Leaving the community

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...
Richard Hertz wrote:

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...

But regardless, none of this is even required to show that you don't

require

religion to justify happiness. A simple global desire to be happy is
sufficient (if you have no such desire to be happy, you may have a hard

time

comprehending this, but it sure would explain some other things).
That's
why large groups of humans get together and agree to try to be happy
together, rather than killing and stealing from each other all the time.


I think a good argument can be made that one reason people kill and steal
stems from the desire to be happy. In this respect happiness (or the
desire
for happiness) could be a negative trait.


It makes no difference why they do it. Unless it is self defense it is
criminal. That has nothing to do with religion.

Criminal by whose standard? What if the majority decided that stealing
and killing were OK?

Majority has nothing to do with it, you are violating my right to my body
and property. If you accept the premise of laws, then certainly you must
accept that those two are the fundamental basis for government. Without
those it is anarchy.

Again, the point is that it has nothing to do with religion.


Matt

C J Campbell wrote:

snip

The Constitutional amendment would never have been needed if a small
number of judges had not decided, on their own and against the wishes of
the general public, to create a right where none had existed before. Now,
these judges are often elected by no one; they are political appointees.
They answer to no one. They simply have decided that no matter what the
laws or the Constitution say, they can simply order anything they want. I
happen to think that this is very dangerous to the rule of law.

This is a red herring. Judges rule on cases brought before them. This whole
'activist judges' argument makes it sound like these guys are making it up
in traffic court.

That judge with the ten commandment fetish (I can't remember his name), now
there's an activist judge.

snip
--
Frank....H

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...
jls wrote:

"Richard Hertz" no one@no one.com wrote in message
. net...

"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...

In article ,
"Peter Duniho" wrote:


Legalized abortion has in the long-run made our country safer, not less
so.

not for the children killed during the abortion.

What is the definition of a child? (from a legal standpoint)



--
Bob Noel


He doesn't know, obviously, but at common law the foetus or embryo has
never
been treated as a child. In some cases the foetus when "quickened," i.
e.,
capable of living outside of the uterus, has been viewed as a human being
within the purview of the homicide laws.

foetus??? You don't even know how to spell what you are talking about.



You are truly an idiot


Matt

Matt Whiting wrote:

Frank wrote:
snip


Sure, certain things about the invasion and aftermath were bungled, but
you don't fire people for making a mistake or two. If that was the
case, then not a single congressman would survive more than one term.

You do when peoples lives are at stake. In fact, honorable men resign in
such situations.

--
Frank....H

"Frank" wrote in message ...
C J Campbell wrote:

snip

The Constitutional amendment would never have been needed if a small
number of judges had not decided, on their own and against the wishes of
the general public, to create a right where none had existed before.
Now,
these judges are often elected by no one; they are political appointees.
They answer to no one. They simply have decided that no matter what the
laws or the Constitution say, they can simply order anything they want.
I
happen to think that this is very dangerous to the rule of law.

This is a red herring. Judges rule on cases brought before them. This
whole
'activist judges' argument makes it sound like these guys are making it up
in traffic court.

Here we are in a con law forum discussing aircraft piloting. Wild. Ah,
well, then let's consider this fluke Campbell guy who doesn't understand con
law,which, among other things, is designed to protect the minority from the
majority. He just doesn't understand that this is not a pure democracy, as
in 2 sheep and 3 wolves taking a vote on what is to be eaten for dinner.
He should read less Joseph Smith (called chloroform in print by Twain, btw)
and more of the _Federalist_ by Madison and Hamilton.

Federal judges, whose job is to interpret and apply the Constitution, are
appointed for reasons thoroughly explained by Madison and Hamilton. We
don't have a parliamentary, plebiscite, theocratic, or plutarchy form of
government, Campbell. It is constitutional. See the Constitution for
details. YOUR rather heathen and seditious ideas of government represent
dangers to the rule of law.


What harm is it to you that 2 gay partners should want rights of
survivorship and other confidential rights similar to spouses? They didn't
ask to be born gay. What could be more harmful to marriage than the red
states' goshawfully high divorce rate where more than 50% end in messy
divorces?
That judge with the ten commandment fetish (I can't remember his name),
now
there's an activist judge.

