Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers

This is very well documented by historic texts.

This, too, is very well documented by historic texts.

Well, at the very least, it begs the very interesting question of what
basis the likes of C.E. White have for defending the definition set
approximately 180 years ago on the grounds it's "Traditional",
simultaneously disregarding the many additional historical centuries of
considerably less savory "tradition" in the matter of marriage.

DS

 

It's a commitment between two people to live together and care for
each other. Sounds like a marriage to me. Hell, hopefully they'll be
better at it than hetero couples, isn't the divorce rate around 50%
now?

How does calling their relationship marriage change your marriage?

Just become something is traditionally limited doesn't make that
limitation sensible.
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail

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

 

Not the same thing. You're refusing to call a cat a cat if it doesn't
have a tail.

How does having two men or two women instead of a man and a woman make
the laws fall apart?

Is it because there might be questions about who wears the tux and who
the dress? Who changes their last name? Beyond that, I can't see any
issues at all.
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail

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

 

it's "septic decay" (non-aerated) that occurs without Oxygen... producing
Methane!

different bacteria perform the two types of decomposition

aerated: think well-turned compost pile -or- fermentation vat

non-aerated: think outhouse -or- poorly-turned compost pile

 

Wooptie do. The USA has used a large variety of MAs and frequencies that
make it so that if you get too far from home your phone may or may not be
worth anything. About the only thing one could count on was AMPS service.
My arguement still stands, using cellular MAs is not a good example to
point to as US superiority over europeans. It's more like one of leap
froging each other.

What really makes this example silly to use is that the handset makers
are global companies while it's the carriers that tend to be more
localized.

That's nice. My point of cellular MA's being a bad example for what he
was trying to demonstrate is not even challenged by the above.

My point still stands.

 

No, we don't.

It doesn't matter that

Still using the same feeble arguments I see.

 

Easy for him, he has a small brain but a big mouth.

 

Lloyd Parker wrote:

NORMAL maintenance practice always includes minimal upgrades. You never
replace a worn part with an identical part, if a better part is
available (and it always is). Classifying such maintenance as a
"modification" is asinine.

 

All you have to do is check out the facts Lloyd, but you won't, because that
requires thought, something you are incapable of.

 

Or "society" can decide dismantle or reduce taxation. You just don't
want to see that happen.

 

Oh great, more of your left wing propaganda.
It's true Lloyd, learn to read, watch the news, open your mind. Consumer
Reports, give me a break, what a sorry source of left wing lies.

 

Parker has never turned a wrench and rents his cars these days.

That said, there is one condition where you replace it with an identical
part. If your car is one of those show car as-it-left-the-factory perfect
trailer queens

 

With your system he would be dead, with ours he has a good chance of
survival. Why do you seek to stifle advancement Lloyd?

 

I have no problem with two people who love each other affirming their
relationship. I also have no problem with laws being changed to accord
these people the same rights and benefits that are accorded to people
married under the traditional definition. I just don't agree that it is
correct to call this a marriage - at least in the traditional sense.
English words frequently have multiple meaning and certainly the word
marriage in the general sense can be used to describe a union between
all sorts of things (as in "He was married to his life style.").
However, when we are discussing the legal definition of a marriage, I
don't think the people who wrote the laws regarding marriage intended it
to cover same sex unions, and I don't like the idea that we can just
arbitrarily expand the legal meaning because some people like the idea.

If I can't count on the consistent meaning of words in a legal sense,
how can I trust the laws the words describe?

What do you mean by "repeating a dogmatic statement?" I just wants legal
terms to have a consistent understandable meaning. I don't like the idea
of laws being molded into a new shape by adjusting the meaning of words.

I think you missed the mark here. At the time and places these sort of
believes were held, separate laws were passed prohibiting such unions.
The definition of "marriage" was not adjusted to exclude such unions.

The "right way" is to pass laws recognizing civil unions and endowing
them with the rights and benefits that lawmakers agree on. Traditional
man/woman marriage could be a sub-set. I suppose you could pass laws
explicitly redefining the legal meaning of the word "marriage" to
include same sex union, but this seems needlessly provocative. Of course
maybe that is the whole objective of those who want to change the legal
definition of marriage to include same sex unions.

I really don't know what else I can say on the subject. I just prefer
that words have a consistent legal interpretation. I have no desire to
discriminate again people of the same sex who love each other, I just
don't agree that we can just decide to redefine the legal meaning of
marriage to include same sex unions because it is the expedient way to
implement a desirable policy change.

Ed

 

Your lying Lloyd, it happens every week. Crawl out of your shell and learn,
repeatedly denying the existance of problems does not make them go away.

Consumer Reports have no more credibility than you do Lloyd, which is 0.

 

Don't try to pretend that its about discrimination against homosexuals.
Many heterosexual couples would also take advantage of a new class of
civil union that didn't incorporate the religion-based term "marriage."

Since suppressing religion is right up your alley, you ought to be
loving the idea.

 

Prostitution is illegal as well, even though the women make the choice what
to do with their bodies, the government tells them they can't. What's your
answer to this Lloyd?

 

That assumes that all taxes are for legimitate purposes.
And that's hardly the case.

 

Consumer Reports???
You've GOT to be kidding.

 

Um, Lloyd...
Remember how you complain when we quote conservative sources?