B A R R Y wrote:
> On Sat, 17 May 2008 17:26:41 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>>A Palestinian who wants the occupiers to go away becomes a terrorist.
>>How easy is that?
>
> Kind of like the way my American ancestors hid in trees and shot the
> British, and didn't wage war properly?
>
But they were shooting at British soldiers, weren't they? Didn't go over
to London and start shooting women and children or blowing up civilians.
This moral equivalence BS is gonna kill us all
> ---------------------------------------------
> ** http://www.bburke.com/woodworking.html **
> ---------------------------------------------
--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough
On May 17, 11:51 pm, Charlie Self <[email protected]> wrote:
> On May 17, 3:08 pm, "Rod & Betty Jo" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> ...
>
>
> I am not "wondering" about their hate. No normal person turns red in
> the face and sprays spit when discussing such things.
I recall reading that Southern Baptists had the highest homocide
rate of any demographic group in the USA. That might have been
a particular subset, or is that subsect?
--
FF
On May 15, 7:01 pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> Larry Blanchard wrote:
> > On Thu, 15 May 2008 16:03:50 -0500, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>
> >> As a root cause matter, the *real* problem here was ever letting the
> >> government get involved in *any* kind of marriage. The only role
> >> government should have in marriage is enforcement of contracts and
> >> property rights - as it would in any other voluntary arrangement
> >> between free citizens and to interdict in the interests of minor
> >> children whose parents are not caring for them. That's it.
>
> >> In short, so long as adults engage in voluntary, consensual behavior
> >> that is not otherwise fraudulent, forceful, or threatening, they must
> >> be treated as exactly equal before the law.
>
> > How about that? We agree on something :-).
>
> > But how about polygamy, or polyandry, or group marriage, or whatever. Yes
>
> How on earth any man would want more than one woman telling him what to
> do all the time is beyond me. It's like signing up to go to GTMO
> I think.
>
> > they should also be legal. But how do you define child abuse in those
> > groups? If a girl willingly (albeit brainwashed) becomes a wife at an age
> > below that which the state considers informed consent, does the state have
> > the right to step in? I'm still scratching my head on that one.
>
> I'm not. We choose an age of majority as a society. It is an average
> that will be too high or low for some people. But we choose one as
> a matter of rule of law. People engaged in sexual activity with partners
> below that age are committing a crime, period. Having said that, I think
> you have to have a scaled set of responses. How about 10 years
> in jail for every year the minor was below majority age. Have sex
> with a 12 year old, go to jail for 60 years. A 17 year old, 10 years.
> Something like that. Or better still make it geometric:
>
> Age Of Minor Jail Time
>
> 17 1 year
> 16 2 years
> 15 4 years
> 14 8 years
> 13 16 years
>
> Or non linear:
>
> Age Of Minor Jail Time
>
> 17 1 year
> 16 5 years
> 15 15 years
> 14 30 years
> 13 75 years
>
> Something along these lines, with room in the first couple of
> years for judicial latitude (a boy who just turned 18 who has
> sexual contact with his girlfriend who won't be 18 until
> next week shouldn't go to jail or be seen as a felon in
> any sense).
>
You might ought to take a better look at some of today's 13 year olds,
and the way they act. But my biggest dislike goes for the guys who
molest toddlers, and there seems to be an ever-increasing number of
those. I don't know whether that's more getting caught, or the fact
that the percentage is increasing, but that news is always hard to
take.
Larry Blanchard wrote:
> On Thu, 15 May 2008 16:03:50 -0500, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>
>> As a root cause matter, the *real* problem here was ever letting the
>> government get involved in *any* kind of marriage. The only role
>> government should have in marriage is enforcement of contracts and
>> property rights - as it would in any other voluntary arrangement
>> between free citizens and to interdict in the interests of minor
>> children whose parents are not caring for them. That's it.
>>
>> In short, so long as adults engage in voluntary, consensual behavior
>> that is not otherwise fraudulent, forceful, or threatening, they must
>> be treated as exactly equal before the law.