Roy Moore who was defrocked and kicked out of the Alabama Supreme Court
building along with his tacky (and unconstitutional) 2-ton decalogue.

snip
--
Frank....H

Richard Hertz wrote:

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...

Richard Hertz wrote:


"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...


"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...


But regardless, none of this is even required to show that you don't

require


religion to justify happiness. A simple global desire to be happy is
sufficient (if you have no such desire to be happy, you may have a hard

time


comprehending this, but it sure would explain some other things).
That's
why large groups of humans get together and agree to try to be happy
together, rather than killing and stealing from each other all the time.


I think a good argument can be made that one reason people kill and steal
stems from the desire to be happy. In this respect happiness (or the
desire
for happiness) could be a negative trait.


It makes no difference why they do it. Unless it is self defense it is
criminal. That has nothing to do with religion.

Criminal by whose standard? What if the majority decided that stealing
and killing were OK?


Majority has nothing to do with it, you are violating my right to my body
and property. If you accept the premise of laws, then certainly you must
accept that those two are the fundamental basis for government. Without
those it is anarchy.

What rights? Who gave you these rights? Who said that we need
government? Who said anarchy was bad?


Again, the point is that it has nothing to do with religion.

Sure it does. Religion is nothing more than a belief system. You
believe that you have rights and need government. That is your religion.

The difference is that Christians base their beliefs on the Bible and
you base yours on .... what?


Matt

Richard Hertz wrote:

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...

jls wrote:


"Richard Hertz" no one@no one.com wrote in message
. cv.net...


"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...


In article ,
"Peter Duniho" wrote:



Legalized abortion has in the long-run made our country safer, not less
so.

not for the children killed during the abortion.

What is the definition of a child? (from a legal standpoint)




--
Bob Noel


He doesn't know, obviously, but at common law the foetus or embryo has
never
been treated as a child. In some cases the foetus when "quickened," i.
e.,
capable of living outside of the uterus, has been viewed as a human being
within the purview of the homicide laws.

foetus??? You don't even know how to spell what you are talking about.




You are truly an idiot

Does writing this make you feel better? Superior?

Matt

"C J Campbell" wrote:
If it was bungled so badly, why do the military and veterans
overwhelmingly
support Bush instead of Kerry?

They are as susceptible as most Americans to the right wing propaganda
machine.

Why did Kerry participate in this supposed lie?

He was too spineless to resist a popular president riding a wave of war
hysteria.
--
Dan

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

In article Hw2ld.24237$V41.3744@attbi_s52,
"Jay Honeck" wrote:

Interesting, isn't it? The sarin find was reported by NPR's female
correspondent (whose name escapes me), who is embedded with a Marine unit in
Fallujah. I heard it myself on NPR's "All Things Considered," which airs in
the afternoons.

Now, it's no where to be found.

Either the report has been discredited, or it's being suppressed.

I heard the follow-up within the past 24 hours, probably on NRP, which
is where I think I heard the original report.

The original report from the female NRP reporter, as I recall hearing
it, was that troops entering some area had found containers which were
labelled in some way, in English, with the word Sarin, and that since
the troops who found this stuff didn't have the expertise to tell what
the contents were, more expert people were being brought in to assess
what it was.

The follow-up was that the materials were not sarin weapons but
protective gear for sarin weapons.

[Which, taken together, means that your final sentence above is
incorrect, right? -- that is, the original report, at least as I recall
it, was neither discredited nor is it being suppressed.]

[On the other hand, it's certainly an interesting question as to what
that particular stuff was doing there? Did Iraqis have it because they
either thought or knew that they or other Iraqi forces had sarin? (I
recall a report some time back claiming that certain captured or
interviewed Iraqi generals said that they didn't have chemical weapons
but believed that other Iraqi forces did.) Or did they have it because
they believed _we_ would use it? Or did outside insurgents bring the
stuff in from elsewhere? Will we ever know?]

I am sure there is a politicaiants form out there online somewhere, go use it!

Trace Lewis'

age 13

www.cafepress.com/iwanttofly