"Brandon Sommerville" <grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote in message
news:4d4cf3ca55f752d609fdc1c94d537987@news.teranew s.com...
> On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 15:49:21 GMT, "David J. Allen"
> <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Brandon Sommerville" <grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote in message
> >news:e13b4d55ee057f7ffdc53c6d9c2e1ce3@news.terane ws.com...
> >> On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 18:17:50 GMT, "David J. Allen"
> >> <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >The Europeans and Canadians choose to tax themsleves to provide cradle
to
> >> >grave care for health care. It's a choice they make. Good for them.
> >> >There's a price they pay for that. There's far less innovation and
change
> >> >in Europe than there is in the US. They tend to stick with the status
quo.
> >> >In the US, the competitive juices among companies are often too much
for
> >> >European companies. Airbus was subsidized for years to support
foreign
> >> >sales. Another example is telecommunications. Nokia has struggled
with
> >> >CDMA technology in the US because of the constant change and forward
> >> >movement in technology here. Europe would be happy to stay with GSM
as a
> >> >universal standard while US companies are pushing the technological
> >> >envelope. Is the most efficient? Maybe not, but it's the price we
pay for
> >> >innovation and new technologies. High energy competition is dollar
driven
> >> >(oh, how evil.... the greed!). The European model severely dampens
that
> >> >energy.
> >>
> >> Enron was dollar driven as well.
> >
> >Your point? Maybe that the profit motive is akin to corruption? If you
> >want to go there, be prepared to point the finger at more than corporate
> >corruption.
>
> No, that dollar driven isn't by definition a good thing. I'm not
> saying that it's a bad thing, but you appear to be saying that it
> simply makes it better by being that way. If you really want the
> latest in techno gadgets you have to look at the Japanese market, not
> the American.
>

Then we agree. The profit motive is key to a market driven ecnomy, which
works as opposed to central planning. Techno gadgets? Hmph. The point is
an economy that allows supply and demand to work and allows hard work and
innovation (read create wealth) to occur will respond to demand more
readily.



> >> >You can see the desparation to bring in outside money in Europe;
> >> >like government subsidies, their selling of weapons systems (France,
> >> >Germany) to ANYONE (read Saddam Hussein), willingness to accept
despotism in
> >> >exchange for lucrative trade deals (do you really think France opposed
the
> >> >war on "moral" grounds?).
> >>
> >> Give me a break. American companies were perfectly happy to sell to
> >> Saddam as well and as far as "accepting despotism" who do you think
> >> put him there in the first place and kept him there for years?
> >
> >Saddam's ledger is a long list of German, French and Russian companies.
> >France's reputation for selling to anyone for the right price is decades
> >old.
>
> And American companies didn't sell to him at all, right? You don't
> seriously believe that, do you?

Don't know and don't think it matters. There's always somebody out there
willing to do anything to make a buck. If they did, they broke the law.

>
> >The US did tolerate despotism in some countries, but not for money. You
> >just had to be anti-communist (or in Iraq's case a counterweight to
Iran).
> >It was cold war politics and it was a calculated risk. Were they
mistakes?
> >Probably. You can focus on the consequences of supporting a despot to
run a
> >country, but don't forget to wonder how things would had gone had
Communism
> >not been contained.
>
> The US has demonstrated that it's willing to support a friendly
> dictator to a democracy that doesn't agree with them many times over,
> regardless of the cost to the people involved. Claiming that they
> were going to go communist is a good way of justifying the actions,
> but that's all it is.

Bull. You don't understand the cold war for what it was. You look at bad
things that happened and extrapolate to the strategy as if the whole
strategy was flawed and designed to make (or not prevent) bad things happen.
The west had a strategy that ended up working. Some bad things happened
along the way.

The French were purposefully subverting the agreed upon UN strategy in Iraq.
It wasn't an accident or byproduct. There's a culture of "me and mine"
there that was the point I was making previously.

> --
> Brandon Sommerville
> remove ".gov" to e-mail
>
> Definition of "Lottery":
> Millions of stupid people contributing
> to make one stupid person look smart.

