Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers

Why is it all the right-wing Taliban here would believe anything an HMO or
drug company tells them but reject the main voice for the consumer?

 

Because CR is a consumer advocate group. Not liberal or conservative. Now I
know to you Taliban anybody to the left of Atilla the Hun is a liberal if not
a socialist, but the rest of us aren't stupid like that.

 

You probably thought segregation wasn't discrimination though.

Which laws mandate that?

You really think telling a 5-year old he can't vote is like telling an adult
whom he can't marry?

 

But the US government, not being JudeoChristian or any religion, should not
reflect religious bias, should it?

 

I see the Taliban is at it again, equating child rape with what 2 consenting
adults do. What's next, integration was the same as genocide?

 

You've still provided no objective source for that, whereas I have.

Canada's a democracy; if their health care system is so bad, why haven't the
people gotten rid of it? England's is even more socialized, but even the
conservative Thatcher realized it was so popular she didn't dare touch it.

 

Sorry, that's not "exposure." Read what people living in Canada and Britain
say. Not anecdotes.

Yeah, sure.

Both countries are democracies; they must like their health care systems.

 

Obejctive studies find the opposite, and I hardly think a right-wing shill
like you has much credibility on the issue anyway.

 

In the 19th century, the same could be said about popular opposition to ending
slavery.

 

Considering the decision has only been out a few weeks, and the legislature is
probably not in session now...

 

Do you have any idea how many scientists agree with me on GW? About the same
percentage that'd you'd find agreeing that evolution is real, for example.

 

No, but when you prevent an entire class from getting married so they CAN have
those rights, that is.

 

Why are they granted to heterosexual couple and not to everyone?

I have admitted nothing about myself. It is an established fact that
million of people are against redefining marriage to include same sex
unions. There are many diverse reasons for this opposition. You
apparently could care less about their reasons.

I told you I am opposed to the whole idea of changing laws by redefining
words. Why do you try to twist what I say? You have not presented a
single logical reason why changing the legal definition of the word
marriage is in the interest of society. Instead you have tried to paint
me as anti gay or presented irrelevant comparisons. I assume this is
because you have no logical reason and just immediately descended into
name calling to try and get your way.

If tomorrow morning my home state passes a law making same sex unions
equivalent to marriage, I'd think it was a good thing. However, if
tomorrow morning some Federal judge decides that the word marriage
doesn't mean what most citizens have understood it to mean for hundreds
of years, but instead means something different, I will be disgusted.

Ed

 

I can agree with this idea!

Ed

 

As opposed to the American health care system where kidney stone patients are
tossed out on the street and beaten before being put out of their misery..... Yes
Canada does a pretty good job at emergency care, but you don't see many new
innotative surgeries, drugs, and techniques coming out of Canada at all.

 

So change the codification slightly. Instead of specifying that it's
a man and woman specify that it's two people. Problem solved, no
other laws need to be changed.

As far as the religious society, it's got a few issues of it's own to
deal with before passing judgement on anyone else. Covering up
pedophiles while condemning gay marriage seems a little hypocritical
to me, don't you think?

That's not an explanation of why it rankles, it's an explanation of
what it is.
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail

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

 

Yeah, I know.
And I've used that argument, myself, especially in gun control
discussions (which is NOT an invitation to start such a discussion
here!).
But that's a case where an agenda is painfully obvious. In this
discussion, I don't see an agenda to expand into such areas.
There may be one, but I don't see it.

 

Your argument is to redefine something that has been well defined. If
somebody says that a square can only have 4 sides, you could call them a
circular parrot for not including a pentagon as a square with that reasoning.

If people want to change that definition, in the USA at least there is a
proper procedure to do such in each state. Until then the existing definition
stands.

Not what the Massachusetts legislature did, as the State Senate never voted on
the constitutional amendment on marriage. They were required to vote on this
under the constitution, as the proper number of signatures were obtained.
Instead the state senate pro tem adjourned the consitutional convention
without the requisite up-or-down vote. Yay or nay vote, that is all that was
needed. So if a state legislature can't follow its duty to follow its
consitution, what good is it?