Pilot's Political Orientation

[Otis Winslow]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
...
>
> Libertarians are as far to the right as it gets in America.
>

Kindly site some Libertarian positions that would indicate a far right
leaning. Live and let live is a far right position? Personal responsibility
is a far right position? A desire for a small government, minimal
interference in our lives and maximum liberty to live as we please
is a far right position? What am I missing here?

[Andrew Gideon]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

> Marriage is the union of a man and woman as husband and wife.

Who are you to define "marriage" thusly? Other cultures and religions
define it quite differently. You've failed to account for polygamy,
polyandry, group marriage, serial marriage, and probably other forms of
this particular institution with which I'm even less familiar.

So what about this "freedom" you claim to desire?

- Andrew

[Andrew Gideon]

Newps wrote:

> Therefore the feds will need to solve this
> problem, one way or the other.

You'll have to be more clear for me, I'm afraid, as I'm not seeing "the
problem" with the Constitution. If states choose to act as you describe,
failing to recognize either drivers licenses or marriage licenses, they're
in violation. Enforce as necessary.

That would be unfortunate if made necessary, as enforcement always is. But
I'm still not clear on "the problem" you're seeing.

- Andrew

[Matt Whiting]

L Smith wrote:
> Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>
>> "L Smith" > wrote in message
>> link.net...
>>
>>
>>> This seems to be boiling down to an argument over semantics,
>>> where you choose to define terms in such a way as to give you
>>> the moral high ground. Given that, please define, as precisely as
>>> possible, how you define a "gay marriage" and how it differs from
>>> a same-sex marriage. It appears that your definition is not in
>>> agreement with how the general population interprets the term, and
>>> until we understand your definition any meaningful discussion on the
>>> topic is impossible.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> Marriage is the union of a man and woman as husband and wife. When at
>> least
>> one of the persons is gay you have a gay marriage. Same-sex marriage
>> cannot
>> exist because marriage, by definition, requires persons of opposite sex.
>>
> 1) Extending this argument, there is therefore no need for Bush's
> proposed constitutional
> amendment, since by definition there can be no same-sex marriage.

If it weren't for liberal activist judges who try to make law rather
than interpret the law, the amendment would, in fact, be superfluous.
It is simply restating the obvious, but liberal judges are unable to
understand it any other way.

Matt

[Philip Sondericker]

in article , Joe Young at
wrote on 4/18/04 9:23 AM:

>
> "Philip Sondericker" > wrote in message
> ...
>> in article , Joe Young at
>> wrote on 4/18/04 8:54 AM:
>>
>>> "SNIP"
>>>>>
>>>>> Head over to your local Jr/Sr high school history department and see
> for
>>>>> yourself.........
>>>>
>>>> Sorry, that's anecdotal evidence, not proof (actually, it's not even
>>>> anecdotal evidence, since you offered no experiences of your own).
>>>>
>>>
>>> Let see...the alternative are for you to experience what is going on in
> my
>>> kids classroom through me
>>
>> Okay, so you're a teacher. Please give some examples of your students
> being
>> taught at your school that Thomas Jefferson was a horrible guy.
>>
>>> ...or actually take the time to find out first hand
>>> in your own locale. Granted the latter may take a bit more effort on
> your
>>> part...but that was the point. I think most people would be surprised
> how
>>> the curriculum has changed over the past couple of decades
>>
>> Okay, so show me the curriculum.
>>
>
> I am not a teacher...I do have two daughters... and am continually surprised
> by what they bring home. One of the recent discussions pointed out that
> many of our founding fathers were slave-owners and therefore were obviously
> something less than honorable men...that point alone meant they unworthy of
> any honor that had been bestowed upon them by the generations since. How
> about the concept that we owe decedents of slaves reparations because their
> ancestors were enslaved....and on and on....

Yes, how about that concept? I would think that it would do no one any harm
to discuss it. I recall many such discussions in my own high school civics
classes (this was over 20 years ago). We'd discuss and debate whether or not
it was right to drop the bomb on Japan (the consensus seemed to be that it
was), how much civil liberties should be curtailed during wartime, etc. I
wonder if you might be assuming that your daughters are being taught a
particular dogma, when in fact they are merely being encouraged by their
teachers to consider all sides of an issue.

> The point I was attempting to make is I have not been involved in a local
> school since I left high school 25 years ago. I am just surprised at the
> revisionist crap I hear discussed. My point is I think there would be
> others equally surprised if they would take the time to get involved
> again.............

[Peter Gottlieb]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
>
> If it weren't for liberal activist judges who try to make law rather
> than interpret the law, the amendment would, in fact, be superfluous.
> It is simply restating the obvious, but liberal judges are unable to
> understand it any other way.

Are "liberal activist judges" any worse than conservative activist judges?

Isn't case law created in courts rather than by legislation, and a part of
the balance of power of the government?

[David Brooks]

> wrote in message
...
>
> > Actually, it's another from Winston Churchill (who as I remember
> > changed political party himself, probably at age 30).
>
> Actually, it's probably not. This from the authoritative Churchill Centre
> website http://www.winstonchurchill.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=112:
>
> "If you're not a liberal when you're 25, you have no heart. If you're not
a
> conservative by the time you're 35, you have no brain." There is no record
> of anyone hearing Churchill say this. Paul Addison of Edinburgh University
> makes this comment: "Surely Churchill can't have used the words attributed
> to him. He'd been a Conservative at 15 and a Liberal at 35! And would he
> have talked so disrespectfully of [his wife] Clemmie, who is generally
> thought to have been a lifelong Liberal?"

And remember most people here are using the term Liberal in its modern
American meaning. It seems to have been coined on the spot by GHWB as an
intended insult against Dukakis and adopted by both sides as a shorthand
for, at best, "social democrat". If you want to use the term disparagingly
you also imply it includes fellow-travelers like socialists (again, not
using the contemporary European definition) and anarchists. It's very
confusing when we don't even agree on the lexicon.

The British inter-war Liberal party espoused elements of contemporary social
democracy, to be sure, without the overhead of being in thrall to the
unions. Today, they largely represent the rump of the British, umm, Social
Democratic party.

-- David Brooks

[Tarver Engineering]

"Otis Winslow" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Libertarians are as far to the right as it gets in America.
> >
>
> Kindly site some Libertarian positions that would indicate a far right
> leaning.

Fiscal conservatism and a strong resistence to government redistribution are
two consrvative sentiments libertarians share.

> Live and let live is a far right position? Personal responsibility
> is a far right position?

You know the latter is extremism to the American left.

> A desire for a small government, minimal
> interference in our lives and maximum liberty to live as we please
> is a far right position?

Yes. Ted Kennedy called constructionist Judicial nominees "Neanderthals".
Even wanting our republic back is extremism these days.

> What am I missing here?

You are probably thinkin of left and right in European terms, where both
ends of the spectrum are socialist.

[David Brooks]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Judah" > wrote in message
> ...
> > How, exactly, do the rich get richer without taking other people's
assets?
> >
>
> Here we have the crux of what passes for liberalism these days. Idiot.
>
> The assumption is that if you possess something, it must have been stolen
> from somebody else. It is astounding that liberals, who claim to be
> intellectuals, cannot see the blatant fallacy behind this argument.

Oh, please read the liberal economists. They understand perfectly well the
principles of investment and growth, and that any successful economy cannot
be zero-sum.

The differences arise partly from a moral impulse to greater equity, even at
the cost of diluting some of the potential upside, and partly from a belief
that we are wasting leverage by (a) under-investment in the currently
disadvantaged and (b) allowing corporations to take short-term advantage at
the cost of longer-term greater universal gain (example: stop the polluters
because no credible free-market mechanism will stop them in time).

We're not all as idiotic as some of the postings make us appear.

I'd rather fly than argue any day :-)

-- David Brooks

[David Brooks]

"Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
m...

> Didja ever notice how liberals are more than willing to take other peoples
> assets and redistribute them but are more than willing to keep their
assets
> to themselves.

What trash. I'll compare my asset redistribution against yours any day,
punk.

-- David Brooks

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
> "C J Campbell" wrote:
> >
> > By those who, like Dan Luke, want to portray Jefferson as
> > godless in order to further their own political agenda of
> > excluding religious views from the political forum.
>
> I certainly would never claim Jefferson was godless. Rather, my point
> was that he would not pass the test for religious correctness of the
> religious right, whose political agenda is to enlist government in
> proselytizing their views.
> --
Quite...just as they take the phrase "separation of church and state" as
though it's something from contemporary times rather than from the pen of
James Madison, they guy who essentially WROTE the Constitution.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Martin Hotze" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 00:43:17 GMT, Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> >
> > >> I am certain, however, that Jesus did slips with flaps.
> > >> While programming in FORTH. On a Windows PC.
> > >>
> > >
> > >To bring a bit of piloting back into this discussion, Jesus handled a
> plane
> > >well.
> >
> > I bet Jesus was more into boating. He walked over water.
> >
>
> No doubt he would have enjoyed water skiing.

Barefoot water skiing.

[David Brooks]

CJ wrote, and I believe this is his crux:
> I strongly believe that allowing gay marriages will sweep away
> whatever remnants remain of the concept of family. That is too high a
price
> to pay in the name of 'tolerance.'

which is a principled and fair objection, and one that worries me too.

But, on balance, I see this: I see some of my friends who have been
committed partners for over twenty years who *want* to marry *because* they
are committed partners. They're too old to adopt and raise a child, though.
If fornicating Bob and Louise look up and see old Rod and Terry from down
the street trotting happily down to the courthouse to be married, perhaps it
will give them pause for thought about the value of the institution.

It sounds forced and corny, but I do believe it has value. Impinging on this
argument are (a) your beliefs about gays (are they all promiscuous
in-your-face protestors? No!) and (b) how many gay marriages are going to
end badly - we don't know yet.

-- David Brooks

[David Brooks]

"Joe Young" > wrote in message
...

> Tell me Rich...why does anyone other than her parents need to tell her
> anything? It seems to me the parents have the responsibility to initially
> take the appropriate steps to insure the pregnancy does not occur. If
that
> fails...it is then their responsibility to guide her through that
> challenging time in her life. There in lies the significant difference
> between conservatives and liberals. Conservatives believe the
> responsibility lies with the family...liberals believe only the "State"
can
> educate on matters of reproduction, and only the State can solve social
> problems. Remember "it takes a village"?

Paraphrasing a sex educator I heard on the radio many years ago: "We think
that's a *wonderful* idea! We are *completely in favor* of parents giving
their children effective sex education. But, until that starts to happen
(*), can we *please* have effective sex education in the schools?"

(*) implicit in the statement is "in sufficiently significant quantities". I
know your kids and my kids were well educated at home, of course.

In this case, I think the liberals were the hard-nosed realists.

-- David Brooks

[David Brooks]

"L Smith" > wrote in message
link.net...

> If, as you seem to imply, the only effect of 'taxation' was the direct
> transfer of that
> money from the pockets of the one thousand to the pockets of the two
> thousand, you
> might have an argument. Now, while I'm sure you'll be more than happy to
> present
> examples of where you think this is the case, I will maintain that this
> would be a very
> unusual situation.
>
> So, to get to the heart of the matter, people who claim taxes are too
> high, but who
> refuse to consider what they are getting in return for those taxes, must
> fall into one of
> two groups. Either you don't wish to accept your responsibility for
> living in modern
> society (e.g. you want to enjoy the protection afforded by the police
> and fire departments,
> but you don't want to pay to maintain them), or you disagree with what
> your taxes are
> being spent on. It it's the latter, then quit hiding behind the tired
> old "taxes are too high"
> banner. Get to the point, and tell us exactly which programs you think
> need to be
> eliminated.

This very day, in beautiful sunshine in what was otherwise a quiet
environment, I was walking behind a blowhard who was complaining about how
much money both the Feds and the State were taking away from him.

We were both enjoying an attractive park maintained by the Army Corps of
Engineers, with I believe some input from the City of Seattle.

-- David Brooks

[Dave Stadt]

"Judah" > wrote in message
...
> Actually, CJ, you should go back and follow the thread a little more
> closely, and maybe read it without your blinders on.
>
> The conservative view presented was that liberals want to take other
> people's assets and redistribute them. I responded that conservatives
> want to take other people's assets and keep them for themselves. The
> response was that conservatives don't want other people's assets, and I
> disagree with that completely.
>
> You read my statement as a bitter one of resentment. Actually, I it was a
> simple plain fact of the Free Market economy.
>
> I made no mention of stealing. The Free Market in the US requires that
> people redistribute assets in order to get rich. Most people don't get
> rich based solely on their hourly rate. They get rich by buying low and
> selling high - real estate, stocks, antiques on a road show, or whatever.
>
> In the free market economy, someone wins, and someone loses.

You need to sue your economics teacher.

[Ray Andraka]

One thing I have not seen mentioned here is that the Northwest article
specifically mentioned the airport fees (taxes) that are tacked on to most
tickets. Those cover mainly the cost of maintaining and improving the
terminal building, parking, security etc, none of which is even accessible to
GA, much less used by it.

As another observation, I think the airlines have a much better deal charging
the per passenger fee rather than paying the same amount percentage-wise we do
on fuel taxes.

--
--Ray Andraka, P.E.
President, the Andraka Consulting Group, Inc.
401/884-7930 Fax 401/884-7950
email
http://www.andraka.com

"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Benjamin Franklin, 1759

[C J Campbell]

"L Smith" > wrote in message
link.net...
> C J Campbell wrote:
>
>
> So, to get to the heart of the matter, people who claim taxes are too
> high, but who
> refuse to consider what they are getting in return for those taxes, must
> fall into one of
> two groups. Either you don't wish to accept your responsibility for
> living in modern
> society (e.g. you want to enjoy the protection afforded by the police
> and fire departments,
> but you don't want to pay to maintain them), or you disagree with what
> your taxes are
> being spent on. It it's the latter, then quit hiding behind the tired
> old "taxes are too high"
> banner. Get to the point, and tell us exactly which programs you think
> need to be
> eliminated.
>

A good point. After all, no one has the right to complain just because
virtually every business in the country sends more money to various
government agencies than it pays out to the owners and employees. Imagine
people having the temerity to demand that the government actually prove that
it provides something in return. Instead, here you are asking us to prove
that it does not provide fair value for the money, even though that money is
being taken from us by force.

Well, we can start with the education system, which is excessively top
heavy. We seem to be getting a lot less for the dollar every year. Around
here the typical school administrator or high school principal has an office
that rivals that of a senior partner in a large law firm, even while the
teachers are badly underpaid. That sends a rather contradictory message. The
taxpayers who are paying for this stuff would sure like to have offices like
that.

I doubt if the prison system needs to be so large. A lot of non-violent
offenders could probably be just as easily taken care of with electronic
monitoring devices.

Aid to Families of Dependent Children should be provided only to those who
are willing to contribute community service in return. Those who refuse to
work should get nothing.

It is questionable whether we need a rain forest in Iowa.

Public funding for the arts ought to be eliminated entirely. If an artist is
so terrible that he or she cannot make a living in the private sector that
is just too bad.

We don't need to buy food and destroy it simply to prop up prices. No one
has a God-given right to be a farmer. Marginal operators should be squeezed
out just as they are in every other form of business.

And while we are at it, we can stop forcing Americans to buy ethanol.

A lot of programs don't cost much as far as the government is concerned, but
they impose tremendous regulatory burdens on businesses. OSHA comes to mind.

We could completely eliminate unemployment taxes and workers' compensation.
If people want insurance they ought to be able to buy it from the private
sector. These two programs are probably the biggest source of fraud and
corruption at all levels of government.

We could also eliminate Social Security, which generally adds a small amount
of income to the wealthiest sector of the population.

The same goes for Medicare. People get along just fine on their own
insurance until Medicare kicks in. There is nothing magic about a particular
age where people suddenly need socialized medicine.

Sure, some people might not be able to afford to retire. But you know, when
these programs first started, most people did not even live long enough to
retire. Retirement is not a right that you should be able to demand that
others pay for.

Those will do for starters; I can probably think of several more. The IMF,
for example.

[C J Campbell]

"Judah" > wrote in message
...
>
> I made no mention of stealing. The Free Market in the US requires that
> people redistribute assets in order to get rich. Most people don't get
> rich based solely on their hourly rate. They get rich by buying low and
> selling high - real estate, stocks, antiques on a road show, or whatever.
>
> In the free market economy, someone wins, and someone loses.

You really don't have a clue, do you, about economics?

[C J Campbell]

"David Brooks" > wrote in message
...
>
> "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Judah" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > How, exactly, do the rich get richer without taking other people's
> assets?
> > >
> >
> > Here we have the crux of what passes for liberalism these days. Idiot.
> >
> > The assumption is that if you possess something, it must have been
stolen
> > from somebody else. It is astounding that liberals, who claim to be
> > intellectuals, cannot see the blatant fallacy behind this argument.
>
> Oh, please read the liberal economists. They understand perfectly well the
> principles of investment and growth, and that any successful economy
cannot
> be zero-sum.
>

Are there any left? Keynes (as he famously predicted) is dead. :-) To
paraphrase Milton Friedman, we are all monetarists now.

[C J Campbell]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
> "C J Campbell" wrote:
> >
> > By those who, like Dan Luke, want to portray Jefferson as
> > godless in order to further their own political agenda of
> > excluding religious views from the political forum.
>
> I certainly would never claim Jefferson was godless. Rather, my point
> was that he would not pass the test for religious correctness of the
> religious right, whose political agenda is to enlist government in
> proselytizing their views.
> --

I have little tolerance for the religious right, either, but I don't think
the religious right is representative of conservatism. They appear to be a
hostile group of xenophobic, racist reactionaries. Frankly, they are as much
of an embarrassment to conservatives as PETA and the ELF are to the
liberals. Extremist groups like those are hotbeds for terrorism and other
criminal activity.

[C J Campbell]

"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Dan Luke" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "C J Campbell" wrote:
> > >
> > > By those who, like Dan Luke, want to portray Jefferson as
> > > godless in order to further their own political agenda of
> > > excluding religious views from the political forum.
> >
> > I certainly would never claim Jefferson was godless. Rather, my point
> > was that he would not pass the test for religious correctness of the
> > religious right, whose political agenda is to enlist government in
> > proselytizing their views.
> > --
> Quite...just as they take the phrase "separation of church and state" as
> though it's something from contemporary times rather than from the pen of
> James Madison, they guy who essentially WROTE the Constitution.

Yes, but they did not make it part of the Constitution, did they? Read the
Federalist papers. There was quite a bit of debate about it, and Madison
lost.

[Matt Whiting]

Peter Gottlieb wrote:
> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>If it weren't for liberal activist judges who try to make law rather
>>than interpret the law, the amendment would, in fact, be superfluous.
>>It is simply restating the obvious, but liberal judges are unable to
>>understand it any other way.
>
>
> Are "liberal activist judges" any worse than conservative activist judges?

Probably not, there are just more of them as society as a whole
continues to decline and standards of morality and behavior are lowered.


> Isn't case law created in courts rather than by legislation, and a part of
> the balance of power of the government?