 

"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bqniqk$e8j$8@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <Xhqzb.2069$WT6.1828@twister.socal.rr.com>,
> "David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
> >
> >"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
> >news:bql21b$c29$22@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> >> In article <Uaizb.2907$rE3.2726@twister.socal.rr.com>,
> >> "David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> So are conservatives -- telling people what kind of --- to have,
what
> >> >genders
> >> >> can marry, what a woman can do with her body, etc.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >This one again? Ok, I'll repeat myself. Conservatives believe some
> >rights
> >> >are reserved to states and individuals to decide how they want to
govern
> >> >themselves. That includes the rights of states and communities,
through
> >> >their legislatures, to rule on sexual behaviors, abortion, and
marriage.
> >> >It's the Dems who want to nationalize these things and force all
> >communities
> >> >nationwide to accept their new age definitions of morality and
religion.
> >>
> >> Why wouldn't the most intimate relationships between people be a right
> >> reserved to the people themselves (9th amendment)? Surely if there are
> >any
> >> "inherent" or "God-given" rights, it would be those that have to do
with
> >> intimate relationships and behaviors. Aren't you arguing the 9th
> >amendment is
> >> meaningless, that any rights not enumerated are reserved just to the
> >states?
> >>
> >
> >Not at all. It's just not the business of the feds.
>
> Interpretting the US constitution is the business of the feds, and it's
the US
> constitution that reserves certain unenumerated rights to the people. Who
> else but the courts can interpret that and say what those rights are?
>
>
> > There's multiple
> >jurisdiction below federal. State, county, city. The juridiction
arguments
> >among these entities for rights reserved to them is up to them
individually.
>
> None of them has the jurisdiction to interpret the US constitution.
>

You're hopeless Lloyd. Rights reserved to the states and to the people can
be decided upon by the states and the people. No interpretation of the US
constitution is required for those to be decided upon.

> >
> >The arguments for and against Sodomy laws and Adultery laws each have
> merit.
>
> Sure, so did those against integration. To bigots.

There you go again. You just can't accept pro/con argument based on
principle.

>
> >Government intrusion in personal matters is a matter of great concern to
be
> >sure. Yet, the effect of adultery on families, children, cost to society
is
> >huge.
>
> Are you saying you cannot commit adultery except by sodomy? And even if
so,
> why was sodomy between unmarried people illegal? In fact, most of the
sodomy
> laws were only enforced for gays (thus unmarried people).
>

No, sodomy was not part of my comment above. It was all about adultery.

I don't know. I imagine local governments were anxious that their cities
and towns not become a gathering place for gays.

I see you didn't respond to the following arguments.

>
> >Should local governments be able to prohibit it? The sexual
> >revolution in the 60's made it "quaint" to expect intact families with
> >mothers AND fathers; to expect fidelity, which is tightly tied to
religious
> >values, is "old fashioned". Without religious values, we can behave as
the
> >animals and it's "okay".... individually. But that's where we got the
> >"single mom" phenomenon. It's effect on the black community has been
tragic
> >with 70% of babies born to unwed mothers.
> >
> >Child poverty is a direct result of this. Even worse than the poverty is
> >children with teeny bopper mothers more concerned with partying on Friday
> >night and finding someone... anyone... to watch their kids while they to
it.
> >They give no structure or limits to their children's lives and end up
> >producing more adults with no clue how to be productive members of
society.
> >
> >Personal choices? Hmph.
> >
> >> >
> >> >The conservative position has never been to nationalize any of these
> >issues,
> >> >but to allow local jurisdictions to choose for themselves. The only
time
> >> >conservatives do want to nationalize such issues is when the Libs find
a
> >> >liberal federal judge to overturn local law based and make it a
national
> >> >issue, i.e., unlimited federal government.
> >> >
> >> >Why can't you see the conservative vs. liberal debate as one based on
> >role
> >> >of federal government instead of merely accusing conservatives of
being
> >> >"rascist", "homophobe", "sexist", "bigoted". All those labels are
debate
> >> >enders. The issue of the role of government is a legitimate thing to
> >debate
> >> >with honorable arguments on both sides. Yet people like you never
engage
> >in
> >> >it. You resort to this name calling instead.
> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >
> >

 

