Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycanbemisinterpretedby SUV drivers)
In article <tdudnV1yI7gtDFKiRTvUqA@texas.net>, Steve <no@spam.thanks> wrote:
>Daniel J. Stern wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 4 Dec 2003, Jenn Wasdyke wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>So your perception of Canadian healthcare is based on the experience of a
>>>>friend of yours who was warned off the system by some unknown other
>>>>individuals.
>>>>Mine is based on getting very suddenly struck down with a large and lodged
>>>>kidney stone at 4 in the morning while in Toronto. Extremely painful, but
>>>>not life threatening. I was diagnosed, treated, operated upon and
>>>>prescribed suitable meds in a fast, efficient, capable, thorough manner.
>>
>>
>>>As opposed to the American health care system where kidney stone
>>>patients are tossed out on the street and beaten before being put out of
>>>their misery...
>>
>>
>> Try getting a lodged kidney stone in America without medical coverage or
>> lots of money, then get back to us.
>>
>> DS
>>
>
>Dan, living in America without medical coverage is stupid. I don't have
>any patience for people who are deliberately stupid, nor do I want to
>subsidize them. Decent health care is affordable here, so let's stick to
>comparing someone in the US who HAS coverage (not lots of money) to
>someone in Canada. At least you get to PICK your coverage and your
>doctor here.
>
>
>
And the poor can crawl off and die, is that it?
>
>
>Daniel J. Stern wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 4 Dec 2003, Jenn Wasdyke wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>So your perception of Canadian healthcare is based on the experience of a
>>>>friend of yours who was warned off the system by some unknown other
>>>>individuals.
>>>>Mine is based on getting very suddenly struck down with a large and lodged
>>>>kidney stone at 4 in the morning while in Toronto. Extremely painful, but
>>>>not life threatening. I was diagnosed, treated, operated upon and
>>>>prescribed suitable meds in a fast, efficient, capable, thorough manner.
>>
>>
>>>As opposed to the American health care system where kidney stone
>>>patients are tossed out on the street and beaten before being put out of
>>>their misery...
>>
>>
>> Try getting a lodged kidney stone in America without medical coverage or
>> lots of money, then get back to us.
>>
>> DS
>>
>
>Dan, living in America without medical coverage is stupid. I don't have
>any patience for people who are deliberately stupid, nor do I want to
>subsidize them. Decent health care is affordable here, so let's stick to
>comparing someone in the US who HAS coverage (not lots of money) to
>someone in Canada. At least you get to PICK your coverage and your
>doctor here.
>
>
>
And the poor can crawl off and die, is that it?
>
>
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycanbemisinterpretedby SUV drivers)
In article <tdudnV1yI7gtDFKiRTvUqA@texas.net>, Steve <no@spam.thanks> wrote:
>Daniel J. Stern wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 4 Dec 2003, Jenn Wasdyke wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>So your perception of Canadian healthcare is based on the experience of a
>>>>friend of yours who was warned off the system by some unknown other
>>>>individuals.
>>>>Mine is based on getting very suddenly struck down with a large and lodged
>>>>kidney stone at 4 in the morning while in Toronto. Extremely painful, but
>>>>not life threatening. I was diagnosed, treated, operated upon and
>>>>prescribed suitable meds in a fast, efficient, capable, thorough manner.
>>
>>
>>>As opposed to the American health care system where kidney stone
>>>patients are tossed out on the street and beaten before being put out of
>>>their misery...
>>
>>
>> Try getting a lodged kidney stone in America without medical coverage or
>> lots of money, then get back to us.
>>
>> DS
>>
>
>Dan, living in America without medical coverage is stupid. I don't have
>any patience for people who are deliberately stupid, nor do I want to
>subsidize them. Decent health care is affordable here, so let's stick to
>comparing someone in the US who HAS coverage (not lots of money) to
>someone in Canada. At least you get to PICK your coverage and your
>doctor here.
>
>
>
And the poor can crawl off and die, is that it?
>
>
>Daniel J. Stern wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 4 Dec 2003, Jenn Wasdyke wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>So your perception of Canadian healthcare is based on the experience of a
>>>>friend of yours who was warned off the system by some unknown other
>>>>individuals.
