Pilot's Political Orientation

"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".

"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

"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.

"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.

"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?

"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.

"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?

"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.

"Andrew Gideon" wrote in message
gonline.com...

Who are you to define "marriage" thusly?


It's not my definition.

"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?