On Mon, 17 Oct 2011 14:16:41 -0600, Just Wondering wrote:
Sigh. I know it's a waste of time, but none of your out of context
quotes were a ruling on an issue, but comments indicating the process by
which the judge(s) reached a decision. As such they do not establish a
right or even a law.
Another poster pointed out the same thing to you, but you refuse to
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw
You very question shows you don't understand the structure of the U.S.
The articles of the Constitution don't deal with individual rights; they
outline powers the states granted to the federal government. The Bill of
Rights does enumerate certain rights, but it does not grant them;
fundamental individual rights exist independent of any government grant,
and cannot be either created or destroyed by government. The Supreme
Court has stated this repeatedly in dozens of cases. Just a few dealing
specifically with the right to procreate include:
Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535 (1942)
Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965)
Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438 (1972)
Carey v. Population Services Int'l, 431 U.S. 678 (1977)
That gets more difficult for things like utilities and national defense.
Would you care to see the Smithsonian Institution shut down because it
couldn't "make it" based on the dollars it gets from admission? I'm
just talking...I know where you are coming from (too).
You raise the rates of admission. Run it like a business. Or let it be
run by donations. When the government is involved with money issues
nothing is efficient. I think it would be prudent to say that every
aspect of government spending could be trimmed back with no loss in
services if you cut the dead weight and have effecient management.
Me doing woodworking is not efficient. That doesn't mean I shouldn't try
to do it. From what I see, the most extreme form of capitalism, like
that which reaches into game theory and gambling by FDIC-insured banks,
is not a pretty thing. I'm willing to give up some efficiency in
exchange for some soul. I'm not for government that pushes its own
lottery tickets either. I like many things which are difficult to put a
dollar figure on, like fish, trees and clean air.
On 10/12/2011 12:05 PM, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
There are exceptions to this answer but the poor buy more by earning
more. The poor will remain poor as long as they are given things that
they did not earn. The poor have no business trying to keep up with the
Jones. For those that don't know how to earn and are capable, they need
to learn how.
Previously I mentioned that this would have to take effect over a period
of years, many years. It would be a direction to steer towards instead
of the direction we are headed now. The government is not going to
change its spending habits on it's own. It is going to take the full
attention of all the citizens to get it to change. Our out of control
government spending and rewards program for not producing is our
economic problem. If every one is paying taxes every one will be
interested in what the government does with those dollars. But when
basically half of the voters pay no fed income taxes they think the
government is going a good job.
It's the horrible truth. There will always be poor people and they will
grow in numbers as long as we reward them for not being productive.
I was an Apple employee after he left the company and left before he came back. I knew a lot of people who worked directly for him and/or had some "face time" with him. He was hard on his troops, but hard on himself as well. He understood technology better than most and he'll be missed.
Looking back, what a career.
I knew a lot of people who worked directly for him and/or had some "face time"
with him. He was hard on his troops, but hard on himself as well. He understood
technology better than most and he'll be missed.
Indeed. I think he made the proper decision. (see sig)
The most decisive actions of our life - I mean those that are most
likely to decide the whole course of our future - are, more often
than not, unconsidered.
-- Andre Gide
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.