>>>>Mine is based on getting very suddenly struck down with a large and lodged
>>>>kidney stone at 4 in the morning while in Toronto. Extremely painful, but
>>>>not life threatening. I was diagnosed, treated, operated upon and
>>>>prescribed suitable meds in a fast, efficient, capable, thorough manner.
>>
>>
>>>As opposed to the American health care system where kidney stone
>>>patients are tossed out on the street and beaten before being put out of
>>>their misery...
>>
>>
>> Try getting a lodged kidney stone in America without medical coverage or
>> lots of money, then get back to us.
>>
>> DS
>>
>
>Dan, living in America without medical coverage is stupid. I don't have
>any patience for people who are deliberately stupid, nor do I want to
>subsidize them. Decent health care is affordable here, so let's stick to
>comparing someone in the US who HAS coverage (not lots of money) to
>someone in Canada. At least you get to PICK your coverage and your
>doctor here.
>
>
>
And the poor can crawl off and die, is that it?
>
>
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycan be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <tdudnVxyI7goDlKiRTvUqA@texas.net>, Steve <no@spam.thanks> wrote:
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>
>> And the US refusing to buy any military hardware from Airbus isn't a form
of
>> subsidy to Boeing?
>>
>
>Nope. Lockheed, Northrop-Grumman, and even Gulfstream and Cessna are
>free to submit bids also. Its restricting military contracting to US
>companies, and I have no problem with that.
>
It's subsidizing US companies by giving only them government contracts.
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>
>> And the US refusing to buy any military hardware from Airbus isn't a form
of
>> subsidy to Boeing?
>>
>
>Nope. Lockheed, Northrop-Grumman, and even Gulfstream and Cessna are
>free to submit bids also. Its restricting military contracting to US
>companies, and I have no problem with that.
>
It's subsidizing US companies by giving only them government contracts.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycan be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <tdudnVxyI7goDlKiRTvUqA@texas.net>, Steve <no@spam.thanks> wrote:
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>
>> And the US refusing to buy any military hardware from Airbus isn't a form
of
>> subsidy to Boeing?
>>
>
>Nope. Lockheed, Northrop-Grumman, and even Gulfstream and Cessna are
>free to submit bids also. Its restricting military contracting to US
>companies, and I have no problem with that.
>
It's subsidizing US companies by giving only them government contracts.
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>
>> And the US refusing to buy any military hardware from Airbus isn't a form
of
>> subsidy to Boeing?
>>
>
>Nope. Lockheed, Northrop-Grumman, and even Gulfstream and Cessna are
>free to submit bids also. Its restricting military contracting to US
>companies, and I have no problem with that.
>
It's subsidizing US companies by giving only them government contracts.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycan be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <tdudnVxyI7goDlKiRTvUqA@texas.net>, Steve <no@spam.thanks> wrote:
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>
>> And the US refusing to buy any military hardware from Airbus isn't a form
of
>> subsidy to Boeing?
>>
>
>Nope. Lockheed, Northrop-Grumman, and even Gulfstream and Cessna are
>free to submit bids also. Its restricting military contracting to US
>companies, and I have no problem with that.
>
It's subsidizing US companies by giving only them government contracts.
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>
>> And the US refusing to buy any military hardware from Airbus isn't a form
of
>> subsidy to Boeing?
>>
>
>Nope. Lockheed, Northrop-Grumman, and even Gulfstream and Cessna are
>free to submit bids also. Its restricting military contracting to US
>companies, and I have no problem with that.
>
It's subsidizing US companies by giving only them government contracts.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycan be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <tdudnV9yI7iiCVKiRTvUqA@texas.net>, Steve <no@spam.thanks> wrote:
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>> In article <MoqdndHLHYgo8lOiRTvUqA@texas.net>, Steve <no@spam.thanks>
wrote:
>>
>>>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>Oh, sure it does, Ed, if recognized as "marriage" they then get huge
tax
>>>>>>and benefits advantages, all of which are denied singles.