"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bqniqk$e8j$8@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <Xhqzb.2069$WT6.1828@twister.socal.rr.com>,
> "David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
> >
> >"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
> >news:bql21b$c29$22@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> >> In article <Uaizb.2907$rE3.2726@twister.socal.rr.com>,
> >> "David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> So are conservatives -- telling people what kind of --- to have,
what
> >> >genders
> >> >> can marry, what a woman can do with her body, etc.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >This one again? Ok, I'll repeat myself. Conservatives believe some
> >rights
> >> >are reserved to states and individuals to decide how they want to
govern
> >> >themselves. That includes the rights of states and communities,
through
> >> >their legislatures, to rule on sexual behaviors, abortion, and
marriage.
> >> >It's the Dems who want to nationalize these things and force all
> >communities
> >> >nationwide to accept their new age definitions of morality and
religion.
> >>
> >> Why wouldn't the most intimate relationships between people be a right
> >> reserved to the people themselves (9th amendment)? Surely if there are
> >any
> >> "inherent" or "God-given" rights, it would be those that have to do
with
> >> intimate relationships and behaviors. Aren't you arguing the 9th
> >amendment is
> >> meaningless, that any rights not enumerated are reserved just to the
> >states?
> >>
> >
> >Not at all. It's just not the business of the feds.
>
> Interpretting the US constitution is the business of the feds, and it's
the US
> constitution that reserves certain unenumerated rights to the people. Who
> else but the courts can interpret that and say what those rights are?
>
>
> > There's multiple
> >jurisdiction below federal. State, county, city. The juridiction
arguments
> >among these entities for rights reserved to them is up to them
individually.
>
> None of them has the jurisdiction to interpret the US constitution.
>

You're hopeless Lloyd. Rights reserved to the states and to the people can
be decided upon by the states and the people. No interpretation of the US
constitution is required for those to be decided upon.

> >
> >The arguments for and against Sodomy laws and Adultery laws each have
> merit.
>
> Sure, so did those against integration. To bigots.

There you go again. You just can't accept pro/con argument based on
principle.

>
> >Government intrusion in personal matters is a matter of great concern to
be
> >sure. Yet, the effect of adultery on families, children, cost to society
is
> >huge.
>
> Are you saying you cannot commit adultery except by sodomy? And even if
so,
> why was sodomy between unmarried people illegal? In fact, most of the
sodomy
> laws were only enforced for gays (thus unmarried people).
>

No, sodomy was not part of my comment above. It was all about adultery.

I don't know. I imagine local governments were anxious that their cities
and towns not become a gathering place for gays.

I see you didn't respond to the following arguments.

>
> >Should local governments be able to prohibit it? The sexual
> >revolution in the 60's made it "quaint" to expect intact families with
> >mothers AND fathers; to expect fidelity, which is tightly tied to
religious
> >values, is "old fashioned". Without religious values, we can behave as
the
> >animals and it's "okay".... individually. But that's where we got the
> >"single mom" phenomenon. It's effect on the black community has been
tragic
> >with 70% of babies born to unwed mothers.
> >
> >Child poverty is a direct result of this. Even worse than the poverty is
> >children with teeny bopper mothers more concerned with partying on Friday
> >night and finding someone... anyone... to watch their kids while they to
it.
> >They give no structure or limits to their children's lives and end up
> >producing more adults with no clue how to be productive members of
society.
> >
> >Personal choices? Hmph.
> >
> >> >
> >> >The conservative position has never been to nationalize any of these
> >issues,
> >> >but to allow local jurisdictions to choose for themselves. The only
time
> >> >conservatives do want to nationalize such issues is when the Libs find
a
> >> >liberal federal judge to overturn local law based and make it a
national
> >> >issue, i.e., unlimited federal government.
> >> >
> >> >Why can't you see the conservative vs. liberal debate as one based on
> >role
> >> >of federal government instead of merely accusing conservatives of
being
> >> >"rascist", "homophobe", "sexist", "bigoted". All those labels are
debate
> >> >enders. The issue of the role of government is a legitimate thing to
> >debate
> >> >with honorable arguments on both sides. Yet people like you never
engage
> >in
> >> >it. You resort to this name calling instead.
> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >
> >

 

"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bqniqk$e8j$8@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <Xhqzb.2069$WT6.1828@twister.socal.rr.com>,
> "David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
> >
> >"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
> >news:bql21b$c29$22@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> >> In article <Uaizb.2907$rE3.2726@twister.socal.rr.com>,
> >> "David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> So are conservatives -- telling people what kind of --- to have,
what
> >> >genders
> >> >> can marry, what a woman can do with her body, etc.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >This one again? Ok, I'll repeat myself. Conservatives believe some
> >rights
> >> >are reserved to states and individuals to decide how they want to
govern
> >> >themselves. That includes the rights of states and communities,
through
> >> >their legislatures, to rule on sexual behaviors, abortion, and
marriage.
> >> >It's the Dems who want to nationalize these things and force all
> >communities
> >> >nationwide to accept their new age definitions of morality and
religion.
> >>
> >> Why wouldn't the most intimate relationships between people be a right
> >> reserved to the people themselves (9th amendment)? Surely if there are
> >any
> >> "inherent" or "God-given" rights, it would be those that have to do
with
> >> intimate relationships and behaviors. Aren't you arguing the 9th
> >amendment is
> >> meaningless, that any rights not enumerated are reserved just to the
> >states?
> >>
> >
> >Not at all. It's just not the business of the feds.
>
> Interpretting the US constitution is the business of the feds, and it's
the US
> constitution that reserves certain unenumerated rights to the people. Who
> else but the courts can interpret that and say what those rights are?
>
>
> > There's multiple
> >jurisdiction below federal. State, county, city. The juridiction
arguments
> >among these entities for rights reserved to them is up to them
individually.
>
> None of them has the jurisdiction to interpret the US constitution.
>

