>
>>
>> So you'd ban marriage between couples if one is infertile? Or too old to
>have
>> children? Or simply don't want children?
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> Yes it does. It provides a stable unit, reduces promiscuity, should
>reduce
>> disease transmission, etc.
>>
>
>Wrong. Marriage "produces" none of those things. Moral, committed people
>do. The existence of childless married couples is irrelevent to the
>institution of marriage and doesn't change what it is and means to society.
>Changing marriage from an insitution whose purpose is to nurture and protect
>families to a grab basket of benefits you want to call "civil rights" is
>what you're arguing for.
>
>> >
>> >I don't really even buy the argument that there are benefits gay couples
>> >can't have without marriage. To me, it's part of an agenda to normalize
>> >gays in society in every way,
>>
>> And heaven forbid you Taliban would have to accept everyone as being
>equal.
>>
>
>Having a little trouble understanding the argument Lloyd? Let me clarify.
>The gay activist agenda is to redefine and rebuild our whole social
>structure to abstract out distinction between sexual preference.

The same thing has been said about blacks, Jews, Catholics, women, etc. The
bigotry doesn't change, it just finds a new group to kick.


> In doing
>so, it has to redefine marriage from what it's been to what they want it to
>be. The method used is to call the "benefits" of marriage "civil rights".
>The error is that the benefits of marriage aren't there because society
>thinks marrieds are more deserving or more equal or more anything to the
>exclusion of unmarrieds. They are there to protect and nurture families,
>especially those with a single wage earner and dependents.

Then why give them to people who get married in their 60s, say?

 

In article <Gj3Ab.160$ng6.74@twister.socal.rr.com>,
"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:bqq8nm$ikt$8@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> In article <4PLzb.3204$WT6.364@twister.socal.rr.com>,
>> "David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> 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.
>>
>>
>> So you'd ban marriage between couples if one is infertile? Or too old to
>have
>> children? Or simply don't want children?
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> Yes it does. It provides a stable unit, reduces promiscuity, should
>reduce
>> disease transmission, etc.
>>
>
>Wrong. Marriage "produces" none of those things. Moral, committed people
>do. The existence of childless married couples is irrelevent to the
>institution of marriage and doesn't change what it is and means to society.
>Changing marriage from an insitution whose purpose is to nurture and protect
>families to a grab basket of benefits you want to call "civil rights" is
>what you're arguing for.
>
>> >
>> >I don't really even buy the argument that there are benefits gay couples
>> >can't have without marriage. To me, it's part of an agenda to normalize
>> >gays in society in every way,
>>
>> And heaven forbid you Taliban would have to accept everyone as being
>equal.
>>
>
>Having a little trouble understanding the argument Lloyd? Let me clarify.
>The gay activist agenda is to redefine and rebuild our whole social
>structure to abstract out distinction between sexual preference.

The same thing has been said about blacks, Jews, Catholics, women, etc. The
bigotry doesn't change, it just finds a new group to kick.


> In doing
>so, it has to redefine marriage from what it's been to what they want it to
>be. The method used is to call the "benefits" of marriage "civil rights".
>The error is that the benefits of marriage aren't there because society
>thinks marrieds are more deserving or more equal or more anything to the
>exclusion of unmarrieds. They are there to protect and nurture families,
>especially those with a single wage earner and dependents.

Then why give them to people who get married in their 60s, say?