That wasn't the intent behind the design of our government. The
legislature creates legislation ... could be why they call it the
legislature. :-)

The courts are only to ensure that the legislature adheres to the
constitution, they are not to "create" new law through interpretation.
They are to affirm or deny a given law as being constitutional or not,
and that is it.


Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Tom Sixkiller wrote:
> "Dan Luke" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>"C J Campbell" wrote:
>>
>>>By those who, like Dan Luke, want to portray Jefferson as
>>>godless in order to further their own political agenda of
>>>excluding religious views from the political forum.
>>
>>I certainly would never claim Jefferson was godless. Rather, my point
>>was that he would not pass the test for religious correctness of the
>>religious right, whose political agenda is to enlist government in
>>proselytizing their views.
>>--
>
> Quite...just as they take the phrase "separation of church and state" as
> though it's something from contemporary times rather than from the pen of
> James Madison, they guy who essentially WROTE the Constitution.

If he wrote the Constitution, why didn't he include this phraseology?
Could it be that it was simply HIS opinion and not generally shared by
the group that in the end approved the wording of our Constitution?
Many contributed to the wording either through writing it with their own
hand or through the debates that edited the final wording. You better
go back and read some more history so that you learn not to take one
man's opinion as being representative of all.


Matt

[Dan Luke]

"Tarver Engineering" wrote:
> > Another lie.
>
> I have science on my side

Another lie.

> and no reason to lie.

Then apparently it's just your nature.

> > Try posting there again. If what you just said is the truth,
> > you should get little or no response.
>
> I cross post to talk.origins every few months. It
> is a kook bin full of retards spewing 150 year old
> dog breeder science and an ocasional qualified
> biologist. The biologist usually admits that there are
> big problems with Darwin's "Origin of Species",
> but "it demonstrates how one thing might
> replace another". Although demonstrating a
> concept has value, theaching religion as science is
> not the way to do it.

More lies. You're afraid.

[Otis Winslow]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Fiscal conservatism and a strong resistence to government redistribution
are
> two consrvative sentiments libertarians share.

Absolutely. And that's a bad thing?
>

> You are probably thinkin of left and right in European terms, where both
> ends of the spectrum are socialist.
>

Well .. considering both ends of the spectrum wish to grow govt at an
astronomical rate .. you could be right. But I generally think in terms of
the left wishing to control my pocket book and the right wishing to control
my morals, violate my privacy, and control what goes on in my bedroom.

[Dave Stadt]

"Philip Sondericker" > wrote in message
...
> in article , Joe Young at
> wrote on 4/18/04 4:36 AM:
>
> >
> > "Philip Sondericker" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> in article , Dave Stadt at
> >> wrote on 4/17/04 7:11 PM:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> "Philip Sondericker" > wrote in message
> >>> ...
> >>>> in article , C J Campbell at
> >>>> wrote on 4/17/04 11:37 AM:
> >>
> >>>>> If Jefferson is mentioned in public schools at all, it
> >>>>> is
> >>>>> to highlight the shameful and oppressive past of the white male
> >>>>> dictators
> >>>>> that established the United States. That is all most modern grade
> > school
> >>>>> kids know about Jefferson.
> >>>>
> >>>> This must be a relatively recent develepment, because I for one can't
> >>>> recall
> >>>> ever being taught any such thing. You're basically just making this
up,
> >>>> aren't you?
> >>>
> >>> You obviously have no idea what is being taught in the liberal run
> > education
> >>> system in this country.
> >>
> >> "If Jefferson is mentioned in public schools at all, it is to highlight
> > the
> >> shameful and oppressive past of the white male dictators that
established
> >> the United States. That is all most modern grade school kids know about
> >> Jefferson."
> >>
> >> Would anyone care to cite some proof of the above statement?
> >>
> >
> > Head over to your local Jr/Sr high school history department and see for
> > yourself.........
>
> Sorry, that's anecdotal evidence, not proof (actually, it's not even
> anecdotal evidence, since you offered no experiences of your own).

Go talk to a school teacher.

[darwin smith]

Joe Young wrote:

> Tell me Rich...why does anyone other than her parents need to tell her
>
>anything?
>
That's a good question. In an ideal world, parents would be
knowledgable about the
facts of life and comfortable talking about them with their kids. They
would be home
whenever the kids were home, and they'd make sure they knew where their
kids were
when the kids went out with friends. Life would be perfect, and there
would never be
an abortion.

Unfortunately, I happen to live in the real world. This world contains
entirely too
many single parent families, often families where the sole parent has to
work two jobs
just to keep food on the table. This world also contains thousands of
"latch-key" kids
who come home to an empty house, with the parents not expected to be
home for
another three or four hours. In the remaining families, many parents are
completely
uncomfortable with the idea of sex. The "talk" consists of the parents
stammering and
stuttering, and finally saying something like "here's a book, ask your
mother if you have
any questions, and don't do it."

It would be nice if every parent accepted their responsibilities like
you suggest, but
until that happens someone needs to step in and fill the gap. Right now,
it isn't happening.

Rich Lemert

>
>

[darwin smith]

Tarver Engineering wrote:

>"L Smith" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
>
>
>>I asked you to point out where you believe Darwinian theory is in error.
>>
>>
>
>1) Darwin's "Origin of Species" is not a scientific theory, as it fails to
>meet the terms of the scientific method.
>
>2) Geological evidence proves to beyond a shadow of a doubt that the
>processes laid out in Darwin's "Origin of Species" are false.
>
>3) The State of Georgia teaching Creation straight from Genesis is closer to
>a modern scientific theory than Darwin's "Origin of Species".
>
>4) Darwin's notional hypotesis is false even by the admission of biologists.
>
>
>
And your evidence for these statements, all of which are opinion
rather than fact.

1) Darwin's development of his theory is one of the clearest
applications of the scientific
method that I know of. The revisions that have come since then are
further examples
of science at its best.

2) Geological evidence was used in the development of the theory, and so
far nothing
from geology has been found that clearly contradicts the theory.

3) I'm afraid that Georgia is not a well-known and widely respected
scientific expert.

4) Considering that evolution is a fundamental part of biology, I find
your last statement
somewhat surprising. I've known of several biologists who believed that
there were
still questions that evolutionary theory had not yet answered, but that
is a far cry from
claiming the theory is wrong.

Rich Lemert

[Newps]

"Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
online.com...
> Newps wrote:
>
> > Therefore the feds will need to solve this
> > problem, one way or the other.
>
> You'll have to be more clear for me, I'm afraid, as I'm not seeing "the
> problem" with the Constitution. If states choose to act as you describe,
> failing to recognize either drivers licenses or marriage licenses, they're
> in violation. Enforce as necessary.

That's the point of the ammendment.

[Newps]

"Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
online.com...
> Newps wrote:
>
> > Therefore the feds will need to solve this
> > problem, one way or the other.
>
> You'll have to be more clear for me, I'm afraid, as I'm not seeing "the
> problem" with the Constitution. If states choose to act as you describe,
> failing to recognize either drivers licenses or marriage licenses, they're
> in violation. Enforce as necessary.
>
> That would be unfortunate if made necessary, as enforcement always is.
But
> I'm still not clear on "the problem" you're seeing.
>
> - Andrew
>

[Tarver Engineering]

"Otis Winslow" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> >
> > Fiscal conservatism and a strong resistence to government redistribution
are
> > two consrvative sentiments libertarians share.
>
> Absolutely. And that's a bad thing?

Not to me, but those policies are incompatable with socialism.

[Tarver Engineering]

"darwin smith" > wrote in message
k.net...
> Tarver Engineering wrote:
>
> >"L Smith" > wrote in message
> link.net...
> >
> >
> >
> >>I asked you to point out where you believe Darwinian theory is in error.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >1) Darwin's "Origin of Species" is not a scientific theory, as it fails
to
> >meet the terms of the scientific method.
> >
> >2) Geological evidence proves to beyond a shadow of a doubt that the
> >processes laid out in Darwin's "Origin of Species" are false.
> >
> >3) The State of Georgia teaching Creation straight from Genesis is closer
to
> >a modern scientific theory than Darwin's "Origin of Species".
> >
> >4) Darwin's notional hypotesis is false even by the admission of
biologists.
> >
> >
> >
> And your evidence for these statements, all of which are opinion
> rather than fact.

The geological evidence has ended any question as to the validity of
Darwin's quaint little story. It is not opinion, but hard physical
evidence.

> 1) Darwin's development of his theory is one of the clearest
> applications of the scientific
> method that I know of.

Nope, biologists have to ignore the scientific method to even consider
Darwin's "Origin of Species" a theory at all, as Darwin's notional
hypothesis fails to meet the criterion of "experimantally demonstrable and
repeatable" required to be a theory.

This is my last reply here at rai, as this is way off topic and I don't
expect you will change your religous beliefs based on hard physical
evidence, or for any other reason.

[John Harlow]

> It's not about gay marriage. No doubt they are against gay marriage,
> they should be.

Why?

[John Harlow]

>> What, exactly, then, do conservatives want?
>>
>
> Freedom.

"There ought to be limits to freedom"
-George W. Bush

[Gene Seibel]

I believe what I believe. You believe what you believe. Few of us will
change our minds, unless we have no convictions to start with.
--
Gene Seibel
Hangar 131 - http://pad39a.com/gene/plane.html
Because I fly, I envy no one.


"Chicken Bone" > wrote in message . com>...
> Flightinfo.com asked for pilots political orientation.
>
> Results:
>
> Democrat 22.97%
> Republican 57.24%
> Ind. 19.79%
>
> http://forums.flightinfo.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=21699

[C J Campbell]

"Gene Seibel" > wrote in message
om...
> I believe what I believe. You believe what you believe. Few of us will
> change our minds, unless we have no convictions to start with.
> --

I have never been convicted of anything. No one saw me do it. You can't
prove it. The sheep are lying.

[David Brooks]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...

> I have never been convicted of anything. No one saw me do it. You can't
> prove it. The sheep are lying.

Does that mean it's going to rain?

[Andrew Gideon]

Newps wrote:

>
> "Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
> online.com...
>> Newps wrote:
>>
>> > Therefore the feds will need to solve this
>> > problem, one way or the other.
>>
>> You'll have to be more clear for me, I'm afraid, as I'm not seeing "the
>> problem" with the Constitution. If states choose to act as you describe,
>> failing to recognize either drivers licenses or marriage licenses,
>> they're
>> in violation. Enforce as necessary.
>
> That's the point of the ammendment.

I still don't understand what problem you're seeing. If some states permit
same-sex marriage and some do not, this would be as important as the fact
that states use different criteria for driving licenses. The federal
government is responsible for ensuring (and enforcing, should it come to
that unfortunate extreme) that the various criteria of each state are
respected by the other states.

Where is the problem that needs to be solved?

- Andrew

[running with scissors]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message >...
> "Dan Luke" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Tarver Engineering" wrote:
> > > most of your little troll friends at talk.origins are smart
> > > enough to run when they see me posting.
> >
> > Another lie.
>
> I have science on my side and no reason to lie.
>

the science where you claim a spoiler is a flap; and a spoiler is a
wing that creates negative lift?

or the science where you claim a flap "thickens" a wing?

or the science where you claim that "average" and "total" are
interchangeable terms?

[Michael 182]

Dan,

Look up Tarver on Google. He is a long time troll who never bothers to back
up any of his arguments except with rambling non-sensical "statements of
fact". Give it up.

Michael


"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
> "Tarver Engineering" wrote:
> > > Another lie.
> >
> > I have science on my side
>
> Another lie.
>
> > and no reason to lie.
>
> Then apparently it's just your nature.
>
> > > Try posting there again. If what you just said is the truth,
> > > you should get little or no response.
> >
> > I cross post to talk.origins every few months. It
> > is a kook bin full of retards spewing 150 year old
> > dog breeder science and an ocasional qualified
> > biologist. The biologist usually admits that there are
> > big problems with Darwin's "Origin of Species",
> > but "it demonstrates how one thing might
> > replace another". Although demonstrating a
> > concept has value, theaching religion as science is
> > not the way to do it.
>
> More lies. You're afraid.
>
>

[Tarver Engineering]

"Michael 182" > wrote in message
news:uQWgc.161786$gA5.1908220@attbi_s03...>
> "Dan Luke" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Tarver Engineering" wrote:
> > > > Another lie.
> > >
> > > I have science on my side
> >
> > Another lie.
> >
> > > and no reason to lie.
> >
> > Then apparently it's just your nature.
> >
> > > > Try posting there again. If what you just said is the truth,
> > > > you should get little or no response.
> > >
> > > I cross post to talk.origins every few months. It
> > > is a kook bin full of retards spewing 150 year old
> > > dog breeder science and an ocasional qualified
> > > biologist. The biologist usually admits that there are
> > > big problems with Darwin's "Origin of Species",
> > > but "it demonstrates how one thing might
> > > replace another". Although demonstrating a
> > > concept has value, theaching religion as science is
> > > not the way to do it.
> >
> > More lies. You're afraid.
> Dan,
>
> Look up Tarver on Google.

You will find an archive troll which has been largely ineffective. There
was a second archive troll, but the paradox in that one has been revealed.

> He is a long time troll who never bothers to back
> up any of his arguments except with rambling non-sensical "statements of
> fact". Give it up.

I have provided Dan with enough information to do his own google search. It
doesn't really matter to me whether Dan has an interest in the scientific
truth of the matter, or not. Jay Gould spent a number of years trying to
reconcile the hard physical Geological evidence through a notional
hypothesis similar to Darwin's, except Gould's rapid evolution might have
happened; while Darwin's evolution into a new species slowly over a long
period of time is false.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Gene Seibel" > wrote in message
om...
> I believe what I believe. You believe what you believe. Few of us will
> change our minds, unless we have no convictions to start with.

You don't change your mind when someone offers a better
explanation/argument?

[Peter Gottlieb]

"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Gene Seibel" > wrote in message
> om...
> > I believe what I believe. You believe what you believe. Few of us will
> > change our minds, unless we have no convictions to start with.
>
> You don't change your mind when someone offers a better
> explanation/argument?
>

Sadly, most people do not.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Peter Gottlieb" > wrote in message
. net...
> "Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Gene Seibel" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > > I believe what I believe. You believe what you believe. Few of us will
> > > change our minds, unless we have no convictions to start with.
> >
> > You don't change your mind when someone offers a better
> > explanation/argument?
> >
>
> Sadly, most people do not.
>
Quite...it is the ability to differentiate such things that they use to call
"Wisdom".

Tom
--
"Wisdom is the integration of Knowledge." -- Thought to be attributed to
Aristotle

[C J Campbell]

"Peter Gottlieb" > wrote in message
. net...
> "Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Gene Seibel" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > > I believe what I believe. You believe what you believe. Few of us will
> > > change our minds, unless we have no convictions to start with.
> >
> > You don't change your mind when someone offers a better
> > explanation/argument?
> >
>
> Sadly, most people do not.

Obviously true, since they still vote for Democrats. :-)

[Tom Sixkiller]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Peter Gottlieb" > wrote in message
> . net...
> > "Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Gene Seibel" > wrote in message
> > > om...
> > > > I believe what I believe. You believe what you believe. Few of us
will
> > > > change our minds, unless we have no convictions to start with.
> > >
> > > You don't change your mind when someone offers a better
> > > explanation/argument?
> > >
> >
> > Sadly, most people do not.
>
> Obviously true, since they still vote for Democrats. :-)
>
Problem is the Republican's actions belie their arguments.

[Dan Luke]

"Michael 182" wrote:
> Dan,
>
> Look up Tarver on Google. He is a long time troll who never:
> bothers to back up any of his arguments except with rambling
> non-sensical "statements of fact".

I know, I know. Hell, *everyone* knows Tarver is the dizziest loon on
usenet.

> Give it up.

I guess I'll have to; he's gun-shy now. I sure did want to see him get
shredded on talk.origins again, though; it's pure entertainment.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Andrew Gideon]

Tom Sixkiller wrote:

> Problem is the Republican's actions belie their arguments.

More than anything else, this is what I find so annoying. Color me
conservative, I'd like to vote that way. Unfortunately, nobody is giving
me that choice.

At this point, I'd have to vote Democrat because all they want is my money.
I'd rather give that then the rights the Republicans are trying to take.

Frustrating!

- Andrew

[Joe Young]

"darwin smith" > wrote in message
k.net...
> Joe Young wrote:
>
> > Tell me Rich...why does anyone other than her parents need to tell her
> >
> >anything?
> >
> That's a good question. In an ideal world, parents would be
> knowledgable about the
> facts of life and comfortable talking about them with their kids. They
> would be home
> whenever the kids were home, and they'd make sure they knew where their
> kids were
> when the kids went out with friends. Life would be perfect, and there
> would never be
> an abortion.
>

I never stated life would always be perfect, but just because a mistake was
made doesn't mean we should offer up murder as a way to "fix" the problem.
You seem to assert that since life isn't "ideal" we should just accept a
couple of million abortions in this country every year.


> Unfortunately, I happen to live in the real world. This world contains
> entirely too
> many single parent families, often families where the sole parent has to
> work two jobs
> just to keep food on the table. This world also contains thousands of
> "latch-key" kids
> who come home to an empty house, with the parents not expected to be
> home for
> another three or four hours. In the remaining families, many parents are
> completely
> uncomfortable with the idea of sex. The "talk" consists of the parents
> stammering and
> stuttering, and finally saying something like "here's a book, ask your
> mother if you have
> any questions, and don't do it."
>
So in your mind ol' Joe lunchbucket doesn't do it "right", so your going to
appoint someone who does. Or... life is just too complicted for everyone so
let's just relieve them of the most significant responsibilites they will
incur in their lifetime.... their kids. As long as we keep lowering our
expectations, we will always acheive exactly those low expectations...or
less... Carried to the extreme...why don't we just tell them to do what
ever feels good because there really isn't any consequenses? Here are your
condoms (let me know if you need more)... there is your local abortionist is
that fails... an oh by the way...what ever you do... don't get invovled with
you local church. You know they really are a bunch of zealots that want to
control your body in addition to your mind...

> It would be nice if every parent accepted their responsibilities like
> you suggest, but
> until that happens someone needs to step in and fill the gap. Right now,
> it isn't happening.

That someone should not be a government employee backed by politically
charged rhetoric and social agendas. It is NOT the state's place to be
doling out reproductive advice, and it is definately not the state's place
to be doling out murder disguised as family planning. This bullsh!t failed
in the Soviet Union, it is failing in Cuba, it is failing in North Korea, it
is failing in most of Europe. Centralized planning has never worked in any
society, yet we have a bunch of pointy-nosed intelectuals, and
smarter-than-thou do-gooders that want to keep hoisting it on the American
populus....Why? Is power really that intoxicating?

We have been dumbing down, and lowering our social expectations since the
1960's... To your point, it is not working. Why don't we try raising
expectations? I know that probably sound like a mean old conservative
tactic, but it just might work...

[Peter Gottlieb]

"Joe Young" > wrote in message
...
>
> That someone should not be a government employee backed by politically
> charged rhetoric and social agendas. It is NOT the state's place to be
> doling out reproductive advice, and it is definately not the state's place
> to be doling out murder disguised as family planning.

Let me guess, life begins at conception, will full rights?