>>>>>
>>>>>The "new class of civil union" would cover that just fine.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Didn't "separate but equal" get discredited in the 1950s?
>>>
>>>Don't try to pretend that its about discrimination against homosexuals.
>>>Many heterosexual couples would also take advantage of a new class of
>>>civil union that didn't incorporate the religion-based term "marriage."
>>>
>>>Since suppressing religion is right up your alley, you ought to be
>>>loving the idea.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> But there are no tax benefits to "civil unions", no inheritance benefits,
no
>> insurance benefits, etc.
>
>Sure there would be. That's the whole point of creating the "new class
>of civil union." "Duh" is the only appropriate response.
>
>
>
>
And where has it been done? VT. And no other state recognizes civil unions
from VT.
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>> In article <MoqdndHLHYgo8lOiRTvUqA@texas.net>, Steve <no@spam.thanks>
wrote:
>>
>>>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>Oh, sure it does, Ed, if recognized as "marriage" they then get huge
tax
>>>>>>and benefits advantages, all of which are denied singles.
>>>>>
>>>>>The "new class of civil union" would cover that just fine.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Didn't "separate but equal" get discredited in the 1950s?
>>>
>>>Don't try to pretend that its about discrimination against homosexuals.
>>>Many heterosexual couples would also take advantage of a new class of
>>>civil union that didn't incorporate the religion-based term "marriage."
>>>
>>>Since suppressing religion is right up your alley, you ought to be
>>>loving the idea.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> But there are no tax benefits to "civil unions", no inheritance benefits,
no
>> insurance benefits, etc.
>
>Sure there would be. That's the whole point of creating the "new class
>of civil union." "Duh" is the only appropriate response.
>
>
>
>
And where has it been done? VT. And no other state recognizes civil unions
from VT.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycan be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <tdudnV9yI7iiCVKiRTvUqA@texas.net>, Steve <no@spam.thanks> wrote:
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>> In article <MoqdndHLHYgo8lOiRTvUqA@texas.net>, Steve <no@spam.thanks>
wrote:
>>
>>>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>Oh, sure it does, Ed, if recognized as "marriage" they then get huge
tax
>>>>>>and benefits advantages, all of which are denied singles.
>>>>>
>>>>>The "new class of civil union" would cover that just fine.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Didn't "separate but equal" get discredited in the 1950s?
>>>
>>>Don't try to pretend that its about discrimination against homosexuals.
>>>Many heterosexual couples would also take advantage of a new class of
>>>civil union that didn't incorporate the religion-based term "marriage."
>>>
>>>Since suppressing religion is right up your alley, you ought to be
>>>loving the idea.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> But there are no tax benefits to "civil unions", no inheritance benefits,
no
>> insurance benefits, etc.
>
>Sure there would be. That's the whole point of creating the "new class
>of civil union." "Duh" is the only appropriate response.
>
>
>
>
And where has it been done? VT. And no other state recognizes civil unions
from VT.
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>> In article <MoqdndHLHYgo8lOiRTvUqA@texas.net>, Steve <no@spam.thanks>
wrote:
>>
>>>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>Oh, sure it does, Ed, if recognized as "marriage" they then get huge
tax
>>>>>>and benefits advantages, all of which are denied singles.
>>>>>
>>>>>The "new class of civil union" would cover that just fine.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Didn't "separate but equal" get discredited in the 1950s?
>>>
>>>Don't try to pretend that its about discrimination against homosexuals.
>>>Many heterosexual couples would also take advantage of a new class of
>>>civil union that didn't incorporate the religion-based term "marriage."
>>>
>>>Since suppressing religion is right up your alley, you ought to be
>>>loving the idea.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> But there are no tax benefits to "civil unions", no inheritance benefits,
no
>> insurance benefits, etc.
>
>Sure there would be. That's the whole point of creating the "new class
>of civil union." "Duh" is the only appropriate response.