>
> How about that? We agree on something :-).
>
> But how about polygamy, or polyandry, or group marriage, or whatever. Yes
How on earth any man would want more than one woman telling him what to
do all the time is beyond me. It's like signing up to go to GTMO
I think.
> they should also be legal. But how do you define child abuse in those
> groups? If a girl willingly (albeit brainwashed) becomes a wife at an age
> below that which the state considers informed consent, does the state have
> the right to step in? I'm still scratching my head on that one.
I'm not. We choose an age of majority as a society. It is an average
that will be too high or low for some people. But we choose one as
a matter of rule of law. People engaged in sexual activity with partners
below that age are committing a crime, period. Having said that, I think
you have to have a scaled set of responses. How about 10 years
in jail for every year the minor was below majority age. Have sex
with a 12 year old, go to jail for 60 years. A 17 year old, 10 years.
Something like that. Or better still make it geometric:
Age Of Minor Jail Time
17 1 year
16 2 years
15 4 years
14 8 years
13 16 years
Or non linear:
Age Of Minor Jail Time
17 1 year
16 5 years
15 15 years
14 30 years
13 75 years
Something along these lines, with room in the first couple of
years for judicial latitude (a boy who just turned 18 who has
sexual contact with his girlfriend who won't be 18 until
next week shouldn't go to jail or be seen as a felon in
any sense).
>
> BTW, I ran across a sentence in a book today that reminded me of the
> cults, etc.. "The biggest lies are those we tell ourselves."
>
Naw. You lefties tell the biggest whoppers I ever heard.
<Ducks and runs>
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Tom Watson took a can of maroon spray paint on May 16, 2008 05:22 pm and
wrote the following:
> On Fri, 16 May 2008 16:13:51 -0500, "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>"Tim Daneliuk" wrote
>>
>>> to teenage reproduction. 14 is just plain too young.
>>
>>Actually, and inarguably, at whatever age a human is old enough to
>>"reproduce" is decided entirely by nature.
>
> Which may be why some states have the age of consent set at thirteen.
>
> Canuckistanis seem to think 14 is fine.
>
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/05/01/crime-bill.html
Not anymore, note the phrase "The new law puts Canada's age of consent in
line with those in Britain, Australia and most of the United States"
> Having a sixteen year old daughter, I believe the age should be 24, as
> in 24 hours after I'm dead.
>
Unrealistic, I think.
--
Lits Slut #9
Life would be so much easier if we could just look at the source code.
On Sat, 17 May 2008 19:20:39 -0700, Mark & Juanita
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> But they were shooting at British soldiers, weren't they? Didn't go over
>to London and start shooting women and children or blowing up civilians.
Of course.
I'm thinking Afghans in caves, vs. the US or USSR. Or Iraqis that
want us out.
I have no problem calling someone who blows up a bus or flies planes
into civilian buildings terrorist.
---------------------------------------------
** http://www.bburke.com/woodworking.html **
---------------------------------------------
"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:80492d85-237d-4565-8286-062057ed4e97@b64g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
>
Yup. A bible thumper hollering that it is all the fault of the liberal
media!! (And THAT is because ANY media that points out the the sins
of the republican neo-cons automatically becomes 'liberal' so it can
be neatly pigeon-holed and condemned... and consequently/conveniently
be brushed aside.)
*************************************************
Not at all unique to bible thumpers, or even more likely to be found in
them. That's pretty much human nature.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
Larry Blanchard wrote:
> > On Fri, 16 May 2008 09:17:06 -0500, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> >
>> >> OTOH, the left/gay alliance will not stop here. Once recognized as
>> >> legally legitimate marriage, there is going to be a big push to
>> >> demand that the *private* sector recognize it equally as well.