> Centralized planning has never worked in any
> society, yet we have a bunch of pointy-nosed intelectuals, and
> smarter-than-thou do-gooders that want to keep hoisting it on the American
> populus....

This seems like the exact thing you are proposing.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...

> I guess I'll have to; he's gun-shy now. I sure did want to see him get
> shredded on talk.origins again, though; it's pure entertainment.

I told you all you have to do is make a crosspost. I wouldn't post to a
Mormon newsgroup eiither. I enjoy mopping the floor with the uneducated
crew that hangs out at talk.origins. It upsets the biologists to see you
make such a fool of yourself though and I do not want to run off the
competent.

[Ash Wyllie]

David Brooks opined

>"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...

>> I have never been convicted of anything. No one saw me do it. You can't
>> prove it. The sheep are lying.

>Does that mean it's going to rain?

No, it's cows that lie down before it rains. Dunno what sheep do.


-ash
Cthulhu for President!
Why vote for a lesser evil?

[Joe Young]

"Peter Gottlieb" > wrote in message
. net...
>
> "Joe Young" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > That someone should not be a government employee backed by politically
> > charged rhetoric and social agendas. It is NOT the state's place to be
> > doling out reproductive advice, and it is definately not the state's
place
> > to be doling out murder disguised as family planning.
>
> Let me guess, life begins at conception, will full rights?

Yes... Let me guess about your position. Life begins when the child no
longer needs its "host".... is that at birth, 18 months or is ok to kill
them at 18 years.

>
> > Centralized planning has never worked in any
> > society, yet we have a bunch of pointy-nosed intelectuals, and
> > smarter-than-thou do-gooders that want to keep hoisting it on the
American
> > populus....
>
> This seems like the exact thing you are proposing.
>

Just the opposite...read what I said. The government at any level should
not be involved in social engineering. It does however have a role in
protection...


>

[Peter Gottlieb]

"Joe Young" > wrote in message
...
> >
> > Let me guess, life begins at conception, will full rights?
>
> Yes... Let me guess about your position. Life begins when the child no
> longer needs its "host"....

Bad guess!

> Just the opposite...read what I said. The government at any level should
> not be involved in social engineering. It does however have a role in
> protection...

What you are asking is that the government "protects" your particular
religious beliefs.

[Joe Young]

"Peter Gottlieb" > wrote in message
. net...
>
> "Joe Young" > wrote in message
> ...
> > >
> > > Let me guess, life begins at conception, will full rights?
> >
> > Yes... Let me guess about your position. Life begins when the child no
> > longer needs its "host"....
>
> Bad guess!

What would be a good guess?

>
> > Just the opposite...read what I said. The government at any level
should
> > not be involved in social engineering. It does however have a role in
> > protection...
>
> What you are asking is that the government "protects" your particular
> religious beliefs.
>

No. just all of it's citizens

[Judah]

No clue at all. But then, this is not an economics forum.

;)

"C J Campbell" > wrote in
:

>
> "Judah" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> I made no mention of stealing. The Free Market in the US requires that
>> people redistribute assets in order to get rich. Most people don't get
>> rich based solely on their hourly rate. They get rich by buying low
>> and selling high - real estate, stocks, antiques on a road show, or
>> whatever.
>>
>> In the free market economy, someone wins, and someone loses.
>
> You really don't have a clue, do you, about economics?
>
>

[darwin smith]

C J Campbell wrote:

>Well, we can start with the education system, which is excessively top
>heavy. We seem to be getting a lot less for the dollar every year. Around
>here the typical school administrator or high school principal has an office
>that rivals that of a senior partner in a large law firm, even while the
>teachers are badly underpaid. That sends a rather contradictory message. The
>taxpayers who are paying for this stuff would sure like to have offices like
>that.
>[snip]
>Those will do for starters; I can probably think of several more. The IMF,
>for example.
>
It will probably come as a major shock to you, but I actually agree
with some of your
targets. In fact, there are some things that I would add to your list.
Of course, you have
some items there I believe are justifiable expenses, just as my list
will probably contain
a few of your 'sacred cows'.

When you get down to it, government spending - no matter how small -
will always have
something that someone will complain about. The best we can do is try to
reach some sort
of consensus that minimizes the overall level of complaint.

There are two other things we can do as individuals too, I suppose.
One is to demand a
complete and honest accounting of where the government's revenue comes
from and
where it goes (no unrealistically optimistic assumptions). The other is
to stop demanding
that our representatives "bring home the bacon", and start rewarding the
ones that
balance revenue and expenditures.

(Contrary to what so many like to think, it isn't Congress that's
causing the unbalanced
budget, or the president. It's you and me, demanding that our
representatives bring home
our pork while cutting everything to the bone for everyone else.)

Rich Lemert

>
>
>
>

[darwin smith]

Tarver Engineering wrote:

>
>This is my last reply here at rai, as this is way off topic and I don't
>expect you will change your religous beliefs based on hard physical
>evidence, or for any other reason.
>
I agree that this discussion is way off topic, and that it's a good
time to end it. It's
just such a shame that you refuse to offer any "hard physical evidence"
for your
statements.

Oh, and by the way, I guess astronomy cannot be considered a science
either since it
so often fails the "experimentally demonstrable" requirement of a
theory. I do suggest
you check out a good discussion on the philosophy of science sometime,
though, to
find out what really is required to have a valid theory.

Rich Lemert

[Andrew Gideon]

Joe Young wrote:

> It is NOT the state's place to be
> doling out reproductive advice

Then why is the state involved in education at all, in your opinion? Or is
that too a mistake?

- Andrew

[Tarver Engineering]

"darwin smith" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> Tarver Engineering wrote:

> Oh, and by the way, I guess astronomy cannot be considered a science
either since it
> so often fails the "experimentally demonstrable" requirement of a theory.

Why would you post something so rediculess? Astromony adheres to the real
scientific method. Anyway, the discussion is moved to talk.origins. TO has
been pretty well destroyed since my discussion with Andrew Hall there would
up in the WSJ, so you will find many kooks and trolls there.

[Doug]

Success in governing requires more than one point of view. It takes
ALL of us thinking and acting upon our beliefs. The collective wisdom
is greater than any ONE person's wisdom, and even greater than the sum
of all the people's wisdom. That is what MAKES a democracy work.

[Jim Knoyle]

"Ash Wyllie" > wrote in message
...
> David Brooks opined
>
> >"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> >> I have never been convicted of anything. No one saw me do it. You can't
> >> prove it. The sheep are lying.
>
> >Does that mean it's going to rain?
>
> No, it's cows that lie down before it rains. Dunno what sheep do.
>
>
I hear they do baad things.

[[email protected]]

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

> > wrote in message ...
> >
> > No doubt about it, and I did not imply that. Nonetheless, a
> > 3,000' runway at Podunk, Iowa, with two GPS approaches,
> > represents a signifgicant federal subsidy to the users of that
> > airport.
> >
>
> I can't find Podunk in the Iowa airport directory. Not by city or airport
> name. Where is this airport? What is the dollar amount of the federal
> subsidy for a 3,000' runway and two GPS approaches at this airport?

Keep looking.

I was not suggesting the feds paid for the runway. The GPS approaches cost
about $60,000 each. If you want verfication for that write to the FAA.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

> wrote in message ...
>
> Keep looking.
>

I have concluded it does not exist.


>
> I was not suggesting the feds paid for the runway. The
> GPS approaches cost about $60,000 each. If you want
> verfication for that write to the FAA.
>

Is that how you obtained the figure? Why not just post the relevant parts
of your letter from the FAA?

[Dude]

a really important plot point:

The liberals have been much more successful in redistributing the wealth,
than the conservatives have been in controlling my body.

As soon as this changes, I will vote the other way.

Everyone is being punished by the socialist system, even the poor who are
corrupted by it. I don't think the conservatives could ever come close to
being as invasive in my life as the libs. In any case, the conservatives
are in favor of me having a gun, so that tells me a little about how "in my
face" they intend to get.





"Pete" > wrote in message
...
> In article . net>,
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:
>
> > "Pete" > wrote in message
> > .com...
> > >
> > > No, they want to tell you what you can and can't do in your
> > > bedroom, and with your own body. They want to tell you who
> > > you can marry, demand you go to church, but then you catch
> > > them in a motel room doin' what they said not to do.
> > >
> > > Conservatives are a bunch of lying liars.
> > >
> >
> > You've bought the propaganda.
> >
> > The basic difference between conservatives and liberals is their
position on
> > freedom. Conservatives are fer it, liberals are agin' it.
>
> Then why the fight against gay marriage? Why the fight against abortion?
> Why the fight against pr0n?
>
> Conservatives are all for the rights of corporations to dump waste oil
> into fresh water supplies, for the rights of employers to force their
> workers to take horrrible physical risks and then not be compensated
> when they're injured.
>
> They're in favor of telling women what they can do with their bodies, in
> favor of snooping in private bedrooms, in favor of snooping on people's
> computers.
>
> The way things are going, the only good conservative, is a dead one, and
> in case you're wondering, I'm 53 years old. I see what happens when
> idiots like Chimpie are in power. Or evil criminals like Reagan and
> Nixon.
> --
> Hell yeah I'd love to make it
> But I suck at playing games
> I'd rather starve than fake it
> For a little taste of fame

[John Harlow]

>>> It's not about gay marriage. No doubt they are against gay
>>> marriage, they should be.
>>
>> Why?
>
>
> votes.
>
> don't put unpopular ideas in your program when you want to get
> elected.

It must be; no one can give another reason. Those talking about the
importance of freedom and reducing government are the same ones who want to
force others to be like themselves.

[Dude]

Amen

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Dave Stadt wrote:
> > "Judah" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>"Dave Stadt" > wrote in
> :
> >>
> >>
> >>>"Judah" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>>
> >>>>How, exactly, do the rich get richer without taking other people's
> >>>>assets?
> >>>
> >>>By applying themselves and earning what they accumulate. If you are
> >>>smart and work hard you win. If you are dumb and sit at home waiting
> >>>for the welfare check you lose.
> >>
> >>
> >>Ahhh... So that's why my brilliant seventh grade science teacher is so
> >>wealthy, and Mike Tyson, who can barely speak english, is so broke!
> >
> >
> > In fact Mike Tyson is broke. His current net worth is a couple of
thousand
> > dollars. Tyson didn't sit home waiting for a government check although
he
> > might well end up in that situation. If in fact the science teacher is
> > brilliant the opportunity to increase earnings is readily available.
> >
> >
> >
>
> And not everyone is driven by wealth creation. A lot of teachers,
> scientists, etc., really are driven by other motiviations. I know that
> is hard for many to believe, but it is true.
>
>
> Matt
>

[Dude]

"Philip Sondericker" > wrote in message
...
> in article , Dan Truesdell at
> wrote on 4/16/04 6:32 PM:
>
> > I don't feel guilty. I feel fortunate. And I look at the whole
> > picture. I've worked hard to get a degree, develop a career, and have a
> > comfortable lifestyle (that fortunately includes a plane). However, I
> > also recognize that, due to the fact I grew up in a poor family in a
> > poor town, you all paid for half my college education. (I paid the
> > other half.) Thank you! That "Robin hood Government" you speak of took
> > a small piece of your hard earned money and invested it in me. Guess
> > what? I paid more in taxes last year than I received in 4 years of
> > financial aid. Sounds like a good investment to me. What did you get
> > for your money? A very productive member of society who recognizes
> > that, thanks to a government that believes that an educated populous is
> > critical, I am able to visit a doctor when I need one. And get a
> > plumber when I need one. DO you think that the oft-touted "Free Market
> > Economy" will generate all of the necessary services we all need and
> > use? Not likely. Only the ones that are profitable. Think of that the
> > next time you visit a government educated doctor. Or the next time you
> > kid goes to a government funded school. Or the factory in your town is
> > kept from dumping toxic waste in your backyard because a government
> > funded EPA official keeps them from doing it. I realize that there is
> > certainly waste in government, but let's keep the whole picture in mind.
>
> Wow, a bit of calm, rational sense. Thank you.
>

Perhaps, but what about the argument that escalating college costs are a
direct result of too much government subsidy. Why did he need college,
because he didn't get an adequate high school education? Was this due to
the effect of the liberalization of public schools?

All this post points out is that the government has gotten way too involved
in our lives without any supporting evidence that we would not be better off
without that involvement. We don't know that the author would not have been
better off without college. We do know that someone elses money went to pay
for that education.

Everyone notices how well off the lottery winner is, and doesn't notice all
the other players being a dollar poorer. That doesn't make the lottery a
free way to create wealth.

There is no free lunch!

[Newps]

"Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
online.com...
> I still don't understand what problem you're seeing. If some states
permit
> same-sex marriage and some do not, this would be as important as the fact
> that states use different criteria for driving licenses. The federal
> government is responsible for ensuring (and enforcing, should it come to
> that unfortunate extreme) that the various criteria of each state are
> respected by the other states.
>
> Where is the problem that needs to be solved?

By the constitution Florida must honor my Montana drivers license. What
criteria each state puts on its own residents is irrelavant. Or the fact
that here in Montana a 14 year old that lives on a ranch can get a license,
drive to Minnesota where the youngest licensee is 16, and drive around all
day and night. They may not even contemplate not recognizing it. With gay
marriage at least 45 states will laugh in your face if we were married and
requested normal benefits available to normal people. Many states actually
have laws that say marriage is between a man and a woman, some however
don't. So now we have a problem that by definition is a federal problem.
If two gay people get married out west in the land of fruits and nuts that
is California the US Constitution says my state must recognize that. No way
in hell that will ever happen. So, federally, the question has to be
answered.

[Newps]

"Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
online.com...


> Then why is the state involved in education at all, in your opinion? Or
is
> that too a mistake?

The state should be involved, the feds should not. Total waste of money.

[Teacherjh]

>>
If two gay people get married out west in the land of fruits and nuts that
is California the US Constitution says my state must recognize that. No way
in hell that will ever happen. So, federally, the question has to be
answered.
<<

Federally, the question HAS been answered. You just don't like the answer.

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[Dan Truesdell]

Dude wrote:

<snip>

>
> Perhaps, but what about the argument that escalating college costs are a
> direct result of too much government subsidy. Why did he need college,
> because he didn't get an adequate high school education? Was this due to
> the effect of the liberalization of public schools?

My high school was adequate, but one does not become a Mechanical
Engineer without going to college. Many of the engineers I graduated
with had some kind of public assistance. Think about this the next time
your doctor orders a MRI to diagnose your ailment. It would be pretty
tough to do if some of us that actually design and build the things you
use everyday weren't motivated by something other than money.

>
> All this post points out is that the government has gotten way too involved
> in our lives without any supporting evidence that we would not be better off
> without that involvement. We don't know that the author would not have been
> better off without college.

That's not the point. This was, and is, NOT about me! That is a
selfish attitude, and one I choose not to take. When will there be a
general realization that, for all of it's faults, the government
intervention that you so quickly dismiss provides many necessary items
that WE ALL use every day. There may be no supporting argument to say
that WE are better off, but the opposite is not the case. There are
many supporting arguments indicating that WE would be worse off if there
were no government (read general public) intervention. The people that
are fond of spouting that we "should let the Free Market Economy work
(our fearless leader included) seem to forget that we have done this in
the past. And it gave rise to things like Love Canal, horrible child
labor situations, Company Stores, and Slavery. Please recognize that
this government intervention that you speak of is exactly the
intervention that brought these and many other horrific "features" of
the "Free Market Economy" to an end.

<snip>

--
Remove "2PLANES" to reply.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"L Smith" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> 1) Extending this argument, there is therefore no need for Bush's
> proposed constitutional
> amendment, since by definition there can be no same-sex marriage.
>

That, and the fact that marriage is not a federal issue per the US
Constitution.


>
> 2) This is indeed the traditional definition currently accepted in the
> western world. It is far from a universal definition, though. Until
> fairly recently Mormon's believed firmly in polygamy, and polygamy
> is still a common practice in much of the world (the general
> rule being that you had to be able to support the entire family if you
> elected to have more than one wife). And IIRC, polyandry is an
> acceptable approach in parts of Tibet and other areas where life is
> considered so hard, more than one "wage earner" is required
> to support a family.
>

I don't see how that definition necessarily excludes polygamy or polyandry.


>
> 3) Many traditions are good, but that doesn't mean they should be
> unchangable. All traditions should be examined periodically to see
> if they still make sense.
>

And proposed changes should be examined to see if they make sense. Same-sex
marriage does not make sense.


>
> 4) If we accept your definition,
>

It's not my definition.


>
> then the question we need to ask is "what is your view on
> same-sex civil unions?" This is, after all, what's usually being
> referred to when most people are talking about "gay marriage".
>

Same-sex civil unions do not make sense.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
online.com...
>
> I'd love for this to be so, but the evidence claims otherwise. Why is a
> conservative administration against the right of people to marry?
>

It isn't.


>
> I can see their rational in the case of abortion, even if I don't
> agree. But not even a single cell is harmed if a same-sex
> couple marries. Why would anyone care?
>

Because if the meaning of marriage is altered, assuming for the sake of
argument government has that authority, then every marriage is altered.


>
> Why, under a supposedly conservative administration, have we
> American citizens held in violation of the law merely by defining them
> as soldiers in a foreign army? Yes, deal with them. But deal with
> them in a fashion consistent with our values...or give up the claim to
> being "for freedom".
>

What the hell are you talking about?

[Tarver Engineering]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...

> > then the question we need to ask is "what is your view on
> > same-sex civil unions?" This is, after all, what's usually being
> > referred to when most people are talking about "gay marriage".
> >
>
> Same-sex civil unions do not make sense.

Same sex civil unions are redistribution away from heterosexual women to gay
men, just the same as gay marriage. In Canada when AIDS broke out the
medical system quit treating breast canacer to keep the fags alive. If
women went for more than 6 months without threatment the Canadian
Governement would buy them a bus ticket to Vermont.

[John Harlow]

> Same-sex civil unions do not make sense.

.... to you.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Newps" > wrote in message
...
>
> It's not about gay marriage. No doubt they are against gay
> marriage, they should be. The main issue is the US Constitution.
> I got married in Minnesota. The Constitution says that all states
> must recognize my marriage and all things that naturally occur as
> a result of that marriage, such as hospital visitation, benefits, etc.
> If California passes a law making gay marriage legal then all 49
> other states would have to recognize it.
>

Well, then, if a state bans "same-sex marriage", then the other 49 states
will have to recognize it and this silly argument is over.

What does marriage have to do with hospital visitation anyway?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"John Harlow" > wrote in message
...
>
> ... to you.
>

True. Of course, if they made real sense, they'd make sense to me.

[Gene Seibel]

"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message >...
> "Gene Seibel" > wrote in message
> om...
> > I believe what I believe. You believe what you believe. Few of us will
> > change our minds, unless we have no convictions to start with.
>
> You don't change your mind when someone offers a better
> explanation/argument?

