Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers

I see.
So making it BETTER brings on penalties, but keeping it dirty is OK?
How is this supposed to clean up the air?

 

Why not?
It's the same block, but better (lower emissions).
Why do you want to encourage the owner from making it better by adding
more regulations and costs?

 

Right. And you have to go WAY out of your way to find "NOS" (new old
stock) parts that have year-of-manufacture date codes and therefore
still have all the shortcomings of the original part. I've got a show
car, but it aint no trailer queen! In fact, I drove it to work today

 

Bill Funk wrote:

You know what's really sad? He's not kidding.

 

The government discriminates all the time:
Affirmative action.
Seperate bathrooms.
Voting age.
Drinking age.
And on and on.
Discrimination per se is not wrong; it's how it's applied that can be
wrong.

 

It doesn't.

Marriage, in our culture (Judeo/Christian) has been historically
defined by the religious society, and then codified by the
governments.
This is why the idea of gay marriage rankles so much.

In today's society, though, a "church wedding" means little more than
a marriage in front of a JP. Just look at current divorce rates: 50%.
Obviously, there's little 'sacred' about marriage in the US anymore.
And, of course, being married by "Elvis" sure adds a lot to the whole
thing. :-/

Being married in front of a JP in an office is strictly a legal
matter. As long as the rules are followed, the marriage is legal.
Changing the rules, then, isn't that big a deal.

Of course, Churches would still be able to say, "Not here."

In my opinion, of course.

 

To the same degree that that's true, nor did liberals pass pedophilia
laws. Nor will they (the supposed owners of all human rights issues)
actively participate in freeing women from the oppression they live
under in Islamic countries.

Because that government is of, for, and by the people? Like I say, why
aren't you re-defining "murder" as "whitewashing a fence"? Words have
meaning (unless you're a liberal).

Well, maybe just one, but only if she consents to sterilization - she
doesn't have to consent, but in that case then neither do I then have to
pay for her idiocy. It is her freedom to do so, but it is not her right
to make me pay for it.

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

 

A cat is, intrinsically, a cat. No redefinition of the word "cat" will
change what it is.

A marriage is whatever it's defined to be, legally.
Since a marriage is (and would remain, in the US at least) between
only 2 people, what gender those two people happen to be doesn't
affect the marriage of other people.

It doesn't, obviously.
But more important, it doesn't make anything else fall apart, either.

 

Uh - excuse me, but my daughter's medical bills in one year were more
than I gross in ten years. You still skirted the issue, which was that
Canada's healthcare system sucks.

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

 

I daresay you don't know what you're talking about. I'm an American living
here in Canada, and guess what? Canada's healthcare system is *vastly*
better than the US system in the vast majority of cases. Are there
exceptions? Surely. There's no such thing as perfection. But the Canadian
system does a much better job of handling most of the healthcare needs of
most of the people at a reasonable cost.

DS

 

Uh-oh, Bill, now you've done it. I wager by the time I hit "Send" on this
post, one of the usual suspects will play the slippery-slope card and say
"Gay marriage, sure, and what's next? Legal polygamy, legal bestiality,
legal incest"...

DS

 

So much for liberals being the source of all compassion. They're
*PEOPLE* Lloyd - not numbers. Their fucking kids died due to a system
that could not deal with situations that required more than
one-size-fits-all treatment. We lose some too in spite of heroic
measures, but these were due to an incompetent socialistic system.

OK - lets look at the numbers: Find me comparative statistics on the
survival rates of kids between the ages of ten and twenty years old who
had Ewings Sarcoma/PNET and were treated in (1) the U.S., and (2)
Canada. Then lets talk about numbers. Oh - and include in those
statistics the time to diagnosis from the moment the kid became
symptomatic.

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

 

OH! I understand your objection now.

So, what are the new words for "Speeding"? There'd be one from 1987 and
one from 1995. Prior to 1987, "Speeding" meant going faster than 55 mph.
Between 1987 and 1995, there'd have to be some new word, since the
national speed limit was raised to 65 mph, so obviously the old word --
"speeding" -- wouldn't apply. And then in '95, the national speed limit
was abolished, so whatever word was used to mean "exceeding 65 mph"
between 1987 and 1995 would have been rendered useless, so you'd need
another new word. You can't just change the law so the word means
something else, after all, right?

And what about "obscenity"?! Heck, under your philosophy that word
would've been rendered obsolete and required replacement practically every
week since 1620!

Let's see, some other examples? Sure, how about "DOT legal headlamp
system"? Prior to 1957, it meant two 7" round sealed beam units under
NHTSA, indivisible, with tungsten and glass for all, to the exclusion of
all others. From '57 to '73 it meant two 7" round sealed beam units *or*
four 5.75" round ones, to the exclusion of all others. From '73-'75 it
meant two 7" rounds, *or* four 5.75" rounds, *or* two 200mm x 142mm
rectangulars, to the exclusion of all others. From '75-'83 it meant two 7"
rounds *or* four 5.75" rounds *or* two 200mm x 142mm rectangulars *or*
four 165mm x 100mm rectangulars, to the exclusion of all others. From
'83-'86 it meant...you get the point.