>> >> And this I oppose, again on principle. The 14th amendment is binding
>> >> upon *government*. If private sector institutions wish to recognize
>> >> different unions differently, they ought to be able to. The Constitution
>> >> also protects the "Freedom Of Assembly" - as private employers, schools,
>> >> churches, hospitals ... are formed, their constituents and/or owners
>> >> ought to be legally free to include or exclude anyone they wish.
> >
> > As long as those NGOs are not taking government funds, I agree in
> > principle. Unfortunately, most of them are grabbing all they can get.
Agreed. If you take a dime of public money, you have to live by
public rules. That means government contractors, schools,
airlines, and so forth.
> >
> > And we have to be on the alert for those who think "lack of recognition"
> > and "exclusion" are the same thing. A private hospital may well refuse to
> > provide equal benefits for employees based on whatever, but they should
> > not be able to refuse treatment. Nor should they be able to exclude a
> > legal partner from visitation rights or a voice in care decisions.
Why? Assume that such an institution is wholly private and is not
acting with fraud, force, or threat. How is the government (all of us)
morally entitled to tell them what to do even if they do discriminate
on the basis of gender, race, religion, etc.? I'm not saying that them
doing so is *morally* OK, I'm saying it ought not to be *illegal* -
i.e., Any of the government's business.
See, this is where folks on the progressive left get into the same
bathtub full of very hot water as the conservative religious right. In
both cases, you'd like to see government act to enforce an kind of
"morality" that goes well beyond ensuring that citizens do not
infringe upon each others' liberty (which is a proper role for
government). You want government to get into the "what's good and
what's bad" business and that is just deadly. Why? Because there is
not complete agreement among citizens as to what (moral) good or bad
beyond the preservation of freedom. Tell me what the difference is
between a leftie telling Big Evil Company Inc. that they cannot
discriminate on the basis of race, and a Right Wing Church trying to
enforce their moral code against homosexuality via law? There isn't
any. Both are implicitly forceful acts wherein one group, with a given
moral code, wishes to use the power of government to make others who
do not share that moral code do as they demand.
An excellent example of this can be seen at the moment wherein
government is jamming anti-smoking legislation down the throats of
small, privately owned bars and restaurants. You don't like smoke?
Don't eat or work there. Really simple. Better still, open up a place
of your own and forbid smoking voluntarily. Don't get the government
to be your bully and make everyone else do what you want.
This is why I keep yammering on about why a "Living Constitution" is
such a profoundly evil legal construct. Being free means putting up
with people you don't like, ideas you don't like, and morality you
find noxious. But unless another party's actions actually cause
another citizen harm - and this *always* involves some form of fraud,
force, or threat - it is simply none of your business. The smoking
thing leaps to mind here again. No one forces anyone to go to or work
in a smoking environment. There is simply *no* justification for
government action here. People will argue that because government pays
for part of the healthcare of its elder citizens, it *is* a legitimate
concern of government. But this too is utterly bogus. The government
has no business being *in* the healthcare business in the first place,
certainly not the Federal government anyway.
Do I think racism, as another example, is a horrible moral
malfunction? Absolutely. But I think forcing private sector
institutions to be race neutral at the point of the government gun
causes far more damage than the most vile Klacker ever could. When law
is used as a proxy for "morality", then all you get is the dominant
morality of the moment dictating law. Law ceases to be a neutral point
that binds our freedoms together, and becomes a competition for whose
flavor of the month/year/administration we will be *forced* to follow.
Law is not an instrument for goodness. It is an instrument for
liberty. When you try to use it for the former you will always lose
the latter.
-- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tim Daneliuk [email protected] PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Rod & Betty Jo wrote:
> Andrew Barss wrote:
>>> I think any real American should rejoice in the decision. The state
>>> is refraining from involvment in the affairs of the people, shouldn't
>>> that be the way it is? If you don't like gay marriage, don't marry a
>>> gay. But don't take your biblical fundamentalism and personal
>>> beliefs and attempt to apply them to the rest of the populace.
>
>> Very well said. The Founders would approve.