Possibly, if I thought it was better. At 53 years old I've pretty well
got my mind set on what I think is better. Others may not agree.
Doesn't mean they are wrong. With TV, books and internet, there aren't
a whole lot of ideas out there that have been kept secret. Most of
what I hear is new packaging for old ideas.
--
Gene Seibel
Hangar 131 - http://pad39a.com/gene/plane.html
Because I fly, I envy no one.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Peter Gottlieb" > wrote in message
et...
>
> Are "liberal activist judges" any worse than conservative activist judges?
>

Since conservative philosophy precludes judicial activism there can be no
"conservative activist judges".

[ET]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in
ink.net:

>
> "Newps" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> It's not about gay marriage. No doubt they are against gay
>> marriage, they should be. The main issue is the US Constitution.
>> I got married in Minnesota. The Constitution says that all states
>> must recognize my marriage and all things that naturally occur as
>> a result of that marriage, such as hospital visitation, benefits,
>> etc. If California passes a law making gay marriage legal then all 49
>> other states would have to recognize it.
>>
>
> Well, then, if a state bans "same-sex marriage", then the other 49
> states will have to recognize it and this silly argument is over.
>
> What does marriage have to do with hospital visitation anyway?
>
>

if someone is in a "civil union" or just are a "gay couple" then they
are not "family" and can be kept out of your hospital room if you are
critical. Of course, if the "couple" had done some planning, that will
be the person with the medical power of attorney...

I'm not one for gay marriages whatsoever... but this an issue that may
be addressed, should be addressed by the "couple" themselves (gay or
married for that matter, as the doctors do not have to listen to the
wishes of a spouse without a POA in most states as well). The other
issue is children... health insurance, etc. but I have way too many
conflicting feelings to comment on those.

--
ET >:)


"A common mistake people make when trying to design something
completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete
fools."---- Douglas Adams

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Dan Truesdell" > wrote in message
...
> That's not the point. This was, and is, NOT about me! That is a
> selfish attitude, and one I choose not to take. When will there be a
> general realization that, for all of it's faults, the government
> intervention that you so quickly dismiss provides many necessary items
> that WE ALL use every day.

This assumes that government can provide them without VERY NEGATIVE
consequences.

> There may be no supporting argument to say
> that WE are better off, but the opposite is not the case. There are
> many supporting arguments indicating that WE would be worse off if there
> were no government (read general public) intervention.

And this uses the logical fallacy of "false alternative".


> The people that
> are fond of spouting that we "should let the Free Market Economy work
> (our fearless leader included) seem to forget that we have done this in
> the past. And it gave rise to things like Love Canal,

Love Canal was hardly an example of "free markets"; quite the opposite.

>horrible child labor situations,

And before child labor, these kids were running around the farm playing
"tag"?

> Company Stores, and Slavery.

Christ on a bike, where do you pull this BS from? Public School?

> Please recognize that
> this government intervention that you speak of is exactly the
> intervention that brought these and many other horrific "features" of
> the "Free Market Economy" to an end.

You haven't a freaking clue what the hell you're talking about, and you
indicate a prime faling of government run schools, that being that they were
set up for INDOCTRINATION, not eduction.

> <snip>
>
> --
> Remove "2PLANES" to reply.
>

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Gene Seibel" > wrote in message
om...
> "Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
>...
>
> > You don't change your mind when someone offers a better
> > explanation/argument?
>
> Possibly, if I thought it was better. At 53 years old I've pretty well
> got my mind set on what I think is better.

Ummm...I think they call that "dogmatic".

> Others may not agree.
> Doesn't mean they are wrong. With TV, books and internet, there aren't
> a whole lot of ideas out there that have been kept secret. Most of
> what I hear is new packaging for old ideas.

Well, as you're probably aware, an idea is neither good nor bad because it's
old or new, but rather how well it comports with reality.

Often ideas we've heard for years are not really what we've come to believe
(our preconceived notions). For example, elsewhere in this thread Dan
Truesdale is making claims about free markets and history that are
completely bogus. I grew up "learning the same history", but found out well
out of school that what I was taught was a crock of cow poop.

One thing I notice about public schools is there is a complete lack of a
"free market of ideas" and of data as well.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Peter Gottlieb" > wrote in message
> et...
> >
> > Are "liberal activist judges" any worse than conservative activist
judges?
> >
>
> Since conservative philosophy precludes judicial activism there can be no
> "conservative activist judges".
>
Even those that try to cram the Fifteen (bonk..crash...) the Ten
Commandments down our throats, or that try to force teaching Creationism as
equal with Evolution?

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Newps" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
> online.com...
> > I still don't understand what problem you're seeing. If some states
> permit
> > same-sex marriage and some do not, this would be as important as the
fact
> > that states use different criteria for driving licenses. The federal
> > government is responsible for ensuring (and enforcing, should it come to
> > that unfortunate extreme) that the various criteria of each state are
> > respected by the other states.
> >
> > Where is the problem that needs to be solved?
>
> By the constitution Florida must honor my Montana drivers license. What
> criteria each state puts on its own residents is irrelavant. Or the fact
> that here in Montana a 14 year old that lives on a ranch can get a
license,
> drive to Minnesota where the youngest licensee is 16, and drive around all
> day and night. They may not even contemplate not recognizing it. With
gay
> marriage at least 45 states will laugh in your face if we were married and
> requested normal benefits available to normal people. Many states
actually
> have laws that say marriage is between a man and a woman, some however
> don't. So now we have a problem that by definition is a federal problem.
> If two gay people get married out west in the land of fruits and nuts that
> is California the US Constitution says my state must recognize that. No
way
> in hell that will ever happen. So, federally, the question has to be
> answered.

Article IV



Section 1. Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public
Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the
Congress may be general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts,
Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.



Section 2. The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges
and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Newps" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
> online.com...
>
>
> > Then why is the state involved in education at all, in your opinion? Or
> is
> > that too a mistake?
>
> The state should be involved, the feds should not. Total waste of money.
>
Why should the state be involved, either?

[Tarver Engineering]

"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> nk.net...
> >
> > "Peter Gottlieb" > wrote in message
> > et...
> > >
> > > Are "liberal activist judges" any worse than conservative activist
judges?
> > >
> >
> > Since conservative philosophy precludes judicial activism there can be
no
> > "conservative activist judges".
> >
> Even those that try to cram the Fifteen (bonk..crash...) the Ten
> Commandments down our throats, or that try to force teaching Creationism
as
> equal with Evolution?

Both notional hypothesis are equal under the scientific method, but we can
know that evolution is false. How about we teach science in science class
and consign evolution to the ash heap of discredited science? After all, at
the beginning of each geological period a large number of species come into
existance, followed by an extiction of some species slowing as the time line
extends. The facts are the opposite of Darwin's process and that is not
only a science problem, but also a cognitive dissonance problem for the
athiest.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
gonline.com...
>
> Who are you to define "marriage" thusly?
>

It's not my definition.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"David Brooks" > wrote in message
...
>
> This very day, in beautiful sunshine in what was otherwise a quiet
> environment, I was walking behind a blowhard who was complaining
> about how much money both the Feds and the State were taking
> away from him.
>
> We were both enjoying an attractive park maintained by the Army
> Corps of Engineers, with I believe some input from the City of Seattle.
>

What's your point?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>
> I doubt if the prison system needs to be so large. A lot of non-violent
> offenders could probably be just as easily taken care of with electronic
> monitoring devices.
>

A lot of them could just be released and the laws they've violated
rescinded.


>
> Aid to Families of Dependent Children should be provided only
> to those who are willing to contribute community service in return.
> Those who refuse to work should get nothing.
>

In other words; get a job.


>
> It is questionable whether we need a rain forest in Iowa.
>

That's questionable? I'd say it's a certainty that we do NOT need a
rainforest in Iowa.

[John Harlow]

>> Who are you to define "marriage" thusly?
>>
>
> It's not my definition.

It's not Merriam-Webster's either:

(1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband
or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) :
the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like
that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage>

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
...
>
> Even those that try to cram the Fifteen (bonk..crash...) the Ten
> Commandments down our throats, or that try to force teaching Creationism
as
> equal with Evolution?
>

Since conservative philosophy precludes judicial activism there can be no
"conservative activist judges".

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Even those that try to cram the Fifteen (bonk..crash...) the Ten
> > Commandments down our throats, or that try to force teaching Creationism
> as
> > equal with Evolution?
> >
>
> Since conservative philosophy precludes judicial activism there can be no
> "conservative activist judges".
>
Ah....yeah, okie dokie.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"ET" > wrote in message
...
>
> if someone is in a "civil union" or just are a "gay couple" then they
> are not "family" and can be kept out of your hospital room if you are
> critical.
>

Not happy with a hospital's visitation policy? Take it up with the damn
hospital!

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"John Harlow" > wrote in message
...
>
> "There ought to be limits to freedom"
> -George W. Bush
>

Yes, and the limits ought to be other people's freedom, nothing else.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Peter Gottlieb" > wrote in message
. net...
>
> Let me guess, life begins at conception, will full rights?
>

I assume you meant "with full rights". Yes, life begins at conception, and
the baby has the same rights as any other minor.

[Frank]

Joe Young wrote:

<snip>
>
> So tell me Mr. Musky, what is it YOU like so much about John Kerry?

He's not George W. Bush and that's enogh for me right now.

<snipped pointless partisan rant>

--
Frank....H

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Pete" > wrote in message
...
>
> Given that you're a man, this is pretty much a non-sequitur. You can't
> ever have an abortion. (Nor can you be forced NOT to have one)
>

The "you can't control my body" argument of the pro-abortion crowd never
made sense to me. As I see it, in a free society a person owns their own
body. It's their property. They can do whatever they like with it. Tattoo
it, pierce it, amputate a limb, alter it any way you want. It's yours. You
want to inject drugs into it? That's fine by me, just don't operate a motor
vehicle on a public road while you're under the influence. You want to rent
it out to a lonely man for a short time? Fine. You can do anything you
want to your own body, even destroy it. But you can't do that to the body
of another, including an unborn body. That's the problem with abortion, it
controls the body of another. The "you can't control my body" argument is
actually an argument AGAINST abortion.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Newps" > wrote in message
...
>
> Or the fact that here in Montana a 14 year old that lives on a
> ranch can get a license, drive to Minnesota where the youngest
> licensee is 16, and drive around all day and night.
>

A 14 year old that lives on a ranch can get a license but a 14 year old that
does not live on a ranch cannot get one?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Frank" > wrote in message ...
>
> He's not George W. Bush and that's enogh for me right now.
>

It appears nobody is voting FOR John Kerry.

[Matt Whiting]

Gene Seibel wrote:
> "Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message >...
>
>>"Gene Seibel" > wrote in message
om...
>>
>>>I believe what I believe. You believe what you believe. Few of us will
>>>change our minds, unless we have no convictions to start with.
>>
>>You don't change your mind when someone offers a better
>>explanation/argument?
>
>
> Possibly, if I thought it was better. At 53 years old I've pretty well
> got my mind set on what I think is better. Others may not agree.
> Doesn't mean they are wrong. With TV, books and internet, there aren't
> a whole lot of ideas out there that have been kept secret. Most of
> what I hear is new packaging for old ideas.

This has been true for at least 2000 years, at least with respect to
things involving people. Technology has advanced dramatically, but
people are pretty much the same as they were in Biblical times.


Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "L Smith" > wrote in message
> link.net...
>
>> 1) Extending this argument, there is therefore no need for Bush's
>>proposed constitutional
>>amendment, since by definition there can be no same-sex marriage.
>>
>
>
> That, and the fact that marriage is not a federal issue per the US
> Constitution.

Neither was taxation... sigh.

Matt

[Peter Gottlieb]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
nk.net...

> That's the problem with abortion, it
> controls the body of another.

The problem with prohibiting abortion is that it controls the body of
another.

When rights conflict, how do you strike a balance? By religious background
and beliefs? Whose? By "morals?" Whose?

If this were an easy question it would have been resolved long ago.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Peter Gottlieb" > wrote in message
. net...
>
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> nk.net...
>
> > That's the problem with abortion, it
> > controls the body of another.
>
> The problem with prohibiting abortion is that it controls the body of
> another.
>
> When rights conflict, how do you strike a balance? By religious
background
> and beliefs? Whose? By "morals?" Whose?
>
> If this were an easy question it would have been resolved long ago.

Susan B. Anthony advocated banning abortion based on men forcing their women
to abort. She was successful in nearly every US State. The issue of who's
money is it has much to do with abortion.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Peter Gottlieb" > wrote in message
. net...
>
> The problem with prohibiting abortion is that it controls the body of
> another.
>

Well, then, let's not prohibit abortion, let's just prohibit the ending of a
life not your own.


>
> When rights conflict, how do you strike a balance? By
> religious background and beliefs? Whose? By "morals?" Whose?
>
> If this were an easy question it would have been resolved long ago.
>

One wonders why it's a question at all.

[Peter Gottlieb]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
k.net...
> >
> > When rights conflict, how do you strike a balance? By
> > religious background and beliefs? Whose? By "morals?" Whose?
> >
> > If this were an easy question it would have been resolved long ago.
> >
>
> One wonders why it's a question at all.
>

Perhaps because we're a democracy rather than a dictatorship?

[Gig Giacona]

"Dan Truesdell" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Dude wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> >
> > Perhaps, but what about the argument that escalating college costs are a
> > direct result of too much government subsidy. Why did he need college,
> > because he didn't get an adequate high school education? Was this due
to
> > the effect of the liberalization of public schools?
>
> My high school was adequate, but one does not become a Mechanical
> Engineer without going to college. Many of the engineers I graduated
> with had some kind of public assistance. Think about this the next time
> your doctor orders a MRI to diagnose your ailment. It would be pretty
> tough to do if some of us that actually design and build the things you
> use everyday weren't motivated by something other than money.
>
> >
> > All this post points out is that the government has gotten way too
involved
> > in our lives without any supporting evidence that we would not be better
off
> > without that involvement. We don't know that the author would not have
been
> > better off without college.
>
> That's not the point. This was, and is, NOT about me! That is a
> selfish attitude, and one I choose not to take. When will there be a
> general realization that, for all of it's faults, the government
> intervention that you so quickly dismiss provides many necessary items
> that WE ALL use every day. There may be no supporting argument to say
> that WE are better off, but the opposite is not the case. There are
> many supporting arguments indicating that WE would be worse off if there
> were no government (read general public) intervention. The people that
> are fond of spouting that we "should let the Free Market Economy work
> (our fearless leader included) seem to forget that we have done this in
> the past. And it gave rise to things like Love Canal, horrible child
> labor situations, Company Stores, and Slavery. Please recognize that
> this government intervention that you speak of is exactly the
> intervention that brought these and many other horrific "features" of
> the "Free Market Economy" to an end.
>
> <snip>
>


That same free market is what caused the MRI you are so proud to be
invented. The government didn't tell anyone "You MUST build the MRI."

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Peter Gottlieb" > wrote in message
. net...
>
> Perhaps because we're a democracy rather than a dictatorship?
>

Explain.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Gene Seibel wrote:

> >
> > Possibly, if I thought it was better. At 53 years old I've pretty well
> > got my mind set on what I think is better. Others may not agree.
> > Doesn't mean they are wrong. With TV, books and internet, there aren't
> > a whole lot of ideas out there that have been kept secret. Most of
> > what I hear is new packaging for old ideas.
>
> This has been true for at least 2000 years, at least with respect to
> things involving people. Technology has advanced dramatically, but
> people are pretty much the same as they were in Biblical times.
>
Human nature hasn't really changed in a lot longer than 2000 years.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Gig Giacona" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Dan Truesdell" > wrote in message
> ...
> > the past. And it gave rise to things like Love Canal, horrible child
> > labor situations, Company Stores, and Slavery. Please recognize that
> > this government intervention that you speak of is exactly the
> > intervention that brought these and many other horrific "features" of
> > the "Free Market Economy" to an end.
> >
> > <snip>
> >
>
>
> That same free market is what caused the MRI you are so proud to be
> invented. The government didn't tell anyone "You MUST build the MRI."
>
Correct, but they DID throw quite a few directives towards the people at
Love Canal.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Peter Gottlieb" > wrote in message
. net...
>
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> nk.net...
>
> > That's the problem with abortion, it
> > controls the body of another.
>
> The problem with prohibiting abortion is that it controls the body of
> another.
>
> When rights conflict, how do you strike a balance? By religious
background
> and beliefs? Whose? By "morals?" Whose?
>
> If this were an easy question it would have been resolved long ago.
>
It's not that it (or any other such) question is all that difficult, but
that emotions run rampant, and cloud out thought.

[Joe Young]

"Frank" > wrote in message ...
> Joe Young wrote:
>
> <snip>
> >
> > So tell me Mr. Musky, what is it YOU like so much about John Kerry?
>
> He's not George W. Bush and that's enogh for me right now.

Is there anyone that actually likes John Kerry? Believes in his positions
on issues? Is excited about his vision for a better America? Or... are
you all just a bunch of Bush haters? So in the unlikely possibility you
wake up in early November, and you got rid of that bad ol' man Bush... then
what are you going to do? Start hating Kerry because he is such an
incapable dult. The man can articulate nothing but a loathing for his
opponent. He has not yet stated his postions on anything throughout an
entire primary season, nor has he done so since he locked up the nomination.
Could it be his ideals, morals and leadership are so unpopular he cannot
afford to have the population actually learn about them? Has anyone in
history won an election by just spewing hate for the opponent? Don't
winners usually have to articulate a visison, and then articulate a course
of action to achive that vision? Mr. Kerry seems capable of neither....

>
> <snipped pointless partisan rant>

So anyone's opinions or observations that don't match yours are "partisan
rants"?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
>
> Neither was taxation... sigh.
>

The Constitution does not provide for taxation?

[Dan Truesdell]

Gig Giacona wrote:
<snip>


>>
>>That's not the point. This was, and is, NOT about me! That is a
>>selfish attitude, and one I choose not to take. When will there be a
>>general realization that, for all of it's faults, the government
>>intervention that you so quickly dismiss provides many necessary items
>>that WE ALL use every day. There may be no supporting argument to say
>>that WE are better off, but the opposite is not the case. There are
>>many supporting arguments indicating that WE would be worse off if there
>>were no government (read general public) intervention. The people that
>>are fond of spouting that we "should let the Free Market Economy work
>>(our fearless leader included) seem to forget that we have done this in
>>the past. And it gave rise to things like Love Canal, horrible child
>>labor situations, Company Stores, and Slavery. Please recognize that
>>this government intervention that you speak of is exactly the
>>intervention that brought these and many other horrific "features" of
>>the "Free Market Economy" to an end.
>>
>><snip>
>>
>
>
> That same free market is what caused the MRI you are so proud to be
> invented. The government didn't tell anyone "You MUST build the MRI."
>
>

You are correct. So the questions should be: Would we even have an MRI
at this time without public schools? Just where would the developers of
modern technology come from?



--
Remove "2PLANES" to reply.

[Joe Young]

"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Newps" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
> > online.com...
> >
> >
> > > Then why is the state involved in education at all, in your opinion?
Or
> > is
> > > that too a mistake?
> >
> > The state should be involved, the feds should not. Total waste of
money.
> >
> Why should the state be involved, either?
>

Exactly..........