You're hopeless Lloyd. Rights reserved to the states and to the people can
be decided upon by the states and the people. No interpretation of the US
constitution is required for those to be decided upon.

> >
> >The arguments for and against Sodomy laws and Adultery laws each have
> merit.
>
> Sure, so did those against integration. To bigots.

There you go again. You just can't accept pro/con argument based on
principle.

>
> >Government intrusion in personal matters is a matter of great concern to
be
> >sure. Yet, the effect of adultery on families, children, cost to society
is
> >huge.
>
> Are you saying you cannot commit adultery except by sodomy? And even if
so,
> why was sodomy between unmarried people illegal? In fact, most of the
sodomy
> laws were only enforced for gays (thus unmarried people).
>

No, sodomy was not part of my comment above. It was all about adultery.

I don't know. I imagine local governments were anxious that their cities
and towns not become a gathering place for gays.

I see you didn't respond to the following arguments.

>
> >Should local governments be able to prohibit it? The sexual
> >revolution in the 60's made it "quaint" to expect intact families with
> >mothers AND fathers; to expect fidelity, which is tightly tied to
religious
> >values, is "old fashioned". Without religious values, we can behave as
the
> >animals and it's "okay".... individually. But that's where we got the
> >"single mom" phenomenon. It's effect on the black community has been
tragic
> >with 70% of babies born to unwed mothers.
> >
> >Child poverty is a direct result of this. Even worse than the poverty is
> >children with teeny bopper mothers more concerned with partying on Friday
> >night and finding someone... anyone... to watch their kids while they to
it.
> >They give no structure or limits to their children's lives and end up
> >producing more adults with no clue how to be productive members of
society.
> >
> >Personal choices? Hmph.
> >
> >> >
> >> >The conservative position has never been to nationalize any of these
> >issues,
> >> >but to allow local jurisdictions to choose for themselves. The only
time
> >> >conservatives do want to nationalize such issues is when the Libs find
a
> >> >liberal federal judge to overturn local law based and make it a
national
> >> >issue, i.e., unlimited federal government.
> >> >
> >> >Why can't you see the conservative vs. liberal debate as one based on
> >role
> >> >of federal government instead of merely accusing conservatives of
being
> >> >"rascist", "homophobe", "sexist", "bigoted". All those labels are
debate
> >> >enders. The issue of the role of government is a legitimate thing to
> >debate
> >> >with honorable arguments on both sides. Yet people like you never
engage
> >in
> >> >it. You resort to this name calling instead.
> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >
> >

 

"Daniel J. Stern" <dastern@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:Pine.SOL.4.44.0312041141070.24084-100000@alumni.engin.umich.edu...
> On Thu, 4 Dec 2003, Jenn Wasdyke wrote:
>
> > > So change the codification slightly. Instead of specifying that it's
> > > a man and woman specify that it's two people. Problem solved, no
> > > other laws need to be changed.
> >
> > Why should it be only two people? If three consenting people wish to be
> > married, why discriminate against them?
>
> Same reason there's opposition to same---- marriage: It makes people feel
> icky.
>

There you go... religious convictions = feeling icky

> DS
>

 

"Daniel J. Stern" <dastern@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:Pine.SOL.4.44.0312041141070.24084-100000@alumni.engin.umich.edu...
> On Thu, 4 Dec 2003, Jenn Wasdyke wrote:
>
> > > So change the codification slightly. Instead of specifying that it's
> > > a man and woman specify that it's two people. Problem solved, no
> > > other laws need to be changed.
> >
> > Why should it be only two people? If three consenting people wish to be
> > married, why discriminate against them?
>
> Same reason there's opposition to same---- marriage: It makes people feel
> icky.
>

