Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers

You don't mind crossposting, yet you criticize others. HA!

 

Your posts are not on topic either "Lon Stowell".

 

Follow Lon Stowell's example! He is a crossposting guru.

 

It was good enough to convince YOU to reply, self appointed netcop.

 

That seems to be what others are saying, too.
Thanks.

 

You are, again, confusing being able to *exercise* a right, with the
right existing.

You're beginning to catch on.

No, it means it can't be exercised.

Note the word "recognized".
The right to life existed, even in Iraq.
The problem was, the government refused to recognize it.

 

If you really don't understand what "right to life" means, there's a
definite lack in your education.
Again, you are still confusing the existance of a right with being
able to exercize that right.

 

I mean they were punished for using that right. CD burning parties?
Banned from radio stations?
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail

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

 

If it's not recognized then you don't really have it, do you?
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail

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

 

They weren't punished at all. Their former fans have the exact same
rights - and they exercised them!

 

They discovered that what you say has consequences.
The first amendment does not mean that what you say won't piss people
off; it says that the government isn't allowed to muzzle you if you
do.
Last I heard, radio stations have the right to determine their own
playlists, and individuals have the right to buy the CDs they want to
buy. Nothing that even remotely violates the first amendment there.

 

It's obvious that you don't think there are any rights other than
those granted by governments.

 

Roughly 12/9/03 22:09, Bill Funk's monkeys randomly typed:

Di Nada.

 

Roughly 12/10/03 05:45, Brandon Sommerville's monkeys randomly typed:

Just the pictures.

 

Geeze, Brandon! If that's your take on it, you haven't a clue about
what rights are, and are not even competent to discuss the subject. If
they were arrested when they returned back to American soil and put in
jail for it, then, YES, that would have violated their freedom of
speech. But for me to burn their CD, or if I refuse to play their songs
on my radio station!? Give me a break. Some of your other stuff has
just shown weak-mindedness, but this - woof!

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

 

Roughly 12/10/03 17:48, Bill Putney's monkeys randomly typed:

 

Managed care has it's shortcomings, but one has to remember that the more
you understand how it works the more likely you are to get what you need.
My experience has been that they resist referrals to specialists and
expensive tests. But you can get the referrals you need by pusing back.
It's true they incentivize doctors for minimizing referrals, and if you just
rollover and whine, well.... that's what you get. If you understand how the
system works, which is not easy, and push for what you think you need you
can get it most likely. I don't really care for it, but on the positve
side, it does lower costs.

 

I think it will.... eventually.

I don't think one needs to be "religious" to be good person or have a good
marriage, but the roots of virtue are religious.

No.. Never said that.

The decisive element isn't a church. Marriage has religious roots and it
benefits society precisely because of it. Not because participants are
necessarily religious.

 

For me, it's not about gays per se. It's important to understand what
marriage is and means to society in general, in the macro sense. It's
meaningfulness isn't necessarily evident on an individual level. Redefining
it for gays or whoever, who's agenda in doing so isn't anything other than
to normalize the institution for a variety of lifestyles, none of which are
consistent with the the legacy of marriage or it's meaningfulness, is bad
medicine.

The nature of marriage and it's effect on society over generations, I
believe, is very significant. What would our society be like in a few
generations of marriage normalized for different lifestyles? Hard to say.
I can see government becoming a stumbling block for traditional family and
marriage by adding/removing rights/responsibilities based on the needs and
demands of "the married"; traditionalists would become isolated to that
extent.

I think gay marriage would be fertile ground for unintended consequenses.
Marriage is relevent in the traditional sense. It doesn't make sense for
same sex other than a statement or "cause".

 

The plus-50 percent failure rate of marriage as currently defined gives
lie to this statement.

DS