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Dan Truesdell" > wrote in message
...
>
> You are correct. So the questions should be: Would we even have
> an MRI at this time without public schools? Just where would the
> developers of modern technology come from?
>

Private schools.

[Joe Young]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "ET" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > if someone is in a "civil union" or just are a "gay couple" then they
> > are not "family" and can be kept out of your hospital room if you are
> > critical.
> >
>
> Not happy with a hospital's visitation policy? Take it up with the damn
> hospital!
>
>

Great solution Steven... that is logical, simple and to the point. But then
how can you push forward a political agenda when you do something that is
logical, simple and to the point?

[Joe Young]

"Peter Gottlieb" > wrote in message
. net...
>
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> k.net...
> > >
> > > When rights conflict, how do you strike a balance? By
> > > religious background and beliefs? Whose? By "morals?" Whose?
> > >
> > > If this were an easy question it would have been resolved long ago.
> > >
> >
> > One wonders why it's a question at all.
> >
>
> Perhaps because we're a democracy rather than a dictatorship?
>
>

If that were true abortion would be outlawed. Every poll shows the vast
majority of the American public apposes abortion. If that is the case in a
democracy, shouldn't the majority rule?

[Matt Whiting]

Peter Gottlieb wrote:
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> nk.net...
>
>
>>That's the problem with abortion, it
>>controls the body of another.
>
>
> The problem with prohibiting abortion is that it controls the body of
> another.
>
> When rights conflict, how do you strike a balance? By religious background
> and beliefs? Whose? By "morals?" Whose?
>
> If this were an easy question it would have been resolved long ago.
>
>

I think it is a pretty long held principle that you can't exercise your
rights in violation of another's. At least this was the priniciple
prior to the legalization of abortion. This is the exact same reason
you can't exercise your 1st amendment right to yell "FIRE" in a crowded
theater.


Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Joe Young wrote:
> "Peter Gottlieb" > wrote in message
> . net...
>
>>"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
k.net...
>>
>>>>When rights conflict, how do you strike a balance? By
>>>>religious background and beliefs? Whose? By "morals?" Whose?
>>>>
>>>>If this were an easy question it would have been resolved long ago.
>>>>
>>>
>>>One wonders why it's a question at all.
>>>
>>
>>Perhaps because we're a democracy rather than a dictatorship?
>>
>>
>
>
> If that were true abortion would be outlawed. Every poll shows the vast
> majority of the American public apposes abortion. If that is the case in a
> democracy, shouldn't the majority rule?

The woman involved in getting abortion legalized has also opposed it for
many years and tried to get the ruling overturned. You don't hear much
about that either in the popular press.


Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Tom Sixkiller wrote:
> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Gene Seibel wrote:
>
>
>>>Possibly, if I thought it was better. At 53 years old I've pretty well
>>>got my mind set on what I think is better. Others may not agree.
>>>Doesn't mean they are wrong. With TV, books and internet, there aren't
>>>a whole lot of ideas out there that have been kept secret. Most of
>>>what I hear is new packaging for old ideas.
>>
>>This has been true for at least 2000 years, at least with respect to
>>things involving people. Technology has advanced dramatically, but
>>people are pretty much the same as they were in Biblical times.
>>
>
> Human nature hasn't really changed in a lot longer than 2000 years.

I agree. That is why I said AT LEAST 2000 years.

Matt

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Dan Truesdell" > wrote in message
...

> >
> >
> > That same free market is what caused the MRI you are so proud to be
> > invented. The government didn't tell anyone "You MUST build the MRI."
> >
> >
>
> You are correct. So the questions should be: Would we even have an MRI
> at this time without public schools? Just where would the developers of
> modern technology come from?
>

Man, you just love the "Fallacy of the False Alternative", don't you?

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Joe Young" > wrote in message
...

> > >
> >
> > Perhaps because we're a democracy rather than a dictatorship?
> >
> >
>
> If that were true abortion would be outlawed. Every poll shows the vast
> majority of the American public apposes abortion. If that is the case in
a
> democracy, shouldn't the majority rule?
>

Really? Every poll I've seen supports abortion.

[Matt Whiting]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Neither was taxation... sigh.
>>
>
>
> The Constitution does not provide for taxation?
>
>

No originally.

[James Robinson]

Joe Young wrote:
>
> Every poll shows the vast majority of the American public apposes
> abortion. If that is the case in a democracy, shouldn't
> the majority rule?

I'm not sure what polls you are reading, but here is a link that shows
the opposite, i.e. support for legal abortions at about 53 percent, and
opposition at 43 percent. They state this has been the trend for at
least the last decade.

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/poll010702.html

[Joe Young]

"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Joe Young" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > > >
> > >
> > > Perhaps because we're a democracy rather than a dictatorship?
> > >
> > >
> >
> > If that were true abortion would be outlawed. Every poll shows the vast
> > majority of the American public apposes abortion. If that is the case
in
> a
> > democracy, shouldn't the majority rule?
> >
>
> Really? Every poll I've seen supports abortion.
>

You know what... my absolutism was wrong. I don't have any idea what every
poll says. What I do know is every poll I have seen on late-term abortion
overwhelmingly apposes the practice, but we don't seem to have it outlawed
yet. I have also seen polls over the years that show the majority of
American appose the practice if exceptions are made for the life of the
mother and rape or incenst.....

Now are you sure each and every poll on the matter that you have seen shows
blanket, overwhelming support?

>

[G.R. Patterson III]

Newps wrote:
>
> So, federally, the question has to be answered.

Federally, it has been answered. And your State WILL toe the line if someone married
in California moves there and files suit in Federal court.

George Patterson
This marriage is off to a shaky start. The groom just asked the band to
play "Your cheatin' heart", and the bride just requested "Don't come home
a'drinkin' with lovin' on your mind".

[Joe Young]

"James Robinson" > wrote in message
...
> Joe Young wrote:
> >
> > Every poll shows the vast majority of the American public apposes
> > abortion. If that is the case in a democracy, shouldn't
> > the majority rule?
>
> I'm not sure what polls you are reading, but here is a link that shows
> the opposite, i.e. support for legal abortions at about 53 percent, and
> opposition at 43 percent. They state this has been the trend for at
> least the last decade.
>
> http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/poll010702.html

This one seems to have some different stats?????........??

http://christianparty.net/abortiongallup.htm

here is a interesting survey

http://www307.pair.com/ejs/plal1/surveys.htm

here is another...all found with a quick google search on abortion poll...

http://www.euthanasia.com/poll.html

[James Robinson]

Joe Young wrote:
>
> James Robinson wrote:
> >
> > Joe Young wrote:
> > >
> > > Every poll shows the vast majority of the American public apposes
> > > abortion. If that is the case in a democracy, shouldn't
> > > the majority rule?
> >
> > I'm not sure what polls you are reading, but here is a link that shows
> > the opposite, i.e. support for legal abortions at about 53 percent, and
> > opposition at 43 percent. They state this has been the trend for at
> > least the last decade.
> >
> > http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/poll010702.html
>
> This one seems to have some different stats?????........??
>
> http://christianparty.net/abortiongallup.htm

I prefer ABC news as a less biased source than an advocacy group, thank
you.

[Joe Young]

"James Robinson" > wrote in message
...
> Joe Young wrote:
> >
> > James Robinson wrote:
> > >
> > > Joe Young wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Every poll shows the vast majority of the American public apposes
> > > > abortion. If that is the case in a democracy, shouldn't
> > > > the majority rule?
> > >
> > > I'm not sure what polls you are reading, but here is a link that shows
> > > the opposite, i.e. support for legal abortions at about 53 percent,
and
> > > opposition at 43 percent. They state this has been the trend for at
> > > least the last decade.
> > >
> > > http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/poll010702.html
> >
> > This one seems to have some different stats?????........??
> >
> > http://christianparty.net/abortiongallup.htm
>
> I prefer ABC news as a less biased source than an advocacy group, thank
> you.

ABC News is less biased.............. :) OK you win!

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"James Robinson" > wrote in message
...
>
> I prefer ABC news as a less biased source than an advocacy
> group, thank you.
>

Less biased, perhaps, but definitely not unbiased.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
>
> No originally.
>

Not originally? Of course it did. See article 1, section 8, clause 1.

[running with scissors]

"Michael 182" > wrote in message news:<uQWgc.161786$gA5.1908220@attbi_s03>...
> Dan,
>
> Look up Tarver on Google. He is a long time troll who never bothers to back
> up any of his arguments except with rambling non-sensical "statements of
> fact". Give it up.
>
> Michael
>


nah he's not a troll, he believes his utter garbage.

[running with scissors]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message >...
> "Michael 182" > wrote in message
> news:uQWgc.161786$gA5.1908220@attbi_s03...>
> > "Dan Luke" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > "Tarver Engineering" wrote:
> > > > > Another lie.
> > > >
> > > > I have science on my side
> > >
> > > Another lie.
> > >
> > > > and no reason to lie.
> > >
> > > Then apparently it's just your nature.
> > >
> > > > > Try posting there again. If what you just said is the truth,
> > > > > you should get little or no response.
> > > >
> > > > I cross post to talk.origins every few months. It
> > > > is a kook bin full of retards spewing 150 year old
> > > > dog breeder science and an ocasional qualified
> > > > biologist. The biologist usually admits that there are
> > > > big problems with Darwin's "Origin of Species",
> > > > but "it demonstrates how one thing might
> > > > replace another". Although demonstrating a
> > > > concept has value, theaching religion as science is
> > > > not the way to do it.
> > >
> > > More lies. You're afraid.
> > Dan,
> >
> > Look up Tarver on Google.
>
> You will find an archive troll which has been largely ineffective. There
> was a second archive troll, but the paradox in that one has been revealed.
>

ineffective in what? archiving your crap. on one needs to show you
for the prick you are. you do a stand up job of that yourself.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Joe Young" > wrote in message
...
>
> "James Robinson" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Joe Young wrote:
> > >
> > > Every poll shows the vast majority of the American public apposes
> > > abortion. If that is the case in a democracy, shouldn't
> > > the majority rule?
> >
> > I'm not sure what polls you are reading, but here is a link that shows
> > the opposite, i.e. support for legal abortions at about 53 percent, and
> > opposition at 43 percent. They state this has been the trend for at
> > least the last decade.
> >
> > http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/poll010702.html
>
> This one seems to have some different stats?????........??
>
> http://christianparty.net/abortiongallup.htm
>
> here is a interesting survey
>
> http://www307.pair.com/ejs/plal1/surveys.htm
>
> here is another...all found with a quick google search on abortion poll...
>
> http://www.euthanasia.com/poll.html
>

How about a poll (Zogby, etc) that hasn't got pre-loaded results.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Joe Young" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Frank" > wrote in message ...
> > Joe Young wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> > >
> > > So tell me Mr. Musky, what is it YOU like so much about John Kerry?
> >
> > He's not George W. Bush and that's enogh for me right now.
>
> Is there anyone that actually likes John Kerry? Believes in his positions
> on issues?

Does John Kerry believe in John Kerry's position on issues?

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Tom Sixkiller wrote:
> > "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>Gene Seibel wrote:
> >
> >
> >>>Possibly, if I thought it was better. At 53 years old I've pretty well
> >>>got my mind set on what I think is better. Others may not agree.
> >>>Doesn't mean they are wrong. With TV, books and internet, there aren't
> >>>a whole lot of ideas out there that have been kept secret. Most of
> >>>what I hear is new packaging for old ideas.
> >>
> >>This has been true for at least 2000 years, at least with respect to
> >>things involving people. Technology has advanced dramatically, but
> >>people are pretty much the same as they were in Biblical times.
> >>
> >
> > Human nature hasn't really changed in a lot longer than 2000 years.
>
> I agree. That is why I said AT LEAST 2000 years.
>

How about this: "At least 50,000 years"?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
...
>
> Does John Kerry believe in John Kerry's position on issues?
>

Intermittently.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Does John Kerry believe in John Kerry's position on issues?
> >
>
> Intermittently.
>
On Mondays and Thursdays.

[smackey]

I come to this bulletin board to get info on flying, not politics.
While I know that I could skip this particular thread, I also want to
know what is going on. These pages tend toward off-topic issues
quicly and regularly. I know that by the time that message # 20
(usually much earlier) is posted, the whole subject is completely
"OT".

Don't you people know that nothing you say is going to change any
minds? Everyone has his/her agenda to promote, and nothing said is is
going to change anyone's mind. This from a lawyer who deals with this
type of stuff every day. Please tell me why this is not a) an utter
waste of time of and b) by people who apparantly have way too much
time on their hands.

[Dave Stadt]

"Joe Young" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Peter Gottlieb" > wrote in message
> . net...
> >
> > "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> > k.net...
> > > >
> > > > When rights conflict, how do you strike a balance? By
> > > > religious background and beliefs? Whose? By "morals?" Whose?
> > > >
> > > > If this were an easy question it would have been resolved long ago.
> > > >
> > >
> > > One wonders why it's a question at all.
> > >
> >
> > Perhaps because we're a democracy rather than a dictatorship?
> >
> >
>
> If that were true abortion would be outlawed. Every poll shows the vast
> majority of the American public apposes abortion. If that is the case in
a
> democracy, shouldn't the majority rule?

Thank goodness we do not have a democracy.

[Dave Stadt]

"James Robinson" > wrote in message
...
> Joe Young wrote:
> >
> > James Robinson wrote:
> > >
> > > Joe Young wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Every poll shows the vast majority of the American public apposes
> > > > abortion. If that is the case in a democracy, shouldn't
> > > > the majority rule?
> > >
> > > I'm not sure what polls you are reading, but here is a link that shows
> > > the opposite, i.e. support for legal abortions at about 53 percent,
and
> > > opposition at 43 percent. They state this has been the trend for at
> > > least the last decade.
> > >
> > > http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/poll010702.html
> >
> > This one seems to have some different stats?????........??
> >
> > http://christianparty.net/abortiongallup.htm
>
> I prefer ABC news as a less biased source than an advocacy group, thank
> you.

ABC less biased.....best joke in this thread so far.

[John Harlow]

> Don't you people know that nothing you say is going to change any
> minds?

Don't you know nothing you can say is going to change anyone's posting
habits? ;)

[Tom Sixkiller]

> Don't you people know that nothing you say is going to change any
> minds?

I doubt that.

[Dude]

Okay, so no one mentioned ANYTHING except abortion. So does that mean that
only the pro choicers are voting liberal, and they are single issue voters?

That is of course a non logical claim, but worth mentioning. Anyway...

Your stance on abortion will invariably come down to valuing the life of the
child over the woman's ability to remove the worlds most incredible
trespassers - the unborn.

Don't believe me?

Pro lifers are often more anti sex than they are anti abortion. That is why
they rely on the fact the woman's participation in copulation was voluntary
to deny her control over her body to remove the fetus. However, her will is
completely nullified in cases of rape, yet they still deny her an abortion.

If you deny exceptions for rape, then you are saying that volition is not a
factor.

If you allow exceptions for rape, you are justifying homicide of an innocent
third party. What kind of crap is that? Seriously, there is no logic in
this at all unless you live in some warped world where women who willingly
have sex are to be punished by pregnancy. Sounds sadistic to me.

On The Other Hand...

There is no denying that a fetus is a living human. The only arguments
against this can all be described as "semantic claptrap."

So, where does this bring us?

To the point where people who cannot reach this logical conundrum without
hours of banter continuously drone on, and on, and on because they KNOW they
are right.

You cannot take one side or the other without denying the other sides point
which pretty much puts you in an extremist camp of one side or the other
unless you chicken out and claim "faith". "Faith" based laws are almost
universally believed to be unconstitutional, even by most christians.

As for the post I am responding to- this completely fallacious line of
reasoning that because I am a man, I can have no fear of the impending
change in the laws against abortion. Therefore, I am supposedly wrong in my
opinion.

I respond - Bull!

I believe that the conservatives cannot enact a prohibition of abortion
without losing power in the next election. They know this, and therefore,
will not try it. Its just not worth giving up the entire rest of the issues
to protect that one isssue. Even if the pro-lifers were to succeed, it
would quickly be switched back at the next election if not sooner.

Lastly, the fact that I am a man does not exempt me from having a valid
viewpoint on matters of abortion. My view is that the status quo is
acceptable anyway, so stick your reactionary left wing claptrap...

My idea is that if you are going to be born into slavery, you are better off
not being born. If you have no right to prevent others from invading your
body, you are a slave. Male pregnancy is an eventual medical possibility.
Therefore, male or female, if your parent(s) have no right to abortion, you
will neither. You are being born into slavery. Being unborn, the parent
bearing you is the obvious choice as guardian and should be able to make
this decision on your behalf, as well as their own.










"Pete" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Dude" > wrote:
>
> > a really important plot point:
> >
> > The liberals have been much more successful in redistributing the
wealth,
> > than the conservatives have been in controlling my body.
> >
> > As soon as this changes, I will vote the other way.
>
> Given that you're a man, this is pretty much a non-sequitur. You can't
> ever have an abortion. (Nor can you be forced NOT to have one)
> --
> Robots that make smelly farts?
> That doesn't make any sense!

[Dude]

Dan,

You are in the fortunate position of pointing out the obvious. Yes many of
the engineers are a result of public assistance. What we cannot know is
would there be less or more of them without that assistance. We also cannot
know how many of them had there creativity stifled in the process of
becoming engineers. Not all inventors had formal engineering training after
all.

You have not even approached my argument.

Of course, I am in the fortunate position of having an unassailable, ivory
tower sort of argument. You cannot disprove it without changing the world.
Good Luck!

Perhaps if you could find a controlled study?


"Dan Truesdell" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Dude wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> >
> > Perhaps, but what about the argument that escalating college costs are a
> > direct result of too much government subsidy. Why did he need college,
> > because he didn't get an adequate high school education? Was this due
to
> > the effect of the liberalization of public schools?
>
> My high school was adequate, but one does not become a Mechanical
> Engineer without going to college. Many of the engineers I graduated
> with had some kind of public assistance. Think about this the next time
> your doctor orders a MRI to diagnose your ailment. It would be pretty
> tough to do if some of us that actually design and build the things you
> use everyday weren't motivated by something other than money.
>
> >
> > All this post points out is that the government has gotten way too
involved
> > in our lives without any supporting evidence that we would not be better
off
> > without that involvement. We don't know that the author would not have
been
> > better off without college.
>
> That's not the point. This was, and is, NOT about me! That is a
> selfish attitude, and one I choose not to take. When will there be a
> general realization that, for all of it's faults, the government
> intervention that you so quickly dismiss provides many necessary items
> that WE ALL use every day. There may be no supporting argument to say
> that WE are better off, but the opposite is not the case. There are
> many supporting arguments indicating that WE would be worse off if there
> were no government (read general public) intervention. The people that
> are fond of spouting that we "should let the Free Market Economy work
> (our fearless leader included) seem to forget that we have done this in
> the past. And it gave rise to things like Love Canal, horrible child
> labor situations, Company Stores, and Slavery. Please recognize that
> this government intervention that you speak of is exactly the
> intervention that brought these and many other horrific "features" of
> the "Free Market Economy" to an end.
>
> <snip>
>
> --
> Remove "2PLANES" to reply.
>

[Bob Noel]

In article >, "Tom Sixkiller"
> wrote:

> > Is there anyone that actually likes John Kerry? Believes in his
> > positions
> > on issues?
>
> Does John Kerry believe in John Kerry's position on issues?

absolutely, but...

