O/T: A Milestone

Page 8 of 8  
On Thu, 04 Sep 2008 11:40:49 -0500, Tim Daneliuk wrote:

Could be. OTOH, it could be only Madison's personal view of the matter. There were a lot of differing opinions at that convention and a lot of language was purposely left vague to achieve a consensus. Not that I know this clause is one of those, just that it could be.
BTW, I accidentally deleted Doug Miller's post, so I'll comment on it here. He stated something along the lines of "The Constitution is what it says it is" and goes on to say that the Supreme Court is often wrong in its interpretation.
Well, I'd sure rather trust some experienced judicial minds to tell me what the Constitution means than to trust Doug's interpretation. Or my own for that matter.
If I misquoted you DOug, I apologize.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Madison *wrote* it -- and his comments on its meaning are only his "personal view"??
LOL
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Larry Blanchard wrote:

You miss the point methinks. We are either a nation of laws or not. If we are, then we should both abide by the existing laws AND use the lawful mechanisms already in place to change laws that are archaic, irrelevant, or just plain wrong. Even the Constitution itself is open to such changes.
What we should not be doing is *ignoring* our laws just because we don't like the outcome for the moment. You want stronger Federal action? Fine - convince a supermajority of states to approve it and modify the Constitution. But cheating the way FDR and all the so-called "progressives" have done for some 8 decades is neither good for the nation nor honorable. The US Constitution and indeed the entire system is built on the doctrine of Enumerated Powers - That the Feds only get to do something with *specific permission for that action*. This is not a matter of legal interpretation or some technical subtlety of law. This is one of the large, unambiguous cornerstones of our entire government. Attempts to read the exact inverse of this are obnoxious, wrong, and destructive to both rule-of-law and liberty itself.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 30 Aug 2008 15:29:23 -0700, Mark & Juanita wrote:

It wasn't that long ago that an average CEO made about 50 times what the average worker did. Now it's about 500 times. If that doesn't bother you, I don't know what would.
I'll vote for the candidate who wants to get us out of this stupid unjustified war in Iraq.
I'll vote for the candidate who thinks what a woman does with her own body is her business.
I'll vote for the candidate who wants to stop the ridiculous growth in US population.
I'll vote for the candidate who says earmarks should have to be in separate bills of their own so that they can be voted up or down on their own merits.
And on, and on, and ....
Since there is no such candidate, I'll vote for the one who at least supports the first two.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Larry Blanchard wrote:

Whether that bothers me or not is irrelevant. What is relevant is that someone would think that a private-industry issue should be solved by the government.

Congress deliberately decided and voted to wage a stupid and unjustified war), don't you have the slightest concern that simple "cut and run" might just damage the view of our country and embolden other tyrannical regimes? Wouldn't winning and then getting out make more sense?

I haven't heard anybody opposing or advocating legislation to ban piercings or tattoos. Have you?

problem, due to the success of the "population bomb" propaganda of the 60's, along with the accompanying rampant narcissism, the population growth actually slowed. We now are facing a situation in which the older population (the boomers) are going to outnumber the younger generation. That's going to raise all kinds of havoc with FDR's Social Security Ponzi scheme.

I think you slipped up on that one, that's a conservative issue.

OK, so we've got one vote for more government intervention in the free market and defeat in Iraq.
--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 30 Aug 2008 19:52:04 -0700, Mark & Juanita

Like we did in Vietnam? It's amazing how that country fell apart when we withdrew.
The war is Iraq is a religeous war between indigenous people that can only be won when one side or the other is eliminated. Neither side is willing to tolerate being ruled by the other.
We send young kids over there to wage a war in a situation where they can't tell friends from enemies, then prosecute them when they act out of fear and kill the wrong side (I'll grant that there are a few justified prosecutions). Then our illustrious government wants to spend as little as possible caring for the returning vets.
We need to tell the Iraqi people to get their act together and witrhdraw with all haste.
Couldn't resist. Bill
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 30 Aug 2008 19:52:04 -0700, Mark & Juanita wrote:

So the government has no obligation to protect the powerless from the powerful?

Funny, but avoids the issue.

You must not have read/heard the news lately. The population is projected to increase from 300 million to 400 million in about 30 years, mostly driven by immigration and the immigrants large families. Sounds like a lot of "younger generation" to me.

YOu're the one who labelled me liberal, I agree with some issues from both parties and disagree with others. Unlike some who never met a liberal/conservative they didn't hate :-).
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Larry Blanchard wrote:

How is this germane to how a company in private industry chooses to compensate its employees? At some point major shareholders are going to rise up and stop this nonsense, particularly if they see that the compensation does not equate to superior performance.

Oh no, this is absolutely the issue. Up to the time of conception, a woman is perfectly free to do with her body as she chooses. After conception, there is another living being, the utmost definition of innocence and vulnerability that must be considered. That some elements of our society have deemed that being to not be a life, despite all of the scientific evidence (sonograms and other devices) that show the development of that life does not make it any less a life when it is violently ripped from the womb and discarded like just so much spoiled meat. This is especially true in the case of one of the candidates who not once, but three times opposed laws to protect the lives of those infants born alive during botched abortions. Do you realize what that implies? This was a stand taken for infanticide, there is no other definition for it. The excuse offered was quite lame and antithetical to every other liberal position that always defends government encroachment with the meme of "if just one life is saved, it's worth the invasiveness".

If your issue here is the illegal immigration issue and the problems regarding the failure to assimilate even legal immigrants into our society, then we agree on something.
--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 31 Aug 2008 14:39:30 -0700, Mark & Juanita wrote:

That's your opinion. Mine is that a fetus is not a human being until it can survive outside the womb. Until then, it is a potential human being. That does not make abortion a process to undergo lightly, but it should be the woman's right to make that decision.
It's funny that none of the "pro choice" crowd want to force people to have abortions, but the "pro-life" crowd seems to think they have the right to force their beliefs on others.

No, my issue is overpopulation. At present, it seems to be driven by immigration, but that may just be a temporary condition. I've seen the changes wrought over my lifetime resulting from a US population that has more than doubled already and they aren't good.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@fastmail.fm says...

So you believe that "late-term" abortions should be illegal. Indeed any past, say, 5 months gestation should be illegal. I'm *sure* you're against Obama's infanticide. Right?

Silly argument. False, and silly to boot.

Simple answer then. Stop emigration. Deport all non-citizens. Right?
--
Keith

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Bothers me, but the President did not assign the pay scale. He won't solve it either.

Sounds kind of contradictory to me. If a woman wants to make babies (or not) you think that is OK, but you want to stop the population growth. Are you suggesting we adopt the policies of China in that regard?
The government should get out of the baby business all together.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Perhaps not, but a step in the right direction would be to do as Obama said and change the bankruptcy laws to protect workers and retirees ahead of CEO golden parachutes.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.