There you go... religious convictions = feeling icky

> DS
>

 

"Daniel J. Stern" <dastern@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:Pine.SOL.4.44.0312041141070.24084-100000@alumni.engin.umich.edu...
> On Thu, 4 Dec 2003, Jenn Wasdyke wrote:
>
> > > So change the codification slightly. Instead of specifying that it's
> > > a man and woman specify that it's two people. Problem solved, no
> > > other laws need to be changed.
> >
> > Why should it be only two people? If three consenting people wish to be
> > married, why discriminate against them?
>
> Same reason there's opposition to same---- marriage: It makes people feel
> icky.
>

There you go... religious convictions = feeling icky

> DS
>

 

"Brandon Sommerville" <grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote in message
news:9803091d4731c2e98c4746b6b1440f2c@news.teranew s.com...
> On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 09:50:40 -0500, Jenn Wasdyke
> <wasdyke68@pobox.nospam> wrote:
>
> >Brandon Sommerville wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 17:06:25 -0700, Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 18:21:10 GMT, Brandon Sommerville
> >> ><grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>This confuses me greatly. If two men or two women want to be joined
> >> >>as a family in a marriage, how does it detract from your marriage?
> >> >
> >> >It doesn't.
> >> >
> >> >Marriage, in our culture (Judeo/Christian) has been historically
> >> >defined by the religious society, and then codified by the
> >> >governments.
> >>
> >> So change the codification slightly. Instead of specifying that it's
> >> a man and woman specify that it's two people. Problem solved, no
> >> other laws need to be changed.
> >
> >Why should it be only two people? If three consenting people wish to be
> >married, why discriminate against them?
>
> Good question. As long as they're all consenting adults, who cares?

Why not just outlaw marriage. That'll make it the same and fair for
everyone.

> --
> Brandon Sommerville
> remove ".gov" to e-mail
>
> Definition of "Lottery":
> Millions of stupid people contributing
> to make one stupid person look smart.

 

"Brandon Sommerville" <grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote in message
news:9803091d4731c2e98c4746b6b1440f2c@news.teranew s.com...
> On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 09:50:40 -0500, Jenn Wasdyke
> <wasdyke68@pobox.nospam> wrote:
>
> >Brandon Sommerville wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 17:06:25 -0700, Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 18:21:10 GMT, Brandon Sommerville
> >> ><grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>This confuses me greatly. If two men or two women want to be joined
> >> >>as a family in a marriage, how does it detract from your marriage?
> >> >
> >> >It doesn't.
> >> >
> >> >Marriage, in our culture (Judeo/Christian) has been historically
> >> >defined by the religious society, and then codified by the
> >> >governments.
> >>
> >> So change the codification slightly. Instead of specifying that it's
> >> a man and woman specify that it's two people. Problem solved, no
> >> other laws need to be changed.
> >
> >Why should it be only two people? If three consenting people wish to be
> >married, why discriminate against them?
>
> Good question. As long as they're all consenting adults, who cares?

Why not just outlaw marriage. That'll make it the same and fair for
everyone.

> --
> Brandon Sommerville
> remove ".gov" to e-mail
>
> Definition of "Lottery":
> Millions of stupid people contributing
> to make one stupid person look smart.

 

"Brandon Sommerville" <grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote in message
news:9803091d4731c2e98c4746b6b1440f2c@news.teranew s.com...
> On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 09:50:40 -0500, Jenn Wasdyke
> <wasdyke68@pobox.nospam> wrote:
>
> >Brandon Sommerville wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 17:06:25 -0700, Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 18:21:10 GMT, Brandon Sommerville
> >> ><grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>This confuses me greatly. If two men or two women want to be joined
> >> >>as a family in a marriage, how does it detract from your marriage?
> >> >
> >> >It doesn't.
> >> >
> >> >Marriage, in our culture (Judeo/Christian) has been historically
> >> >defined by the religious society, and then codified by the
> >> >governments.
> >>
> >> So change the codification slightly. Instead of specifying that it's
> >> a man and woman specify that it's two people. Problem solved, no
> >> other laws need to be changed.
> >
> >Why should it be only two people? If three consenting people wish to be
> >married, why discriminate against them?
>
> Good question. As long as they're all consenting adults, who cares?

Why not just outlaw marriage. That'll make it the same and fair for
everyone.

> --
> Brandon Sommerville
> remove ".gov" to e-mail
>
> Definition of "Lottery":
> Millions of stupid people contributing
> to make one stupid person look smart.