--
Bob Noel

[Dan Truesdell]

Dude,

I'd be interested in taking this discussion off-line. (Great topic, but
hardly appropriate for these ng's. My apologies to the groups.) Please
respond to the address below if you like.

Thanks.

Dan

Dude wrote:
> Dan,
>
> You are in the fortunate position of pointing out the obvious. Yes many of
> the engineers are a result of public assistance. What we cannot know is
> would there be less or more of them without that assistance. We also cannot
> know how many of them had there creativity stifled in the process of
> becoming engineers. Not all inventors had formal engineering training after
> all.
>
> You have not even approached my argument.
>
> Of course, I am in the fortunate position of having an unassailable, ivory
> tower sort of argument. You cannot disprove it without changing the world.
> Good Luck!
>
> Perhaps if you could find a controlled study?
>

<snip>



--
Remove "2PLANES" to reply.

[Teacherjh]

>> What does marriage have to do with hospital visitation anyway?

There are many cases in which only "family" is permitted to visit, or to make
decisions on behalf of the patient. When you marry somebody you become part of
their family. I'll let you figure out the ramifications.

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Teacherjh" > wrote in message
...
>
> There are many cases in which only "family" is permitted to visit,
>

So the solution is to change marriage? Wouldn't a better solution be
changing the visitation policy?


>
> or to make decisions on behalf of the patient.
>

Wouldn't a power of attorney cover that situation?

[Andrew Gideon]

Dave Stadt wrote:

> Thank goodness we do not have a democracy.

It amazes me how few people really understand this, and the logic behind it.
The nonsense over Iraq is a good example. Everyone speaks of "Democracy in
Iraq" as if this were an absolute good.

Fortunately, the current administration in Iraq isn't quite as foolish as
they appear. They are working to put protection of minorities into the new
social fabric. I've doubts, though, that they can succeed w/o spending a
generation or two in place, and even that may not be enough.

After all, as I wrote above, few people even in the States understand this.
Of the few that do, many of these are against it. The idea of "judges
don't make law", aside from displaying a lack of understanding of common
law, presumes that the democratically elected officials (representing "the
majority") are pretty much free to pass any law.

We here should be especially sensitive to this. The majority would be happy
to do away with GA. In the scheme of things (ie. as compared to other
mandates that would pass a majority poll), this is but a small thing. But
I'd hope it would be enough to sensitize GA participants to the dangers
when the majority is permitted to impose their own moral code - or even
noise preferences - upon the minority in an unlimited way.

- Andrew

[Andrew Gideon]

G.R. Patterson III wrote:

>
>
> Newps wrote:
>>
>> So, federally, the question has to be answered.
>
> Federally, it has been answered. And your State WILL toe the line if
> someone married in California moves there and files suit in Federal court.

Right. That's why I don't see the problem that's supposedly outstanding.
Be it marriage license or driving license, the states are mandated to
recognize licensing by other states.

So...where's the problem?

- Andrew

[Andrew Gideon]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

>
> "Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
> online.com...
>>
>> I'd love for this to be so, but the evidence claims otherwise. Why is a
>> conservative administration against the right of people to marry?
>>
>
> It isn't.

You cannot see it because you only know what you know, and you refuse to
acknowledge that anything you don't understand can be right. By
definition, unfortunately, you're stuck in your own small-minded little
world.

I know this because in another post you wrote:

Of course, if they made real sense, they'd make sense to me.

Not only is that arrogant, but it's incredibly childish. Tough as it may be
for you to believe, you are not the center of any universe but your own.

>
>
>>
>> I can see their rational in the case of abortion, even if I don't
>> agree. But not even a single cell is harmed if a same-sex
>> couple marries. Why would anyone care?
>>
>
> Because if the meaning of marriage is altered, assuming for the sake of
> argument government has that authority, then every marriage is altered.

I could see your reasoning were marriage being redfined in such a way that
some set of people marriaged pre-redefinition would be not married
post-redefinition.

That's not the case.

Did the right to vote change when it was granted to those not white
landowners?

>
>
>>
>> Why, under a supposedly conservative administration, have we
>> American citizens held in violation of the law merely by defining them
>> as soldiers in a foreign army? Yes, deal with them. But deal with
>> them in a fashion consistent with our values...or give up the claim to
>> being "for freedom".
>>
>
> What the hell are you talking about?

Either you don't follow the news (ie. cases before the US Supreme Court) or
you're playing one of your pedantic games. I don't care which, frankly.

- Andrew

[Andrew Gideon]

Tom Sixkiller wrote:

>> Since conservative philosophy precludes judicial activism there can be no
>> "conservative activist judges".
>>
> Ah....yeah, okie dokie.

No, he's not being his usual self here. He's right.

The problem is with the label. Those calling themselves conservative today
often fail any reasonable test. The current US administration is a perfect
example, with a history of actions that (for example) violate free market
(steel tariffs) and states' rights (education) principles.

I'm not sure what they should be called, but "conservative" is not
applicable.

Unfortunately.

- Andrew

[Andrew Gideon]

John Harlow wrote:

>>> Who are you to define "marriage" thusly?
>>>
>>
>> It's not my definition.
>
> It's not Merriam-Webster's either:
>
> (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband
> or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2)
> : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship
> like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage>

Interesting. The union of (1) and (2) still precludes several forms of
marriage that do or have existed.

I like how mw uses the phrase "traditional marriage" to cover what Steve and
those of his ilk would merely call "marriage", but it's not really
accurate. There are plenty of traditions that have included forms of
marriage with more than a pair of spouses.

- Andrew

[Andrew Gideon]

Martin Hotze wrote:

>
> welcome to r.a.p. :-)
>

To be fair, there's a lot of political turmoil around flying. TFRs, rabid
noise haters, illegal damage to runways, use tax, role of government in
ATC, lack of protection from TSA actions, ...

- Andrew

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
gonline.com...
>
> You cannot see it because you only know what you know, and
> you refuse to acknowledge that anything you don't understand
> can be right.
>

There is nothing about this issue that I do not understand.

[Teacherjh]

>>
> There are many cases in which only "family" is permitted to visit,

So the solution is to change marriage? Wouldn't a better solution be
changing the visitation policy?
<<

It's a single-point-of-contact solution. There are many hospitals that you or
your loved one might end up in, and changing all their policies is not an easy
task. It is porably not even possible to get taken seriously. What hospital
in (say) Montana is going to listen to somebody from Georgia who wants them to
change their policy just because one day they might break their leg while
chasing a cow?

There are many benefits that are conferred on "family", of which hospital
visitation is only one example. Some of these benefits are confered by law,
some by custom, and some by policy. It's a hodgepodge, but worked in the days
when everyone was pretty much the same.

Now that people live their lives in more diverse ways, the old rules don't
quite cover it all. When the mind and the customs expand, sometimes the rules
and words ought to also.

>>
> or to make decisions on behalf of the patient.

Wouldn't a power of attorney cover that situation?
<<

Yes, in that particular case, maybe, if the hospital chooses to accept such a
document, and the document is drawn up within the guidelines of the hospital,
and you happen to have the papers handy, and the business office is open and
willing to process the papers. Sometimes (personal experience) you have only
hours to have things settled to get permission to visit or talk to the doctor
or be locked out the front door while your loved one dies, and all it takes is
one social worker who got up on the wrong side of the bed to really mess you
up.

For an (imperfect) aviation correlary, consider the case of instrument approach
procedure design in Lower Grasslandia. DHs are set up by law to be 250 feet
above the highest "Official Obstacle" for that airport. Official Obstacles are
defined as buildings, towers, gantries, and other structures located within
1000 feet of the touchdown zone of any runway.

This works for many years, because grass does not grow higher than buildings.
But after one particular international flight, shrubs and trees started growing
near some airports. There was talk about banishing trees, but some people
liked them and planted them near their houses, despite their being viewed as
perverted. But still, instrument approaches had to be designed and modified.
Eventually each approach had a hodgepodge of exceptions, none of them at all
consistant with each other (and some not even consistant with safe operating
practices).

The simple solution is to amend the definition of "Official Obstacle" to
include trees, shrubs, despite the fact that they were "natural occurances" and
not manmade "obstacles". It expands the IDEA of an "obstacle" in ways that
Lower Grasslandia had not even considered, and there was an uproar, which runs
to this day.

Ultimately, people started putting parachutes into their airplanes in case they
ran into an unofficial obstacle-like protrusion, but that didn't really work
very well and it spawned endless debates on their equivalent of Usenet, which
used up all the ones and zeros and brought forth the collapse of their
civilization. That is why you can no longer find Lower Grasslandia on any
atlas.

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[leslie]

Andrew Gideon ) wrote:
: Tom Sixkiller wrote:
:
: >> Since conservative philosophy precludes judicial activism there can
: >> be no "conservative activist judges".
: >>
: > Ah....yeah, okie dokie.
:
: No, he's not being his usual self here. He's right.
:
: The problem is with the label. Those calling themselves conservative
: today often fail any reasonable test. The current US administration is
: a perfect example, with a history of actions that (for example) violate
: free market (steel tariffs) and states' rights (education) principles.
:
: I'm not sure what they should be called, but "conservative" is not
: applicable.
:
: Unfortunately.
:

The conservative* who supported gays in the military ("You don't have to
be straight to shoot straight") would probably be classified a liberal today.

A better term for neoconservatives is neo-Jacobins:

http://www.vdare.com/roberts/ryn.htm
VDARE.com: 10/21/03 - New Book Blasts America's Neo-Jacobins

"New Book Blasts America's Neo-Jacobins
By Paul Craig Roberts

Do you want to know why President George W. Bush's focus on the war
against terror was redirected to war against Iraq and the Muslim
Middle East? Read Professor Claes G. Ryn's new book, America the
Virtuous: Crisis of Democracy and the Quest for Empire.

Professor Ryn is a learned, insightful, and courageous scholar who
ably explains the ideas that are destroying our country.

These ideas are the property of neo-Jacobins. Professor Ryn calls the
ideas "a recipe for conflict and perpetual war." Neo-Jacobins are
known to Americans as neoconservatives, a clever euphemism behind
which hides a gang of radicals who stand outside of, and opposed to,
the American tradition. The US has been subverted from within as these
counterfeit conservatives hold the reins of power in the Bush
administration.

Professor Ryn shows that Jacobins have not a drop of conservative
blood in their veins. For example, the Jacobins' concept of morality
is abstract and ahistorical. It is a morality that is divorced from
the character of individuals and the traditions of a people.

Jacobins are seduced by power. The foundation of their abstract
morality is their fantastic claim to a monopoly on virtue. Secure in
their belief in their monopoly on virtue, Jacobins are prepared to use
force to impose virtue on other societies and to reconstruct other
societies in the Jacobin image.

Jacobin society is a centralized one that subordinates individuals and
their liberties to abstract virtues. In short, it is an ideological
society imbued with assurance of moral superiority that justifies its
dominance over others, including its own citizens.

Virtue gives Jacobins a mandate to rule the world in order to improve
it. Opposed to the American Republic that is based in traditional
morality and limits on power, the Jacobin agenda is to remake America
into an empire capable of imposing virtue on the world..."


The Bush administration's foreign policy is run by a group of men from
the Project for a New American Century:

http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm
Statement of Principles

"June 3, 1997

American foreign and defense policy is adrift. Conservatives have
criticized the incoherent policies of the Clinton Administration. They
have also resisted isolationist impulses from within their own ranks.
But conservatives have not confidently advanced a strategic vision of
America's role in the world. They have not set forth guiding
principles for American foreign policy. They have allowed differences
over tactics to obscure potential agreement on strategic objectives.
And they have not fought for a defense budget that would maintain
American security and advance American interests in the new century.

We aim to change this. We aim to make the case and rally support for
American global leadership

[snip]

Such a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity may not
be fashionable today. But it is necessary if the United States is to
build on the successes of this past century and to ensure our security
and our greatness in the next.

Elliott Abrams Gary Bauer William J. Bennett Jeb Bush
Dick Cheney Eliot A. Cohen Midge Decter Paula Dobriansky
Steve Forbes
Aaron Friedberg Francis Fukuyama Frank Gaffney Fred C. Ikle
Donald Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad I. Lewis Libby Norman Podhoretz
Dan Quayle Peter W. Rodman Stephen P. Rosen Henry S. Rowen
Donald Rumsfeld Vin Weber George Weigel Paul Wolfowitz"


--Jerry Leslie
Note: is invalid for email

* Barry Goldwater

[Andrew Gideon]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

>
> "Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
> gonline.com...
>>
>> You cannot see it because you only know what you know, and
>> you refuse to acknowledge that anything you don't understand
>> can be right.
>>
>
> There is nothing about this issue that I do not understand.

I'm fascinated by this idea. How do you prove to yourself that all you
understand is all there is to understand?

- Andrew

[Matt Whiting]

James Robinson wrote:
> Joe Young wrote:
>
>>James Robinson wrote:
>>
>>>Joe Young wrote:
>>>
>>>>Every poll shows the vast majority of the American public apposes
>>>>abortion. If that is the case in a democracy, shouldn't
>>>>the majority rule?
>>>
>>>I'm not sure what polls you are reading, but here is a link that shows
>>>the opposite, i.e. support for legal abortions at about 53 percent, and
>>>opposition at 43 percent. They state this has been the trend for at
>>>least the last decade.
>>>
>>>http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/poll010702.html
>>
>>This one seems to have some different stats?????........??
>>
>>http://christianparty.net/abortiongallup.htm
>
>
> I prefer ABC news as a less biased source than an advocacy group, thank
> you.

Was is ABC or CBS that staged the Chevy pickup truck exploding gas tank?
I don't trust any of the news organizations anymore. Almost every one
has been caught doing something like this when they can't get the real
data to match the outcome they desire to report.


Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>No originally.
>>
>
>
> Not originally? Of course it did. See article 1, section 8, clause 1.
>
>

Right you are. I thought this came into being with the 16th amendment.
That seems superfluous, given your reference above. Since article 1,
section 8, clause 1 seems pretty general with regard to taxation, I'm
now curious why the XVI amendment was necessary.

Matt

[James Robinson]

Matt Whiting wrote:
>
> James Robinson wrote:
> > Joe Young wrote:
> >
> >>James Robinson wrote:
> >>
> >>>Joe Young wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>Every poll shows the vast majority of the American public apposes
> >>>>abortion. If that is the case in a democracy, shouldn't
> >>>>the majority rule?
> >>>
> >>>I'm not sure what polls you are reading, but here is a link that shows
> >>>the opposite, i.e. support for legal abortions at about 53 percent, and
> >>>opposition at 43 percent. They state this has been the trend for at
> >>>least the last decade.
> >>>
> >>>http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/poll010702.html
> >>
> >>This one seems to have some different stats?????........??
> >>
> >>http://christianparty.net/abortiongallup.htm
> >
> >
> > I prefer ABC news as a less biased source than an advocacy group, thank
> > you.
>
> Was is ABC or CBS that staged the Chevy pickup truck exploding gas tank?

Neither. That was NBC.

> I don't trust any of the news organizations anymore. Almost every one
> has been caught doing something like this when they can't get the real
> data to match the outcome they desire to report.

You just have to be skeptical. At least there is an editorial board,
and they have to answer to the FCC. If you want manipulated data, just
look at any number of sites on internet, which don't have to answer to
anybody.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> >
> >
> > I prefer ABC news as a less biased source than an advocacy group, thank
> > you.
>
> Was is ABC or CBS that staged the Chevy pickup truck exploding gas tank?
> I don't trust any of the news organizations anymore. Almost every one
> has been caught doing something like this when they can't get the real
> data to match the outcome they desire to report.
>
That would include most every academic and government research group as
well.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"James Robinson" > wrote in message
...
> >
> > Was is ABC or CBS that staged the Chevy pickup truck exploding gas tank?
>
> Neither. That was NBC.
>
> > I don't trust any of the news organizations anymore. Almost every one
> > has been caught doing something like this when they can't get the real
> > data to match the outcome they desire to report.
>
> You just have to be skeptical. At least there is an editorial board,
> and they have to answer to the FCC.

They don't to the FCC for the factual content of the reports. Where di you
get that idea?

> If you want manipulated data, just
> look at any number of sites on internet, which don't have to answer to
> anybody.

The ones on the internet answer to the same people as the mainstream
media -- the market they serve, and their credibility is at stake. That
reputation is something that bureaucrats can neither enhance, nor destroy.

[Teacherjh]

>> They don't to the FCC for the factual content of the reports.

They answer to the FCC in broadcasting for the public good (or something like
that). Broadcasting falsities as true news would go against this and if enough
happens the FCC could get interested.

Jose


--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[Dave Stadt]

"James Robinson" > wrote in message
...
> Matt Whiting wrote:
> >
> > James Robinson wrote:
> > > Joe Young wrote:
> > >
> > >>James Robinson wrote:
> > >>
> > >>>Joe Young wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>>Every poll shows the vast majority of the American public apposes
> > >>>>abortion. If that is the case in a democracy, shouldn't
> > >>>>the majority rule?
> > >>>
> > >>>I'm not sure what polls you are reading, but here is a link that
shows
> > >>>the opposite, i.e. support for legal abortions at about 53 percent,
and
> > >>>opposition at 43 percent. They state this has been the trend for at
> > >>>least the last decade.
> > >>>
> > >>>http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/poll010702.html
> > >>
> > >>This one seems to have some different stats?????........??
> > >>
> > >>http://christianparty.net/abortiongallup.htm
> > >
> > >
> > > I prefer ABC news as a less biased source than an advocacy group,
thank
> > > you.
> >
> > Was is ABC or CBS that staged the Chevy pickup truck exploding gas tank?
>
> Neither. That was NBC.
>
> > I don't trust any of the news organizations anymore. Almost every one
> > has been caught doing something like this when they can't get the real
> > data to match the outcome they desire to report.
>
> You just have to be skeptical. At least there is an editorial board,
> and they have to answer to the FCC.

Unless it involves a boob the FCC could care less what the networks
broadcast. They certainly do not monitor them for news accuracy. Most so
called news programs are actually entertainment programs.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
>
> Was is ABC or CBS that staged the Chevy pickup truck exploding
> gas tank? I don't trust any of the news organizations anymore.
> Almost every one has been caught doing something like this when
> they can't get the real data to match the outcome they desire to
> report.
>

That was "Dateline NBC".

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
>
> Right you are. I thought this came into being with the 16th amendment.
> That seems superfluous, given your reference above. Since article 1,
> section 8, clause 1 seems pretty general with regard to taxation, I'm
> now curious why the XVI amendment was necessary.
>

The 16th amendment was needed to allow a direct tax on income. Article 1,
section 2, clause 3 required direct taxes to be apportioned. The 16th
amendment states; "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on
incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the
several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

[leslie]

Teacherjh ) wrote:
: >> They don't to the FCC for the factual content of the reports.
:
: They answer to the FCC in broadcasting for the public good (or something
: like that). Broadcasting falsities as true news would go against this
: and if enough happens the FCC could get interested.
:
: Jose
:

A Florida appellate court ruled that the media can legally lie.
Fox Television's attorneys argued that Fox's right to lie is
protected by Fox's First Ammendment rights:

http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2003/08/269899.shtml
portland imc - 2003.08.16 - Appellate Court Rules Media Can Legally Lie

"Appellate Court Rules Media Can Legally Lie
author: FYI

On February 14, a Florida Appeals court ruled there is absolutely
nothing illegal about lying, concealing or distorting information by a
major press organization.

