"Brandon Sommerville" <grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote in message
news:8170e4c810deaf732ac373b4a63f687c@news.teranew s.com...
> On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 17:33:26 GMT, "David J. Allen"
> <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >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.
>
> You keep mentioning this point. Why is this a problem?
>

For some things it matters. Marriage is one of them. Marriage has a
distinct value to society that would be diminished without it's focus on the
traditional family. Where would we go in the long run if we lost that?
Hard to say, but I believe it would be harmful. It's just my view though.


> >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. Marriage
> >wouldn't be something that the government would have an interest in
> >protecting otherwise. That's the point.
>
> So gay families with either adopted kids or kids from prior
> relationships don't count?

I'm not for gay adoption and kids from prior marriages don't mean anything
legally in a new marriage of any stripe. Step parents don't have any legal
obligations or rights to step children.

> --
> Brandon Sommerville
> remove ".gov" to e-mail
>
> Definition of "Lottery":
> Millions of stupid people contributing
> to make one stupid person look smart.

 

Lloyd Parker wrote:

> 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.

Or anyone with a critical and immediate need.

> 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.

To an extent I agree. On the other hand, when you're sick, in pain, and
have a life and career to get back to, getting bounced across town in an
ambulance to wait in line for the MRI is a pretty rotten way to spend 6
hours.


> 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.

Well, during the company's most successful years that's EXACTLY what
they did (stretching a little there, they built COMPONENTS of the Saturn
V and Saturn 1b, not a whole shuttle).

 

Lloyd Parker wrote:

> 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.

Or anyone with a critical and immediate need.

> 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.

To an extent I agree. On the other hand, when you're sick, in pain, and
have a life and career to get back to, getting bounced across town in an
ambulance to wait in line for the MRI is a pretty rotten way to spend 6
hours.


> 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.

Well, during the company's most successful years that's EXACTLY what
they did (stretching a little there, they built COMPONENTS of the Saturn
V and Saturn 1b, not a whole shuttle).

 

Lloyd Parker wrote:

> 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.

Or anyone with a critical and immediate need.

> 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.

To an extent I agree. On the other hand, when you're sick, in pain, and
have a life and career to get back to, getting bounced across town in an
ambulance to wait in line for the MRI is a pretty rotten way to spend 6
hours.


> 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.

Well, during the company's most successful years that's EXACTLY what
they did (stretching a little there, they built COMPONENTS of the Saturn
V and Saturn 1b, not a whole shuttle).

 

On Fri, 05 Dec 03 10:49:52 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:

>In article <4rgvsvsr85ac6otf5vq7tgpvuper2gi50r@4ax.com>,
> Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>>On Thu, 04 Dec 03 10:19:48 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In article <fjsssvsjhm8pallc1vtbeep7bao9tn38hv@4ax.com>,
>>> Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>>>>On Wed, 03 Dec 03 10:56:52 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>You're free to pay for their healthcare any time you want. But what
>>>>>>idiot believes that they have the right to reach into my pocket and take
>>>>>>what is mine (it's called stealing). So - really - who is preventing
>>>>>>you and anyone who feels that way from paying for the treatment of these
>>>>>>people? You have that right, as do I - but by freedom of will - not by
>>>>>>confiscation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>It's called living in a society. Society has the right to compel you to
>pay
>>>>>taxes, and it's the height of idiocy to call it stealing or theft. If you
>>>>>don't want to live in a society, you can leave. Nobody's keeping you
>here.
>>>>
>>>>That assumes that all taxes are for legimitate purposes.
>>>>And that's hardly the case.
>>>>
>>>And you get to decide that? Sorry, that would be anarchy. In our society,
>>>our elected government decides that.
>>
>>And you obviously think that makes them OK.
>> You might not agree (that's your right), but I do in fact get to
>>decide if taxes are all used for legimitate purposes. It's part living
>>in a democratic republic.
>>Do *YOU* think all taxes go for legimate purposes?
>>
>
>Hell no. Missile defense in space, for example. Haliburton contracts in
>Iraq, for another. Do I get to decide which ones I don't pay taxes to
>support?

Ah! Another subject change, from deciding which ones are right, to not
paying them.
You do that a lot.
It's because you can't respond to the subject at hand, so you change
it.