In each of these examples, and many others besides, the scope and
definition of what is covered by a legal term have changed, expanded
and/or contracted simply by dint of a change, deletion or reinterpretation
of an existing law and/or the introduction of a new one.

Humanity is considerably more adaptible than you give us credit for, as it
seems, for in every such case we've managed to get along just fine.
Nobody's been confused about what "speeding" means, nobody's been confused
about what is or isn't a "DOT legal headlamp". So, the assertion that
Bad Things<tm> will happen if gays are allowed to get Married<tm> because
it will render the term legally confusing, contains no merit upon which to
stand.

The only logical conclusion, therefore, is that this objection to the
application of the word "marriage" to same-sex unions is a false front for
something else. What else? Well, it could be a dislike of homosexuals, a
plain case of snobbery, religious fervor, "I got mine, Jack, so ****
you"...or a combination of the above.

"Marriage is between a man and a woman. Marriage is between a man and a
woman. Marriage is between a man and a woman. Marriage is between a man
and a woman."

Then you're sorta fucked, see above. Legal terms' meanings shift and drift
all day, every day. Can't keep up? That makes one of you. The rest of us
are doing just fine.

You'd prefer pointing and grunting? Or perhaps some mathematics-based
system, or a legal system based on musical notes or tints and hues?

....exactly as the Defense of Marriage act has been passed prohibiting such
unions, yes. That's one very strong parallel.

That is exactly what anti-miscegenation laws did.

Bzzt. The "right way" is for all married Americans to have the same
responsibilities and rights, period. Not for one specific group to have
whatever table scraps lawmakers "agree on" throwing them.

The majority frequently feels provoked, put upon, abused or otherwise
wronged when their exclusive privileges are extended to others not like
them. A nominally democratic and free society is a provocative place.

<eyeroll> Yeah, that's it. They're doing it *expressly because they know
it pisses you off*. They're fighting expensive legal battles *just to get
your goat*.

This claim, in light of your other assertions in this and other posts, is
not believable. It's apparent you *do* wish to engage in exactly this sort
of discrimination -- you just won't admit it, apparently. Don't feel
lonely, Ed, this has been going on for a very long time. Those who argued
vehemently in favor of keeping anti-miscegenation laws considered
themselves enlightened and unprejudiced. After all, they didn't seek to
*enslave* blacks, as their horrid, ignorant, cruel and hateful forebears
had done. No. They just sought to maintain God's natural law by
prohibiting the mixing of the races, that's all. Just as folks like you
swear you're not predjudiced or hateful. Not like your horrid, ignorant,
cruel and hateful forebears who rounded up gays and threw them in
institutions, "treated" them with electroshock, or simply stoned them to
death. No. You just seek to maintain God's natural law, etc. etc. etc.

DS

 

Are you two sure that it's not you guys that's letting all that high test
gas escape.. Is this Jeep talk????????

 

I had exposure to both the UKs socialized medicine and Canadian health
care....run away! A Brit friend was visiting our offices in the States and
took a run up to Toronto to see the Company's Canadian operations. While
there she got the unmistakable signs of appendicitis. The Canadians basicaly
forced her onto a plane to get her over the border to the USA, telling her
she wanted NOTHING to do with the Canadian health care system. EMS met her
at the airport, rushed her to the hospital where she had an emergency
appendectomy within minutes of arrival. She then convalesced for four days
"in hospital", as the Brits would say.

She claimed she'd never received better care, that in the UK she'd have
likely ruptured before they got around to treating her, which might have
been days later. The only way to get health care "on demand" there would be
to have either deep pockets, or as most folks do, private health insurance.

I could go on, but before you think having the Govt. run health care would
be better than what we have, think again. Yeah, our system sucks, but not as
much as the others suck!

 

Exactly. Or maybe the more cogent response would be "Because a same-sex
relationship is, by definiton, not marriage since marriage is defined as
a certain relationship between opposite-sex couples".

In the same way that, if someone were to ask "Why isn't cutting down a
tree not murder", you would answer "Because cutting down a tree is not
murder" (to use your straw-man circular argument), or perhaps "Because
the word 'murder' is defined as the killing of a human being; trees are
not human beings; therefore cutting down a tree is not murder", and any
reasonable person would get it because they know that the word "murder"
has a meaning in the English language, and so does "marriage".

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

 

Approximately 12/3/03 17:45, Bill Putney uttered for posterity:

Thanking both of you in advance for attempting to get back
on-charter and with less crossposting.

 

So your perception of Canadian healthcare is based on the experience of a
friend of yours who was warned off the system by some unknown other
individuals.

Mine is based on getting very suddenly struck down with a large and lodged
kidney stone at 4 in the morning while in Toronto. Extremely painful, but
not life threatening. I was diagnosed, treated, operated upon and
prescribed suitable meds in a fast, efficient, capable, thorough manner.

I think my firsthand experience beats your fourth-hand crapola.

DS