Appellate Court Rules Media Can Legally Lie.
By Mike Gaddy
Published 02. 28. 03 at 19:31 Sierra Time

On February 14, a Florida Appeals court ruled there is absolutely
nothing illegal about lying, concealing or distorting information by a
major press organization. The court reversed the $425,000 jury verdict
in favor of journalist Jane Akre who charged she was pressured by Fox
Television management and lawyers to air what she knew and documented
to be false information. The ruling basically declares it is
technically not against any law, rule, or regulation to deliberately
lie or distort the news on a television broadcast.

On August 18, 2000, a six-person jury was unanimous in its conclusion
that Akre was indeed fired for threatening to report the station's
pressure to broadcast what jurors decided was "a false, distorted, or
slanted" story about the widespread use of growth hormone in dairy
cows. The court did not dispute the heart of Akre's claim, that Fox
pressured her to broadcast a false story to protect the broadcaster
from having to defend the truth in court, as well as suffer the ire of
irate advertisers.

Fox argued from the first, and failed on three separate occasions, in
front of three different judges, to have the case tossed out on the
grounds there is no hard, fast, and written rule against deliberate
distortion of the news. The attorneys for Fox, owned by media baron
Rupert Murdock, argued the First Amendment gives broadcasters the
right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on the public
airwaves.

In its six-page written decision, the Court of Appeals held that the
Federal Communications Commission position against news distortion is
only a "policy," not a promulgated law, rule, or regulation.
Fox aired a report after the ruling saying it was "totally vindicated"
by the verdict."

The following article gives the story of how corporations came to have
"personhood":

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0101-07.htm
Now Corporations Claim The "Right To Lie"

--Jerry Leslie
Note: is invalid for email

[Teacherjh]

>>
In its six-page written decision, the Court of Appeals held that the
Federal Communications Commission position against news distortion is
only a "policy,"
<<

Slightly different from what I said. It might not be against the law (with
attendant consequences) but when license revision comes up for review, I don't
think the feds are prohibited from considering whether or not lying is in the
public good, which broadcasters promise to uphold in exchange for using the
(limited public) airwaves.

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[Otis Winslow]

But only to the extent needed to support government operations. The problem
is all this charity crap and illegal redistribution of our assets.


"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > No originally.
> >
>
> Not originally? Of course it did. See article 1, section 8, clause 1.
>
>

[Newps]

"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Newps" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
> > online.com...
> >
> >
> > > Then why is the state involved in education at all, in your opinion?
Or
> > is
> > > that too a mistake?
> >
> > The state should be involved, the feds should not. Total waste of
money.
> >
> Why should the state be involved, either?

It's more local and that's how a lot of us fund education.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Newps" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Newps" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
> > > online.com...
> > >
> > >
> > > > Then why is the state involved in education at all, in your opinion?
> Or
> > > is
> > > > that too a mistake?
> > >
> > > The state should be involved, the feds should not. Total waste of
> money.
> > >
> > Why should the state be involved, either?
>
> It's more local and that's how a lot of us fund education.
>
You say that's what IS, but not why it should be that way (that government
be involved at all).

[none]

>
> Really? Every poll I've seen supports abortion.
>
>

Have you noticed that the only people that advocate abortion are those that
have already been born?

-Doug

[Peter Gottlieb]

"none" > wrote in message
...
>
> Have you noticed that the only people that advocate abortion are those
that
> have already been born?
>
> -Doug


I love it how most discussion on the subject is done by men, who by some
coincidence, have never gone through pregnancy and childbirth.

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 05:07:53 GMT, none > wrote
in Message-Id: >:

>
>>
>> Really? Every poll I've seen supports abortion.
>>
>>
>
>Have you noticed that the only people that advocate abortion are those that
>have already been born?
>
>-Doug

Have you noticed that those who oppose abortion the most publicly are
the baby brokers who stand to profit from adoption fees?


--

Irrational beliefs ultimately lead to irrational acts.
-- Larry Dighera,

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> Have you noticed that those who oppose abortion the most publicly are
> the baby brokers who stand to profit from adoption fees?
>

No.

[Jim Weir]

Back in those radical '60s, I was in a debate on abortion. A bishop asked one
of the debaters, a young lady, when she was going to give up her heretical
stance on abortion.

The answer came back, quick as a wink, "When either you or the Pope gets
pregnant."

{;-)

Jim



"Peter Gottlieb" >
shared these priceless pearls of wisdom:

->
->"none" > wrote in message
...
->>
->> Have you noticed that the only people that advocate abortion are those
->that
->> have already been born?
->>
->> -Doug
->
->
->I love it how most discussion on the subject is done by men, who by some
->coincidence, have never gone through pregnancy and childbirth.
->

Jim Weir (A&P/IA, CFI, & other good alphabet soup)
VP Eng RST Pres. Cyberchapter EAA Tech. Counselor
http://www.rst-engr.com

[TTA Cherokee Driver]

Peter Gottlieb wrote:

> "none" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Have you noticed that the only people that advocate abortion are those
>
> that
>
>>have already been born?
>>
>>-Doug
>
>
>
> I love it how most discussion on the subject is done by men, who by some
> coincidence, have never gone through pregnancy and childbirth.
>

How is that any different from the fact that for the most part the
people who decided to start our most recent war, avoided military
service themselves?

Hmm, seems to be a pattern developing here.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Jim Weir" > wrote in message
...
> Back in those radical '60s, I was in a debate on abortion. A bishop asked
one
> of the debaters, a young lady, when she was going to give up her heretical
> stance on abortion.
>
> The answer came back, quick as a wink, "When either you or the Pope gets
> pregnant."
>
> {;-)

Latter day Immaculate Conception, huh? ;~}>

[Tom Sixkiller]

"TTA Cherokee Driver" > wrote in message
...
>
> How is that any different from the fact that for the most part the
> people who decided to start our most recent war, avoided military
> service themselves?

From what I've heard, Saddam Hussein was in the military, but Osama bin
Laden never was.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"TTA Cherokee Driver" > wrote in message
...
>
> How is that any different from the fact that for the most part the
> people who decided to start our most recent war, avoided military
> service themselves?
>

How did you figure that?

[Doug]

Larry Dighera > wrote in
:

> On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 05:07:53 GMT, none > wrote
> in Message-Id: >:
>
>>
>>>
>>> Really? Every poll I've seen supports abortion.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Have you noticed that the only people that advocate abortion are those
>>that have already been born?
>>
>>-Doug
>
> Have you noticed that those who oppose abortion the most publicly are
> the baby brokers who stand to profit from adoption fees?
>
>
> --
>
> Irrational beliefs ultimately lead to irrational acts.
> -- Larry Dighera,

Your Wrong... and a liar..

[none]

>
> How is that any different from the fact that for the most part the
> people who decided to start our most recent war, avoided military
> service themselves?
>
> Hmm, seems to be a pattern developing here.
>

Since there is no Military requirment to be President your statment is
inflamatory and un-just.

Tell us.. have you ever put your name on that line and signed up to take
a bullet for the freedoms that you enjoy today?

I have, Veteran of '91 Gulf War.... Same war where the UN told us that
the Iraq border was the stopping line and we couldnt go anyfarther..Iraq
said thanks by filling mass graves (400,000+ dead counted so far),
provinding 15,000 US dollars (UN Aid money) to each of the families of
successful Palenstine terrorists (Murders), medical care for AlQueda
(Zarqaui).. and the list goes on and on....

We in '91, put the people of Kuwait on the long list of Nations that
the US has freed from tyranny and now our Military and President can say
that they have freed another 25 million Iraqi people from the death grip
of a Tyrant.

So these "people" that have never served in the military and are
starting wars so far by my count have given freedom and the chance to
live without fear of being raped,tortured or murdered to approx 50-60
MILLION people.

its asses like you that destroy the good that this country is doing, you
state faceless, factless accusations and spit on the very freedoms that
people around the world are dying to get to each day. You are a sick
individual

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"none" > wrote in message
...
> >
> > How is that any different from the fact that for the most part the
> > people who decided to start our most recent war, avoided military
> > service themselves?
> >
> > Hmm, seems to be a pattern developing here.
> >
>
> Since there is no Military requirment to be President your statment is
> inflamatory and un-just.
>

Well, since the current President did serve in the military he clearly was
not referring to him.

[EDR]

This coming from an anonymous poster...

In article >, none
> wrote:

> Since there is no Military requirment to be President your statment is
> inflamatory and un-just.
>
> Tell us.. have you ever put your name on that line and signed up to take
> a bullet for the freedoms that you enjoy today?
>
> I have, Veteran of '91 Gulf War.... Same war where the UN told us that
> the Iraq border was the stopping line and we couldnt go anyfarther..Iraq
> said thanks by filling mass graves (400,000+ dead counted so far),
> provinding 15,000 US dollars (UN Aid money) to each of the families of
> successful Palenstine terrorists (Murders), medical care for AlQueda
> (Zarqaui).. and the list goes on and on....
>
> We in '91, put the people of Kuwait on the long list of Nations that
> the US has freed from tyranny and now our Military and President can say
> that they have freed another 25 million Iraqi people from the death grip
> of a Tyrant.
>
> So these "people" that have never served in the military and are
> starting wars so far by my count have given freedom and the chance to
> live without fear of being raped,tortured or murdered to approx 50-60
> MILLION people.
>
> its asses like you that destroy the good that this country is doing, you
> state faceless, factless accusations and spit on the very freedoms that
> people around the world are dying to get to each day. You are a sick
> individual

[Matt Whiting]

Peter Gottlieb wrote:

> "none" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Have you noticed that the only people that advocate abortion are those
>
> that
>
>>have already been born?
>>
>>-Doug
>
>
>
> I love it how most discussion on the subject is done by men, who by some
> coincidence, have never gone through pregnancy and childbirth.
>
>

So you are saying that only women can recognize murder?


Matt

[No Such User]

In article >, TTA Cherokee Driver wrote:
>
>How is that any different from the fact that for the most part the
>people who decided to start our most recent war, avoided military
>service themselves?
>
>Hmm, seems to be a pattern developing here.
>
Here's a pattern for you: of all the major leaders in World War II, only
one was a combat veteran. Which one was he? Hint: his first name was Adolf.

So what does prior military service do for a political leader? Use the
aforementioned Adolf as a case in your essay.

[G.R. Patterson III]

monitor point seven wrote:
>
> In article >,
> none > wrote:
>
> > >
> > > Really? Every poll I've seen supports abortion.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Have you noticed that the only people that advocate abortion are those that
> > have already been born?
>
> That is the lamest rejoinder I've ever read.

Stolen from Pogo circa 1960.

George Patterson
None of us is as dumb as all of us.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"EDR" > wrote in message
...
>
> This coming from an anonymous poster...

So?

Attack the argument, not the poster.


>
> In article >, none
> > wrote:
>
> > Since there is no Military requirment to be President your statment is
> > inflamatory and un-just.
> >
> > Tell us.. have you ever put your name on that line and signed up to take
> > a bullet for the freedoms that you enjoy today?
> >
> > I have, Veteran of '91 Gulf War.... Same war where the UN told us that
> > the Iraq border was the stopping line and we couldnt go anyfarther..Iraq
> > said thanks by filling mass graves (400,000+ dead counted so far),
> > provinding 15,000 US dollars (UN Aid money) to each of the families of
> > successful Palenstine terrorists (Murders), medical care for AlQueda
> > (Zarqaui).. and the list goes on and on....
> >
> > We in '91, put the people of Kuwait on the long list of Nations that
> > the US has freed from tyranny and now our Military and President can say
> > that they have freed another 25 million Iraqi people from the death grip
> > of a Tyrant.
> >
> > So these "people" that have never served in the military and are
> > starting wars so far by my count have given freedom and the chance to
> > live without fear of being raped,tortured or murdered to approx 50-60
> > MILLION people.
> >
> > its asses like you that destroy the good that this country is doing, you
> > state faceless, factless accusations and spit on the very freedoms that
> > people around the world are dying to get to each day. You are a sick
> > individual

[Tom Sixkiller]

"No Such User" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, TTA Cherokee Driver wrote:
> >
> >How is that any different from the fact that for the most part the
> >people who decided to start our most recent war, avoided military
> >service themselves?
> >
> >Hmm, seems to be a pattern developing here.
> >
> Here's a pattern for you: of all the major leaders in World War II, only
> one was a combat veteran. Which one was he? Hint: his first name was
Adolf.

Well, so was Winston (Boer War), so was Benito, so were all the Japanese
leaders...

> So what does prior military service do for a political leader? Use the
> aforementioned Adolf as a case in your essay.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"No Such User" > wrote in message
...
>
> Here's a pattern for you: of all the major leaders in World War II, only
> one was a combat veteran. Which one was he? Hint: his first name
> was Adolf.
>

Churchill and Truman were combat veterans.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
...
>
> Well, so was Winston (Boer War), so was Benito, so were all the Japanese
> leaders...
>

Churchill was a combat veteran, but not in the Boer War. His army career
included fighting at Omdurman in 1898 with the Nile Expeditionary Force.
During the Boer War he was a correspondent for a London newspaper.

I believe Mussolini was conscripted in to the Italian army but was injured
in training and released without ever seeing combat.

[OtisWinslow]

>
> So?
>
> Attack the argument, not the poster.
>
>

Attacking the poster is for when you have nothing to attack
the argument with. Consider the source.

[The Weiss Family]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 05:07:53 GMT, none > wrote
> in Message-Id: >:
>
> >
> >>
> >> Really? Every poll I've seen supports abortion.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Have you noticed that the only people that advocate abortion are those
that
> >have already been born?
> >
> >-Doug
>
> Have you noticed that those who oppose abortion the most publicly are
> the baby brokers who stand to profit from adoption fees?
>
>
> --
>
> Irrational beliefs ultimately lead to irrational acts.
> -- Larry Dighera,

All emotions on this issue aside.
When I was younger I really leaned toward the pro-choice side.
Now that I have children (three beautiful angels), I don't understand how I
ever felt that way.
From the first ultrasound, I fell in love with my children.
In MY OPINION, babies are babies, and gifts from heaven.

[S Green]

"The Weiss Family" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 05:07:53 GMT, none > wrote
> > in Message-Id: >:
> >
> > >
> > >>
> > >> Really? Every poll I've seen supports abortion.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >Have you noticed that the only people that advocate abortion are those
> that
> > >have already been born?
> > >
> > >-Doug
> >
> > Have you noticed that those who oppose abortion the most publicly are
> > the baby brokers who stand to profit from adoption fees?
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > Irrational beliefs ultimately lead to irrational acts.
> > -- Larry Dighera,
>
> All emotions on this issue aside.
> When I was younger I really leaned toward the pro-choice side.
> Now that I have children (three beautiful angels), I don't understand how
I
> ever felt that way.
> From the first ultrasound, I fell in love with my children.
> In MY OPINION, babies are babies, and gifts from heaven.

You need a biology lesson

[Jack]

On 6/19/04 2:49 AM, in article , "S Green"
> wrote:


> "The Weiss Family" > wrote:

>> In MY OPINION, babies are babies, and gifts from heaven.
>
> You need a biology lesson

And you need a heart transplant.

Vital organs for transplant are often transported by aircraft -- how
appropriate to this newsgroup!



Jack

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 21:32:56 -0700, "The Weiss Family"
> wrote in Message-Id:
>:

>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>> On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 05:07:53 GMT, none > wrote
>> in Message-Id: >:
>>
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Really? Every poll I've seen supports abortion.
>> >>
>> >
>> >Have you noticed that the only people that advocate abortion are those
>that have already been born?
>> >
>> >-Doug
>>
>> Have you noticed that those who oppose abortion the most publicly are
>> the baby brokers who stand to profit from adoption fees?
>
>All emotions on this issue aside.

That is a noble goal, but you mention: "I fell in love with my
children." I would characterize 'love' as an emotion.

>When I was younger I really leaned toward the pro-choice side.

Because new-borns require, not only an enormous amount of parental
time for nurturing, but they also require a stable home environment
for decades if a healthy person is to develop, likely, you were
unable/unwilling to provide either at that time, and your leanings
were appropriate for that time in your life.

Who wants to have their offspring born into unfit conditions? Not a
healthy minded person.

>Now that I have children (three beautiful angels), I don't understand how I
>ever felt that way.

Children are marvelous. However we are not discussing aborting
CHILDREN. Children are already outside the womb. Life inside the
womb is referred to as a zygote, embryo or fetus.

>From the first ultrasound, I fell in love with my children.

Your fetus was not a child nor infant, and prior to three months it's
not even a fetus, it's an embryo:

Merriam-Webster:
Main Entry:embryo
Pronunciation:*em-br*-**
Function:noun
Inflected Form:plural embryos
Etymology:Medieval Latin embryon-, embryo, from Greek embryon,
from en- + bryein to swell; akin to Greek bryon catkin
Date:1548

1 a archaic : a vertebrate at any stage of development prior to
birth or hatching b : an animal in the early stages of growth and
differentiation that are characterized by cleavage, the laying
down of fundamental tissues, and the formation of primitive organs
and organ systems; especially : the developing human individual
from the time of implantation to the end of the eighth week after
conception
2 : the young sporophyte of a seed plant usually comprising a
rudimentary plant with plumule, radicle, and cotyledons
3 a : something as yet undeveloped b : a beginning or undeveloped
state of something

>In MY OPINION, babies are babies, and gifts from heaven.

An embryo or fetus is not a baby nor infant. Such a misconception (no
pun intended) is illogical and often used by those who wish to
influence others into accepting their views through the use of emotion
instead of rational thought.



--

Irrational beliefs ultimately lead to irrational acts.
-- Larry Dighera,

[Peter Gottlieb]

"The Weiss Family" > wrote in message
...
>
> In MY OPINION, babies are babies, and gifts from heaven.
>


That's great, and I respect how you feel.

What bothers me is when people attempt to get their feelings and religious
beliefs incorporated into law so that everyone must abide by them. On any
significant controversial issue today each side has valid points - that is
why the issue hasn't been resolved. Making laws will not resolve anything
and my leaning is to have as little governmental interference (i.e., laws)
as possible.

