Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers

Roughly 12/9/03 10:34, Brandon Sommerville's monkeys randomly typed:

 

Roughly 12/9/03 10:34, Brandon Sommerville's monkeys randomly typed:

I don't suppose you could turn your attention to off-topic
crossposting?

 

Roughly 12/9/03 10:53, Bill Funk's monkeys randomly typed:

...neither is off-topic crossposting.

 

Equal access means that all have the same access to healthcare.
Healthcare for all means that everyone has access to healthcare.
You're describing the latter.
It's not equal access that is essential, but access.
Equal access is what a non-competitive governmental health system
provides.
Access for all can be provided by a supplemental governmental system,
which still allows universal (for everyone) access, but not *equal*
access (meaning that one can, if able, get faster service, or services
not possible under the governmental system).

 

How do you define "right to life"? Without a government willing to
back it up, life is pretty cheap.
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail

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

 

Then as I understand it, Canada has equal access for essential health
care needs, with health care for all beyond the essentials.
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail

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

 

Hogwash; if they are meaningless without the means to protect them,
then why do so many insist that they have them?

More hogwash.
You are actually trying to tell us that, without government, no rights
exist.
You are confusing governmental protection of rights with the rights
themselves.

If it doesn't stop it, then the government doesn't protect the rights.
Therefore they don't exist, according to you.

Very wrong.
It may be that it's a fairly recent idea that the lives of the
subjects of a government don't belong to the leader, but that does not
mean that there was never a right to live. Instead, it means that
right wasn't recognized.
Following your logic, Saddam Hussein was within his rights to kill any
of his subjects he saw fit to kill.

 

[brissed]

 

[clipped]

 

Roughly 12/9/03 11:36, Brandon Sommerville's monkeys randomly typed:

 

Because they want to live.

What rights do you have in an anarchy? Does a right mean anything if
no one can back up that right?

Nonsense. 100% success isn't required. By that logic freedom of
speech would be dead in the US. Is it? Ask the Dixie Chicks or Bill
Maher about freedom of speech.

Which means the right is meaningless.

According to his own rules he was. Doesn't make it defensible or
good, but he recognized no rights beyond his own.
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail

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

 

[]

 

Lon Stowell wrote:


25 of the 30-odd replies to this frickin' thread that showed up when I
opened my browser.

<Shrek>

What yer doin is the OPPOSITE of helpin'!

</Shrek>

 

You have an HMO. There's a reason HMO plans cost a lot less than
other health insurance plans, and that reason is that generally, they
suck.

 

Roughly 12/9/03 13:53, Matthew Russotto's monkeys randomly typed:

 

Roughly 12/9/03 13:53, Matthew Russotto's monkeys randomly typed:

 

Roughly 12/9/03 15:56, Bill Putney's monkeys randomly typed:

 

Are you trying to say that the Dixie Chicks' right to freedom of speech
was violated? If that's what you're saying, then please explain how.
If you're not saying that, then I misread your point (entirely
possible).

Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")

 

You don't mind YOUR crossposting, yet you criticize others. Hypocrite.

 

unless posted by Lon Stowell.