 

In article <Gj3Ab.160$ng6.74@twister.socal.rr.com>,
"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:bqq8nm$ikt$8@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> In article <4PLzb.3204$WT6.364@twister.socal.rr.com>,
>> "David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> 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.
>>
>>
>> So you'd ban marriage between couples if one is infertile? Or too old to
>have
>> children? Or simply don't want children?
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> Yes it does. It provides a stable unit, reduces promiscuity, should
>reduce
>> disease transmission, etc.
>>
>
>Wrong. Marriage "produces" none of those things. Moral, committed people
>do. The existence of childless married couples is irrelevent to the
>institution of marriage and doesn't change what it is and means to society.
>Changing marriage from an insitution whose purpose is to nurture and protect
>families to a grab basket of benefits you want to call "civil rights" is
>what you're arguing for.
>
>> >
>> >I don't really even buy the argument that there are benefits gay couples
>> >can't have without marriage. To me, it's part of an agenda to normalize
>> >gays in society in every way,
>>
>> And heaven forbid you Taliban would have to accept everyone as being
>equal.
>>
>
>Having a little trouble understanding the argument Lloyd? Let me clarify.
>The gay activist agenda is to redefine and rebuild our whole social
>structure to abstract out distinction between sexual preference.

The same thing has been said about blacks, Jews, Catholics, women, etc. The
bigotry doesn't change, it just finds a new group to kick.


> In doing
>so, it has to redefine marriage from what it's been to what they want it to
>be. The method used is to call the "benefits" of marriage "civil rights".
>The error is that the benefits of marriage aren't there because society
>thinks marrieds are more deserving or more equal or more anything to the
>exclusion of unmarrieds. They are there to protect and nurture families,
>especially those with a single wage earner and dependents.

Then why give them to people who get married in their 60s, say?

 

In article <7r2dnRPpSrp7ek2iRTvUqA@speakeasy.net>,
russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto) wrote:
>In article <e7359b94e95c7b42780a15f66a4b4f62@news.teranews.co m>,
>Brandon Sommerville <grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote:
>>On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 13:24:57 -0600, russotto@grace.speakeasy.net
>>(Matthew Russotto) wrote:
>>
>>>In article <7dc396f584336d32b246a944411c15de@news.teranews.co m>,
>>>Brandon Sommerville <grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>I know that no matter what happens, if I blow out my knee I'm going to
>>>>get an MRI. It may take 8 weeks, but I'll get it and it won't cost me
>>>>anything extra. Can you say the same thing?
>>>
>>>Not exactly. In my case (hip rather than knee, but same idea), it was
>>>same day (first MRI) and later in the week (second MRI) and it still
>>>didn't cost me anything extra. There was no urgency in the medical
>>>sense. The more complex MRA did take a month, because it had to be
>>>scheduled with both the radiology department and the MRI center. No
>>>rationing involved.
>>
>>And if there was no one who needed an MRI I'd get one right away as
>>well.
>
>But in the US, we've got enough MRIs to service both the critical needs and
>the less-critical needs in a timely manner.

For those with insurance or plenty of money. Of course, that's one reason
health care IS so expensive -- every hospital, every clinic, thinks they have
to have every expensive machine, be capable of performing every expensive
procedure. It's like Chrysler deciding they need to have the parts and
engineers on hand to make every type of vehicle in the world, from sports car
to military tank to NASA space shuttle. What would their overhead costs be?


> Or do you want to hobble
>around in pain for 8 weeks longer? (or perhaps MUCH longer in my
>case, as it took three studies to diagnose the problem -- and then there's
the
>issue of waiting periods for non-critical surgery in Canada)

 

In article <7r2dnRPpSrp7ek2iRTvUqA@speakeasy.net>,
russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto) wrote:
>In article <e7359b94e95c7b42780a15f66a4b4f62@news.teranews.co m>,
>Brandon Sommerville <grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote:
>>On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 13:24:57 -0600, russotto@grace.speakeasy.net
>>(Matthew Russotto) wrote:
>>
>>>In article <7dc396f584336d32b246a944411c15de@news.teranews.co m>,
>>>Brandon Sommerville <grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>I know that no matter what happens, if I blow out my knee I'm going to
>>>>get an MRI. It may take 8 weeks, but I'll get it and it won't cost me
>>>>anything extra. Can you say the same thing?
>>>
>>>Not exactly. In my case (hip rather than knee, but same idea), it was
>>>same day (first MRI) and later in the week (second MRI) and it still
>>>didn't cost me anything extra. There was no urgency in the medical
>>>sense. The more complex MRA did take a month, because it had to be
>>>scheduled with both the radiology department and the MRI center. No
>>>rationing involved.
>>
>>And if there was no one who needed an MRI I'd get one right away as
>>well.
>
>But in the US, we've got enough MRIs to service both the critical needs and
>the less-critical needs in a timely manner.

