Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers

Like I said - weak-minded.

Yes - never mind that soldiers lives may be put at risk by "what we
say". You're so FoS.

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

 

You're right, soldiers will be put at risk by someone saying "They
shouldn't be there" much more than by someone saying "Go there". Such
brilliant logic, I'm not sure how I missed the connection...

Fleischer wasn't talking about security issues, he was talking about
Maher daring to contradict the image that the terrorists who flew a
plane into a building *knowing* that they would die were cowards. How
does that threaten any soldiers?
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail

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

 

What is the functional difference. If there is one surely someone
with as high an opinion of himself as you can explain it. Beyond, of
course, the fact that one makes you feel like an American.

Semantics.
--
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. Could it be that with a legitimate right that's being
denied that as long as you have enough good people who will stand on
principle, you have at least a fighting chance (literally) of regaining
the legitimate right back, whereas if it is not a genuine right that
want to lay claim to, even with a majority of good people around that
you would (and apprently should) never gain/regain it? (Carrying it
further, the consequences if good people decide no to do anything about
gaining or regaining a legitmate right may be that it will be lost
forever.)

Maybe no difference for the moment, but certainly hope for the future
(with a legitimate right that's being denied).

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

 

You really don't know, do you. Not surprised at all.

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

 

x-no-archive: yes

You really should stop talking about yourself "Lon Stowell." .

Considering your its biggest fan, no. As long as you keep posting, I
say keep the thread going, Captain Hypocrite Joke.

 

x-no-archive: yes

Blame yourself if you think that it is a problem, "Lon Stowell."

 

x-no-archive: yes

?

 

Did I say that? Wow! Actually, I had in mind people who just didn't get it
right the first time. The nice spouse of the poor dumb slob you described.
My sister really believes in the institution of marriage. She's used it 4
or 5 times. Somehow the last one has lasted. And not to be too negative,
some creepy people actually change their ways and end up kind of decent.

I don't think people who fail in marriage diminish it. Actually an analogy
might be the California School System. It used to be that plenty of people
failed and had to repeat grades. It didn't diminish the program. Now days,
everyone passes, (sort of like "anything goes" in marriage). Now that's a
diminished system.

 

You mean like unions demanding higher wages, health insurance and a
donut after every shift? If enough people demand it and are willing
to go far enough, a government or organization will grant it.

For evil to win, good must simply look the other way. *Any* right is
like that, be it "legitimate" or not in your eyes.

See, "no difference for the moment". Thanks for playing.
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail

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

 

You evidently don't (or can't) make a distinction between the right to
life, and a right to a coffee break.

Right.
The right to life, and the right to a coffee break are equal, in your
eyes.

 

Look, this isn't about which one is more important. Of course the
"right" to life is tremendously important to any society, as is
freedom of speech. Unfortunately, without something to back up the
right (either your own strength or the strength of the group behind
you) those rights are mere concepts.

As far as I can tell there is no functional difference between not
having a right and having a right but not having it recognized. It's
simply a matter of semantics.
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail

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

 

For someone without principles, maybe you are correct. But someone who
thinks that prinicples have value and are worth fighting (and at times,
dieing) for, then there is a definite difference. A person *without*
principles will not fight for a right whether it is genuine or false
unless there is some ulterior motive in doing so. A person *with*
principles will fight for a genuine right but not for a false right.
Therefore, the difference is hope for the future and a just cause for
the present as long as there is a critical mass of principled people
around to re-claim the genuine right, whereas a false right will just
die on its own.

To me, that is a *HUGE* difference. But I explained this earlier, and
you still don't get it, and maybe never will.

The Consitution says that men are endowed by their Creator with certain
inalienable rights - period. It doesn't say that if the government
ignores those rights, that those rights cease to exist (inalienable =
that cannot be taken away or transferred). Maybe it also means that
those who deny those rights will have to answer to the Creator for
denying that which he freely granted to all men (according to the
Constitution).

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

 

Roughly 12/13/03 19:46, Brandon Sommerville's monkeys randomly typed:

And it sure as *hell* isn't about automobiles any more either.

 

Roughly 12/14/03 09:26, Bill Putney's monkeys randomly typed:

Make that clue, as in on-topic.

 

Which affects the future, not the present. If you live in a society
without freedom of speech, then you simply don't have the right. It's
not good, but that's the way it is. How many societies without
freedom of speech have lots of people rebelling?

I hope you aren't trying to imply that I don't think that those rights
are worth fighting for, because they certainly are. It's just that
without a society and government willing to support them anyone who
speaks up will be "disappeared", in other words those rights won't
exist for them.

*Exactly*! Who came up with the Constitution?

The government is bound to honour those rights because it's founding
was based on it not being able to take them away.

Which is great if you believe in the creator. Me, I don't see how one
planet around a star, mixed in with billions of stars in this galaxy,
mixed in with billions of galaxies in the universe can be all that
important to something that was apparently able to create all of it.
But that's just me.
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail

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

 

You posted dozens of messages having nothing to do with automobiles,
Captain Hypocrite! It's good for you, but not for others!

 

x-no-archive: yes

Thank for posting your own off topic posts, than criticize others
for being off topic by your definition.

 

x-no-archive: yes

Everybody, except Frank W should stop cross posting?

 

Which is what I said. That *DOES* constitute a difference.

Well yeah - if you don't do anything about it. Someone may have to
fight and die to get it back.

Then those societies deserve what they get (at least intially, and the
longer it is allowed, the more blood may need to be shed to get it back,
if ever). That's why I mentioned the fighting and the dieing if the
right in question is genuine. And of course there comes a point where
the society has reached the point of no return, such as Stalinist
Russia, Iraq, etc..., in which case either internal changes need to be
made, or an external liberator comes to the country's aid.

....fighting...dieing - there may need to be sacrifices. That's why in
U.S. history, phrases like "our freedom was purchased with blood" crop
up even though they may seem like clichés to some (think: Revolutionary
War, WWII).

Which puts a huge question mark on the validity of and respect for the
Constitution for you I guess. Which may explain why you keep insisting,
it seems to me, that there are no inalienable rights endowed by the
Creator. Sounds like a personal problem to me. 8^)

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