--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"

 

On Fri, 05 Dec 03 10:49:52 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:

>In article <4rgvsvsr85ac6otf5vq7tgpvuper2gi50r@4ax.com>,
> Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>>On Thu, 04 Dec 03 10:19:48 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In article <fjsssvsjhm8pallc1vtbeep7bao9tn38hv@4ax.com>,
>>> Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>>>>On Wed, 03 Dec 03 10:56:52 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>You're free to pay for their healthcare any time you want. But what
>>>>>>idiot believes that they have the right to reach into my pocket and take
>>>>>>what is mine (it's called stealing). So - really - who is preventing
>>>>>>you and anyone who feels that way from paying for the treatment of these
>>>>>>people? You have that right, as do I - but by freedom of will - not by
>>>>>>confiscation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>It's called living in a society. Society has the right to compel you to
>pay
>>>>>taxes, and it's the height of idiocy to call it stealing or theft. If you
>>>>>don't want to live in a society, you can leave. Nobody's keeping you
>here.
>>>>
>>>>That assumes that all taxes are for legimitate purposes.
>>>>And that's hardly the case.
>>>>
>>>And you get to decide that? Sorry, that would be anarchy. In our society,
>>>our elected government decides that.
>>
>>And you obviously think that makes them OK.
>> You might not agree (that's your right), but I do in fact get to
>>decide if taxes are all used for legimitate purposes. It's part living
>>in a democratic republic.
>>Do *YOU* think all taxes go for legimate purposes?
>>
>
>Hell no. Missile defense in space, for example. Haliburton contracts in
>Iraq, for another. Do I get to decide which ones I don't pay taxes to
>support?

Ah! Another subject change, from deciding which ones are right, to not
paying them.
You do that a lot.
It's because you can't respond to the subject at hand, so you change
it.

--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"

 

On Fri, 05 Dec 03 10:49:52 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:

>In article <4rgvsvsr85ac6otf5vq7tgpvuper2gi50r@4ax.com>,
> Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>>On Thu, 04 Dec 03 10:19:48 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In article <fjsssvsjhm8pallc1vtbeep7bao9tn38hv@4ax.com>,
>>> Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>>>>On Wed, 03 Dec 03 10:56:52 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>You're free to pay for their healthcare any time you want. But what
>>>>>>idiot believes that they have the right to reach into my pocket and take
>>>>>>what is mine (it's called stealing). So - really - who is preventing
>>>>>>you and anyone who feels that way from paying for the treatment of these
>>>>>>people? You have that right, as do I - but by freedom of will - not by
>>>>>>confiscation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>It's called living in a society. Society has the right to compel you to
>pay
>>>>>taxes, and it's the height of idiocy to call it stealing or theft. If you
>>>>>don't want to live in a society, you can leave. Nobody's keeping you
>here.
>>>>
>>>>That assumes that all taxes are for legimitate purposes.
>>>>And that's hardly the case.
>>>>
>>>And you get to decide that? Sorry, that would be anarchy. In our society,
>>>our elected government decides that.
>>
>>And you obviously think that makes them OK.
>> You might not agree (that's your right), but I do in fact get to
>>decide if taxes are all used for legimitate purposes. It's part living
>>in a democratic republic.
>>Do *YOU* think all taxes go for legimate purposes?
>>
>
>Hell no. Missile defense in space, for example. Haliburton contracts in
>Iraq, for another. Do I get to decide which ones I don't pay taxes to
>support?

Ah! Another subject change, from deciding which ones are right, to not
paying them.
You do that a lot.
It's because you can't respond to the subject at hand, so you change
it.

--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"

 

On Fri, 05 Dec 03 10:41:32 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:

>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.

You obviously don't understand the definition of "subsidy".
You seem to think it means paying for services or products.

--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"

 

On Fri, 05 Dec 03 10:41:32 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:

>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.

You obviously don't understand the definition of "subsidy".
You seem to think it means paying for services or products.

--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"

 

On Fri, 05 Dec 03 10:41:32 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:

>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.

You obviously don't understand the definition of "subsidy".
You seem to think it means paying for services or products.

--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"