For those with insurance or plenty of money. Of course, that's one reason
health care IS so expensive -- every hospital, every clinic, thinks they have
to have every expensive machine, be capable of performing every expensive
procedure. It's like Chrysler deciding they need to have the parts and
engineers on hand to make every type of vehicle in the world, from sports car
to military tank to NASA space shuttle. What would their overhead costs be?


> Or do you want to hobble
>around in pain for 8 weeks longer? (or perhaps MUCH longer in my
>case, as it took three studies to diagnose the problem -- and then there's
the
>issue of waiting periods for non-critical surgery in Canada)

 

In article <7r2dnRPpSrp7ek2iRTvUqA@speakeasy.net>,
russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto) wrote:
>In article <e7359b94e95c7b42780a15f66a4b4f62@news.teranews.co m>,
>Brandon Sommerville <grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote:
>>On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 13:24:57 -0600, russotto@grace.speakeasy.net
>>(Matthew Russotto) wrote:
>>
>>>In article <7dc396f584336d32b246a944411c15de@news.teranews.co m>,
>>>Brandon Sommerville <grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>I know that no matter what happens, if I blow out my knee I'm going to
>>>>get an MRI. It may take 8 weeks, but I'll get it and it won't cost me
>>>>anything extra. Can you say the same thing?
>>>
>>>Not exactly. In my case (hip rather than knee, but same idea), it was
>>>same day (first MRI) and later in the week (second MRI) and it still
>>>didn't cost me anything extra. There was no urgency in the medical
>>>sense. The more complex MRA did take a month, because it had to be
>>>scheduled with both the radiology department and the MRI center. No
>>>rationing involved.
>>
>>And if there was no one who needed an MRI I'd get one right away as
>>well.
>
>But in the US, we've got enough MRIs to service both the critical needs and
>the less-critical needs in a timely manner.

For those with insurance or plenty of money. Of course, that's one reason
health care IS so expensive -- every hospital, every clinic, thinks they have
to have every expensive machine, be capable of performing every expensive
procedure. It's like Chrysler deciding they need to have the parts and
engineers on hand to make every type of vehicle in the world, from sports car
to military tank to NASA space shuttle. What would their overhead costs be?


> Or do you want to hobble
>around in pain for 8 weeks longer? (or perhaps MUCH longer in my
>case, as it took three studies to diagnose the problem -- and then there's
the
>issue of waiting periods for non-critical surgery in Canada)

 

Bill Funk 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.
> That's on top of the economic incentives those governments gave to
> Airbus (subsidies) to help Airbus products.
> Boeing doesn't get such help. They have to sell their products on
> merit.
>

Bwahahahahahahahaha

Only an American would believe that the US is subsidy free. Take a look
from outside the fishbowl for a change.

Dan

 

Bill Funk 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.
> That's on top of the economic incentives those governments gave to
> Airbus (subsidies) to help Airbus products.
> Boeing doesn't get such help. They have to sell their products on
> merit.
>

Bwahahahahahahahaha

Only an American would believe that the US is subsidy free. Take a look
from outside the fishbowl for a change.

Dan

 

Bill Funk 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.
> That's on top of the economic incentives those governments gave to
> Airbus (subsidies) to help Airbus products.
> Boeing doesn't get such help. They have to sell their products on
> merit.
>

Bwahahahahahahahaha

Only an American would believe that the US is subsidy free. Take a look
from outside the fishbowl for a change.

Dan