Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers

Good news Mike - You have moved into second palce in my cross posting count with 42
crossposts to this newsgroup (eec.autos.4x4) on my newserver. Unfortunately you are
still over 60 cross posts behind Lloyd. but keep trying, you'll get there!

Ed

 

Sure, I can live with that.

Ed

 

Lesbian couples can even have children. I still don' think this makes a same sex
union a marriage in the traditional legal sense.

Ed

 

Didn't Chrysler do the same thing?
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail

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

 

You keep mentioning this point. Why is this a problem?

So gay families with either adopted kids or kids from prior
relationships don't count?
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail

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

 

Because in my direction, it removes a denial of equal treatment under the
law that is currently applied to one specific group of people, WITHOUT
affecting or taking away from those who are currently not denied. In your
direction, it codifies the denial towards the specific group, for no
articulable reason more concrete than your alleged discomfort.

DS

 

I did try to point out that this wasn't the issue. The fact that people
contribute to society by their good will and good works isn't what we're
talking about.

There's no doubt about that. But the existence of people like that doesn't
mean the institution is dead or meaningless. There's plenty of people out
there who don't fit that description.

Individually? No. Heck I don't even know who's legally married or not on my
street. For all I know the little old lady down the street with all her
cats... oh never mind. But it DOES matter how we as a society in general
regard marriage and family and how we treat the institution. Redefining
marriage to fit the gay activist agenda opens a door to others similarly
agendized. After all, would "civil rights" apply only to traditional
straights and traditional gays?

 

No. For the same reasons as argued before. Those cases don't change what
marriage is. Gay marriage does.

 

You're in true form Lloyd. Do you shoplift?

 

That's the only option for this argument...unless you're being
disingenuous about it.

Gracious, how magnanimous and progressive of you.

The rights and responsibilities of marriage are codified, granted and
enforced by society. That, by definition, makes them civil rights and
civil responsibilities. Some people believe there are additional rights
and responsibilities codified, granted and enforced by their god; these
are separate from the civil rights and civil responsibilities.

....except for childless couples, who are just an exception to the rule and
therefore don't really change the principle UNLESS they happen to be
childless GAY couples, in which case they're a dealbreaker.

Here's a nice 1/2" wrench to throw into the works: Gay couples WITH
children.

You've just defined "civil rights".

Not all civil rights flow from the Constitution. And of those that do, not
all of them are individually enumerated in the Constitution.

DS

 

Sounds like the result of a health care system run on a for profit
basis.
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail

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

 

Well, let's see. What are Coretta Scott King's qualifications as an
authority on the civil rights struggle for blacks? Her credentials, her
track record and experience and that of her late husband.

What are Clarence Thomas' qualifications? The color of his skin...?

DS

 

Better now. Only doctors doing 'Partial Birth Abortions', whatever
those may be, get fines, jail time & loss of license. Much better.

 

I am not a psychic so I don't know which group all the cross posts are
coming from.

Mike

 

I define abuse as posting off topic bull shit to a newsgroup that has a
Charter.

No netcop here, I haven't reported anyone to their abuse department yet.

If you read your terms of service with your ISP, you will find that
constantly posting off topic crap to a newsgroup with a charter is
breaking your TOS agreement.

That is abuse.

Mike

 

Same here.

Now Lloyd, CEW and I have agreed on something, so I need to grab up some
canned food and bottled water and head into the fallout shelter. End times
are doubtless nigh.

DS

 

By giving it's benefits civil rights status.

No, the search for "rights" to benefits is strictly a left wing thing. The
further left you go the more anti-capitalist.

Depends on what you mean by "normalize". By redefining our social
institutions to abstract out any notion of sexual preference? That kind of
normalization is not good. Normalizing the application of true civil rights
and protection under the law is good.

Liberals have a hard time unloading certain terms, i.e., "discrimination"
and now "normal". These words don't carry notions of good and bad by
themselves. "Normalizing" something is not by nature good or bad.

You engineers out there will understand this. I'm doubtful about chemists
though.

 

Typical liberal hyperbole.

The problem is removal of CHOICE from the individual. You don't have to
be elite to get great healthcare in the US. And in a health crisis, you
have the ability to draw on savings or give up other purchases IF
getting immediate top-quality care is a priority for you as an
individual. Or you can wait longer or opt for lower levels of treatment
if its not a priority for you.

 

And no doubt exercises scientific method AT LEAST as well as you do.

 

Where are you getting this? I've noticed no such absence of individual
choice here in Canada. I picked my own General Practitioner based on
recommendations from friends and my own research. Picked my own dentist
the same way. When I got hit with a kidney stone, I picked the hospital to
go to (made a bad choice that day, the ER had a heavy load when I happened
to come in -- but it was MY choice). I picked the doctor to operate and
remove the kidney stone. Where is this alleged removal of CHOICE from the
individual in Canada you keep going on about from clear down in Texas?

You have to be able to afford health insurance. Many Americans can't.

Same here in Canada.

Same here in Canada.


DS