>
>
>
>
And where has it been done? VT. And no other state recognizes civil unions
from VT.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycan be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <tdudnV9yI7iiCVKiRTvUqA@texas.net>, Steve <no@spam.thanks> wrote:
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>> In article <MoqdndHLHYgo8lOiRTvUqA@texas.net>, Steve <no@spam.thanks>
wrote:
>>
>>>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>Oh, sure it does, Ed, if recognized as "marriage" they then get huge
tax
>>>>>>and benefits advantages, all of which are denied singles.
>>>>>
>>>>>The "new class of civil union" would cover that just fine.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Didn't "separate but equal" get discredited in the 1950s?
>>>
>>>Don't try to pretend that its about discrimination against homosexuals.
>>>Many heterosexual couples would also take advantage of a new class of
>>>civil union that didn't incorporate the religion-based term "marriage."
>>>
>>>Since suppressing religion is right up your alley, you ought to be
>>>loving the idea.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> But there are no tax benefits to "civil unions", no inheritance benefits,
no
>> insurance benefits, etc.
>
>Sure there would be. That's the whole point of creating the "new class
>of civil union." "Duh" is the only appropriate response.
>
>
>
>
And where has it been done? VT. And no other state recognizes civil unions
from VT.
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>> In article <MoqdndHLHYgo8lOiRTvUqA@texas.net>, Steve <no@spam.thanks>
wrote:
>>
>>>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>Oh, sure it does, Ed, if recognized as "marriage" they then get huge
tax
>>>>>>and benefits advantages, all of which are denied singles.
>>>>>
>>>>>The "new class of civil union" would cover that just fine.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Didn't "separate but equal" get discredited in the 1950s?
>>>
>>>Don't try to pretend that its about discrimination against homosexuals.
>>>Many heterosexual couples would also take advantage of a new class of
>>>civil union that didn't incorporate the religion-based term "marriage."
>>>
>>>Since suppressing religion is right up your alley, you ought to be
>>>loving the idea.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> But there are no tax benefits to "civil unions", no inheritance benefits,
no
>> insurance benefits, etc.
>
>Sure there would be. That's the whole point of creating the "new class
>of civil union." "Duh" is the only appropriate response.
>
>
>
>
And where has it been done? VT. And no other state recognizes civil unions
from VT.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <93Nzb.3466$WT6.1114@twister.socal.rr.com>,
"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:bqniqk$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.
Who decides if a right is reserved to the states or to the people? Since it's
in the US constitution, the federal courts must.
>
>> >
>> >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.
>
I didn't realize there were pro arguments for discrimination and bigotry.
>>
>> >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.
Why, in a discussion about gays? They can't marry, so they can't commit
adultery.
>
>I don't know. I imagine local governments were anxious that their cities
>and towns not become a gathering place for gays.
And if they decided this about, say, Jews?
"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>
>"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.
Who decides if a right is reserved to the states or to the people? Since it's
in the US constitution, the federal courts must.
>
>> >
>> >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.
>
I didn't realize there were pro arguments for discrimination and bigotry.
>>
>> >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.
Why, in a discussion about gays? They can't marry, so they can't commit
adultery.
>
>I don't know. I imagine local governments were anxious that their cities
>and towns not become a gathering place for gays.
And if they decided this about, say, Jews?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <93Nzb.3466$WT6.1114@twister.socal.rr.com>,
"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:bqniqk$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.
Who decides if a right is reserved to the states or to the people? Since it's
in the US constitution, the federal courts must.
>
>> >
>> >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.
>
I didn't realize there were pro arguments for discrimination and bigotry.
>>
>> >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.
Why, in a discussion about gays? They can't marry, so they can't commit
adultery.
>
>I don't know. I imagine local governments were anxious that their cities
>and towns not become a gathering place for gays.
And if they decided this about, say, Jews?
"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>
>"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.
Who decides if a right is reserved to the states or to the people? Since it's
in the US constitution, the federal courts must.
>
>> >
>> >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.
>
I didn't realize there were pro arguments for discrimination and bigotry.
>>
>> >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.
Why, in a discussion about gays? They can't marry, so they can't commit
adultery.
>
>I don't know. I imagine local governments were anxious that their cities
>and towns not become a gathering place for gays.
And if they decided this about, say, Jews?