[The Weiss Family]

"Peter Gottlieb" > wrote in message
et...
>
> "The Weiss Family" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > In MY OPINION, babies are babies, and gifts from heaven.
> >
>
>
> That's great, and I respect how you feel.
>
> What bothers me is when people attempt to get their feelings and religious
> beliefs incorporated into law so that everyone must abide by them. On any
> significant controversial issue today each side has valid points - that is
> why the issue hasn't been resolved. Making laws will not resolve anything
> and my leaning is to have as little governmental interference (i.e., laws)
> as possible.
>
>

I respect your opinion as well.
Obviously I have strong feelings on this issue, but that is why I prefaced
my response with "all emotions on this issue aside."
I completely agree that this issue will never be resolved.
All of us are (hopefully) good people, and we must all do what we believe to
be right.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> Because new-borns require, not only an enormous amount of parental
> time for nurturing, but they also require a stable home environment
> for decades if a healthy person is to develop, likely, you were
> unable/unwilling to provide either at that time, and your leanings
> were appropriate for that time in your life.
>
> Who wants to have their offspring born into unfit conditions? Not a
> healthy minded person.
>

Right. Someone should invent something that could prevent conception.


>
> Children are marvelous. However we are not discussing aborting
> CHILDREN. Children are already outside the womb. Life inside the
> womb is referred to as a zygote, embryo or fetus.
>

It's all the same. Abortion is murder.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Peter Gottlieb" > wrote in message
et...
>
> That's great, and I respect how you feel.
>
> What bothers me is when people attempt to get their feelings and religious
> beliefs incorporated into law so that everyone must abide by them. On any
> significant controversial issue today each side has valid points - that is
> why the issue hasn't been resolved. Making laws will not resolve anything
> and my leaning is to have as little governmental interference (i.e., laws)
> as possible.
>

Exactly. For example, it may be your religious belief that it's wrong to
take the life of another human being without provocation. But someone else
may have no such belief. So there should be no law against murder.

[Teacherjh]

>> It's all the same. Abortion is murder.

Abortion is killing. Killing is not always murder.

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[Larry Dighera]

On 19 Jun 2004 19:26:59 GMT, (Teacherjh)
wrote in Message-Id: >:

>Killing is not always murder.

Oh, you mean like the 150+ executions that occurred in Texas while the
current US president was governor of that state?
--

Irrational beliefs ultimately lead to irrational acts.
-- Larry Dighera,

[G.R. Patterson III]

Larry Dighera wrote:
>
> On 19 Jun 2004 19:26:59 GMT, (Teacherjh)
> wrote in Message-Id: >:
>
> >Killing is not always murder.
>
> Oh, you mean like the 150+ executions that occurred in Texas while the
> current US president was governor of that state?

That's one example, yes.

George Patterson
None of us is as dumb as all of us.

[Teacherjh]

>>
Oh, you mean like the 150+ executions that occurred in Texas while the
current US president was governor of that state?
<<

Killing is not always not murder.

I did not specify which killing was and which killing was not.

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[Larry Dighera]

On 19 Jun 2004 22:24:16 GMT, (Teacherjh)
wrote in Message-Id: >:

>I did not specify which killing was and which killing was not.


That is clear, and the reason I asked the question of you. From your
less than informative reply, I will conclude that you decline further
clarification of when you meant to imply.




--

Irrational beliefs ultimately lead to irrational acts.
-- Larry Dighera,

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Teacherjh" > wrote in message
...
>
> Abortion is killing. Killing is not always murder.
>

The overwhelming majority of abortions are murder.

[Teacherjh]

>> The overwhelming majority of abortions are murder.

Some isn't all. Even "most" isn't all. And all is is.

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Teacherjh" > wrote in message
...
>
> Some isn't all. Even "most" isn't all. And all is is.
>

That's the kind of response we've come to expect from you. It's good to
know some things in this world never change.

[G.R. Patterson III]

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:
>
> The overwhelming majority of abortions are murder.

Murder is a legal definition made by the State. NOT by you. Abortions are NOT murder.

George Patterson
None of us is as dumb as all of us.

[Teacherjh]

>>
>I did not specify which killing was and which killing was not.

That is clear, and the reason I asked the question of you. From your
less than informative reply, I will conclude that you decline further
clarification of when you meant to imply.
<<

Yes, I decline to elaborate (as to exactly which killings constitute murder)
because
1: it is not relevant to the newsgroup. (in fact, even this post is way OT)
2: it would serve primatily to inflame rather than inform, because there is no
"line" between good and evil, just a gradation (and sometimes it's not even
that clear)
3: the answer (or my answer anyway) isn't interesting, rather, the reasoning
that leads to the conclusion is what is interesting. That discussion can go on
forever.

My main point was just that the question isn't as simple as the answer that was
presented.

Jose


--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[Teacherjh]

>>
> Some isn't all. Even "most" isn't all. And all is is.

That's the kind of response we've come to expect from you. It's good to
know some things in this world never change.
<<

Only to your posts. :)

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
> Murder is a legal definition made by the State. NOT by you. Abortions
> are NOT murder.
>

I suppose in the strictest sense they're not, as the purpose of the abortion
is just to terminate a pregnancy. But as every effective method of abortion
tends to result in the death of a human being there's no question that
abortion is murder.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Murder is a legal definition made by the State. NOT by you. Abortions
> > are NOT murder.
> >
>
> I suppose in the strictest sense they're not, as the purpose of the
abortion
> is just to terminate a pregnancy. But as every effective method of
abortion
> tends to result in the death of a human being there's no question that
> abortion is murder.

Except a fetus is not a human being...it's a fetus. A human being is an
autonomous being and a fetus is just the opposite.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
...
>
> Except a fetus is not a human being...it's a fetus. A human being is an
> autonomous being and a fetus is just the opposite.
>

In humans, a fetus is the unborn young from the end of the eighth week after
conception to the moment of birth, as distinguished from the earlier embryo.
A fetus is a human being.

[Larry Dighera]

On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 03:41:19 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote in Message-Id:
et>:

>In humans, a fetus is the unborn young from the end of the eighth week after
>conception to the moment of birth

Can you cite an authoritative source for that notion?


--

Irrational beliefs ultimately lead to irrational acts.
-- Larry Dighera,

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Except a fetus is not a human being...it's a fetus. A human being is an
> > autonomous being and a fetus is just the opposite.
> >
>
> In humans, a fetus is the unborn young from the end of the eighth week
after
> conception to the moment of birth, as distinguished from the earlier
embryo.

Nice lesson in biology, but totally irrelevant.

> A fetus is a human being.

A fetus is a fetus and will remain a fetus until it's an autonomous being.
Prior to that, it's an appendage of the mother.

You can call a leg and arm, but until it has fingers rather than toes, it's
still a leg. The operative word here, in a legal, rather than biological
sense, is AUTOMOMOUS.

[The Weiss Family]

Webster says autonomous is:
a : existing or capable of existing independently

By this definition, a baby is not autonomous since it relies completely on
its mother for shelter and nourishment for many months after its born. Just
as it does before it is born.


"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> >
> > "Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > Except a fetus is not a human being...it's a fetus. A human being is
an
> > > autonomous being and a fetus is just the opposite.
> > >
> >
> > In humans, a fetus is the unborn young from the end of the eighth week
> after
> > conception to the moment of birth, as distinguished from the earlier
> embryo.
>
> Nice lesson in biology, but totally irrelevant.
>
> > A fetus is a human being.
>
> A fetus is a fetus and will remain a fetus until it's an autonomous being.
> Prior to that, it's an appendage of the mother.
>
> You can call a leg and arm, but until it has fingers rather than toes,
it's
> still a leg. The operative word here, in a legal, rather than biological
> sense, is AUTOMOMOUS.
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Bob Noel]

In article >, "Tom Sixkiller"
> wrote:

> > A fetus is a human being.
>
> A fetus is a fetus and will remain a fetus until it's an autonomous
> being.
> Prior to that, it's an appendage of the mother.

A fetus is most definitely not an appendage of the mother.
It is a genetically distinct entity. Whether people want
to deny or extend rights to that entity is the root of
the abortion debate.

--
Bob Noel

[Peter Gottlieb]

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
>
> A fetus is most definitely not an appendage of the mother.
> It is a genetically distinct entity. Whether people want
> to deny or extend rights to that entity is the root of
> the abortion debate.
>


It is also related to "rights" and the balance of those rights. One way to
look at it is that it starts out with the mother only having rights and then
as time and the process progresses the other entity has increasing rights.
As has been mentioned before, giving one entity rights frequently means some
other entity loses some rights and this is a good example of that. Society
and government frequently defines some (perhaps arbitrary) point where the
entity has as many, if not sometimes more, rights than the mother.
Religious background plays a big part in the determination of where this
point lies, with some religions saying it is at fertilization. This makes
it a balance of rights issue and there is no universally "right" answer. I
am, however, against the government making laws based on one particular
religious belief. If a huge percentage of people are devout followers of
that religious belief and its tenets then the primary reason for such laws
must be either to enforce that religious belief on either followers who wish
to have an exemption or to force the issue on followers of alternate belief
systems, both of which seem like an overextension of the legitimate power of
government.

So, what does that say about my political orientation? Not much except that
I prefer smaller rather than bigger government, that I prefer fewer rather
than more laws, and that I want the absolute minimal amount of connection
between government and religion. I am neither conservative nor liberal,
neither Republican nor Democrat, and I want to make up my own mind on each
issue independant of the "party line." And, tomorrow I may feel
different...

[G.R. Patterson III]

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:
>
> "G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Murder is a legal definition made by the State. NOT by you. Abortions
> > are NOT murder.
> >
>
> I suppose in the strictest sense they're not, as the purpose of the abortion
> is just to terminate a pregnancy. But as every effective method of abortion
> tends to result in the death of a human being there's no question that
> abortion is murder.

Only the killing of a human being that is illegal is murder (and not all of those).
Since abortion is not illegal, it cannot be murder.

George Patterson
None of us is as dumb as all of us.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> "Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:
> >
> > "G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > Murder is a legal definition made by the State. NOT by you. Abortions
> > > are NOT murder.
> > >
> >
> > I suppose in the strictest sense they're not, as the purpose of the
abortion
> > is just to terminate a pregnancy. But as every effective method of
abortion
> > tends to result in the death of a human being there's no question that
> > abortion is murder.
>
> Only the killing of a human being that is illegal is murder (and not all
of those).
> Since abortion is not illegal, it cannot be murder.
>
Well...DUH!!! :~)

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
...
>
> A fetus is a fetus and will remain a fetus until it's an autonomous being.
> Prior to that, it's an appendage of the mother.
>
> You can call a leg and arm, but until it has fingers rather than toes,
it's
> still a leg. The operative word here, in a legal, rather than biological
> sense, is AUTOMOMOUS.
>

The mother can move her leg at will, but she cannot move the baby's leg.
The baby moves at it's own will. A fetus is an autonomous human being.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
> Only the killing of a human being that is illegal is murder (and not all
of those).
> Since abortion is not illegal, it cannot be murder.
>

Says who?

[G.R. Patterson III]

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:
>
> "G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Only the killing of a human being that is illegal is murder (and not all
> of those).
> > Since abortion is not illegal, it cannot be murder.
> >
>
> Says who?

The Oxford English Dictionary and both American and British Common Law.

George Patterson
None of us is as dumb as all of us.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
> The Oxford English Dictionary and both American and British Common Law.
>

Are you sure? Yesterday you said murder is a legal definition made by the
State.

[G.R. Patterson III]

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:
>
> "G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > The Oxford English Dictionary and both American and British Common Law.
> >
>
> Are you sure? Yesterday you said murder is a legal definition made by the
> State.

Yes. It's defined in law. It's been defined in law for centuries. The OED echoes that
definition. The State determines what specific killings are illegal. For a killing to
be murder, the victim must be human, the killing must have been intentional, it must
have been premeditated, and it must be illegal. The State defines what is murder and
what is not.

George Patterson
None of us is as dumb as all of us.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
> Yes. It's defined in law. It's been defined in law for centuries. The
> OED echoes that definition. The State determines what specific killings
> are illegal. For a killing to be murder, the victim must be human, the
> killing must have been intentional, it must have been premeditated, and it
> must be illegal. The State defines what is murder and what is not.
>

So no State has ever defined murder to include the intentional dismemberment
of a fetus to be murder? So what's the big deal with Roe-v-Wade then?

[Bill Denton]

California, as usual, provides a perfect example of the hypocrisy in this
issue...

Look at the Scott Peterson case: he is charged with two counts of murder;
one in the death of his pregnant wife, a second in the death of the fetus.

But, in California, it is perfectly legal to abort a fetus, so a murder
charge would not be levied against an abortion provider...



"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Yes. It's defined in law. It's been defined in law for centuries. The
> > OED echoes that definition. The State determines what specific killings
> > are illegal. For a killing to be murder, the victim must be human, the
> > killing must have been intentional, it must have been premeditated, and
it
> > must be illegal. The State defines what is murder and what is not.
> >
>
> So no State has ever defined murder to include the intentional
dismemberment
> of a fetus to be murder? So what's the big deal with Roe-v-Wade then?
>
>

[G.R. Patterson III]

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:
>
> So no State has ever defined murder to include the intentional dismemberment
> of a fetus to be murder? So what's the big deal with Roe-v-Wade then?

Some States did at one time. Roe-v-Wade invalidated all of those laws.

George Patterson
None of us is as dumb as all of us.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
> Some States did at one time. Roe-v-Wade invalidated all of those laws.
>

Then murder is NOT a legal definition made by the State.

[G.R. Patterson III]

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:
>
> "G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Some States did at one time. Roe-v-Wade invalidated all of those laws.
> >
>
> Then murder is NOT a legal definition made by the State.

YES IT IS. Countries are States.

George Patterson
None of us is as dumb as all of us.

[Doug]

EDR > wrote in
:

>
> This coming from an anonymous poster...
>

You may need to meet a hot lonely girl with your cheapest viagra on the net
but but I do not (for simpletons read: SpAm).. You got something to say to
me .. say it here...

[Doug]

> Oh, you mean like the 150+ executions that occurred in Texas while the
> current US president was governor of that state?
> --

150 individuals found GUILTY of a CAPITOL crime by a JURY of their PEERS
that invoked the LAW as PASSED by the PEOPLE which sent them to their
DEATH...

Damn glad a Govenor actually did the peoples will, I watched a comedian on
last night and he had a Texas bit that went something like....theres a sign
when you drive into texas with a guy in a Electric Chair and the caption
sayd "y'all dont **** up now.. ya hear!"..

while it was a joke it was a strong statement to those that want to commit
crimes in The Great State of Texas... they will deal with you!!.. instead
they goto California or NY where liberals will hug you for your murderous
and vilolent ways, Lord knows it couldn't be your fault....Public hangings
will go a long way! ;-)

[Doug]

(Teacherjh) wrote in
:

>>> The overwhelming majority of abortions are murder.
>
> Some isn't all. Even "most" isn't all. And all is is.
>
> Jose
>

Holy crap Bill Clinton posts in this group... a new definition of what
'is' is

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
> YES IT IS. Countries are States.
>

So murder in the US is a federal crime? It's outside the jurisdiction of
the States?

[Teacherjh]

>>
>>> The overwhelming majority of abortions are murder.
>
> Some isn't all. Even "most" isn't all. And all is is.
>
> Jose
>

Holy crap Bill Clinton posts in this group... a new definition of what
'is' is
<<

Read carefully. It's actually a definition of "all".

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[Peter Gottlieb]

"Doug" > wrote in message
...
>
> while it was a joke it was a strong statement to those that want to commit
> crimes in The Great State of Texas... they will deal with you!!.. instead
> they goto California or NY where liberals will hug you for your murderous
> and vilolent ways, Lord knows it couldn't be your fault....Public hangings
> will go a long way! ;-)
>

Your misconceptions are astounding.

That being said, the death penalty doesn't seem to be a very effective
deterrent anyhow.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> "Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:
> >
> > "G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > Some States did at one time. Roe-v-Wade invalidated all of those laws.
> > >
> >
> > Then murder is NOT a legal definition made by the State.
>
> YES IT IS. Countries are States.

I think he's confusing "States" with "states".

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > YES IT IS. Countries are States.
> >
>
> So murder in the US is a federal crime?

It can be.

But you're confusing "States" (as in United...) with "states" (a
governmental jurisdiction").

Every heard the term "statism"?

> It's outside the jurisdiction of
> the States?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Peter Gottlieb" > wrote in message
. net...
>
> Your misconceptions are astounding.
>
> That being said, the death penalty doesn't seem to be a very effective
> deterrent anyhow.
>

It's deterred everyone that's received it.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Peter Gottlieb" > wrote in message
. net...
>
> "Doug" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > while it was a joke it was a strong statement to those that want to
commit
> > crimes in The Great State of Texas... they will deal with you!!..
instead
> > they goto California or NY where liberals will hug you for your
murderous
> > and vilolent ways, Lord knows it couldn't be your fault....Public
hangings
> > will go a long way! ;-)
> >
>
> Your misconceptions are astounding.
>
> That being said, the death penalty doesn't seem to be a very effective
> deterrent anyhow.

Really?

Getting shot by potential victims is a deterrent (according to prison
interviews), but then the DP is so inconsistently invoked...

Two factors in any punishment are "consistency" and "certainty". Both those
are missing for the DP.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Peter Gottlieb" > wrote in message
> . net...
> >
> > Your misconceptions are astounding.
> >
> > That being said, the death penalty doesn't seem to be a very effective
> > deterrent anyhow.
> >
>
> It's deterred everyone that's received it.
>
The death penalty means never having to say "You again??".

[Peter Gottlieb]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Peter Gottlieb" > wrote in message
> . net...
> >
> > Your misconceptions are astounding.
> >
> > That being said, the death penalty doesn't seem to be a very effective
> > deterrent anyhow.
> >
>
> It's deterred everyone that's received it.
>

So is life without parole.

[Bill Denton]

Let me correct an obvious misperception you seem to have: people get killed
in prison, also!

Life without parole is not an absolute deterrent; the death penalty is...




"Peter Gottlieb" > wrote in message
. net...
>
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> >
> > "Peter Gottlieb" > wrote in message
> > . net...
> > >
> > > Your misconceptions are astounding.
> > >
> > > That being said, the death penalty doesn't seem to be a very effective
> > > deterrent anyhow.
> > >
> >
> > It's deterred everyone that's received it.
> >
>
> So is life without parole.
>
>

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Peter Gottlieb" > wrote in message
. net...
>
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> >
> > "Peter Gottlieb" > wrote in message
> > . net...
> > >
> > > Your misconceptions are astounding.
> > >
> > > That being said, the death penalty doesn't seem to be a very effective
> > > deterrent anyhow.
> > >
> >
> > It's deterred everyone that's received it.
> >
>
> So is life without parole.

You sure about that?

[Peter Gottlieb]

"Bill Denton" > wrote in message
...
> Let me correct an obvious misperception you seem to have: people get
killed
> in prison, also!
>
> Life without parole is not an absolute deterrent; the death penalty is...
>


Why do you believe that I think people don't get killed in prison?

It's not that I'm against the death penalty, it's just that I am frustrated
that it doesn't seem to work all that well as a deterrent.


I say, step out of line whatsoever, and get the death penalty. Everything.
Speeding, flying over gross, unsubstianted tax deductions, EVERYTHING. And
no friggin appeals either. Screw these prisons wasting my tax dollars.
Can't or won't live with our laws? Death. Don't like the religion of the
president, elected by THE PEOPLE? Death. This should also help with this
terrible traffic situation we have around here.