>> -- Andy Barss
>
> Not likely....they'd be falling on the floor laughing at the very
> concept...... Marriage as in matrimony of the day by practice and definition
> would always include opposite sexes and in this country generally one man
> and one women. One may note the serious harassment of Mormons in the
> following century.
>
> The current desire for legal homosexual marriage has little to do with
> actual marriage but rather an attempt for societal acceptance of the
> lifestyle (they wish to be considered normal even if nature really says
> otherwise). Perceived benefits including legal and personal commitment are
I disagree. They are already pretty much integrated into the society.
So much so that it is kind of a large collective shrug for most
of us when the topic comes up. What they *are* up to - and which I
oppose completely - is using the marriage definition to require the
*private* sector to recognize them equally. The Constitutional
protections for equality are directed at government, not private
institutions and organizations. If a business wants to offer marriage
benefits to heterosexuals and not to homosexuals, they should be
free to do exactly that, so long as they do not get a dime of
tax money as income or entitlement.
> readily available or possible via domestic partnerships and/or simple
> personal commitment. One anomaly of the marriage acceptance push or the
> implied monogamy desire is the lifestyle itself is frequently promiscuous
> (especially among many males) and the no strings anonymous sex is one of the
> appeals. Rod
>
>
>
Your position is arguably true as a matter of culture and, in some belief
systems, morality. It is, however, utterly irrelevant as a matter of *law*.
The government should never be allowed to be in the morals business.
You folks on the conservative right very properly howl when some left
politician starts using government to perform social engineering. Guess
what? When you oppose 14th amendment protections - i.e., identical treatment
for all citizens - *you* are engaging on social engineering on the basis
of *your* morality, and it's just as obnoxious. Law exists to preserve
liberty, not make us all act "properly". That the job of your conscience,
or church, or God, not some elected politician with an axe to grind for
reelection. Your civil liberties protect your right to express your
moral or even personal disdain for homosexuals and their acts. Your
civil liberties do *not* include the right to *exclude* people from
the protections guaranteed in the 14th amendment.
By all means, explicate your moral persuasion as you are moved to do
so, but never confuse moral conviction with the basis for law. They
are rather different disciplines - something that neither the right-
nor the left politicos seem to understand or be bound by.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
"Swingman" wrote
> "Tim Daneliuk" wrote
>
>> to teenage reproduction. 14 is just plain too young.
>
> Actually, and inarguably, at whatever age a human is old enough to
> "reproduce" is decided entirely by nature.
>
And in this day of industrial pollutants and xenoestrogens, the actual age
of reproduction is getting younger and younger.
On May 16, 5:22=A0pm, Tom Watson <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, 16 May 2008 16:13:51 -0500, "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >"Tim Daneliuk" wrote
>
> >> to teenage reproduction. =A014 is just plain too young.
>
> >Actually, and inarguably, at whatever age a human is old enough to
> >"reproduce" is decided entirely by nature.
>
> Which may be why some states have the age of consent set at thirteen.
>
> Canuckistanis seem to think 14 is fine.
No longer. 16 now.
>
> Having a sixteen year old daughter, I believe the age should be 24, as
> in 24 hours after I'm dead.
I have a 14-year old. She tells us that she doesn't like boys... and
we believe her.
She spends all her babysitting money on Hollister and American Eagle
to look good for herself! Those make-up sessions are for her own
pleasure.
=2E
=2E
=2E
=2E
=2E
=2E
=2E
=2E
Right.
I already raised 2 girls. I'd like to think successfully. The oldest
just got married at age 27, just last year. That's more like it. 21
would have been fine by me too.
So much of it depends on the individual. Some are old and wise enough
at 18. My sister was. Some are never old and wise enough.
Larry Blanchard wrote:
> On Thu, 15 May 2008 18:01:59 -0500, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>
>> I'm not. We choose an age of majority as a society. It is an average
>> that will be too high or low for some people. But we choose one as
>> a matter of rule of law. People engaged in sexual activity with partners
>> below that age are committing a crime, period. Having said that, I think
>> you have to have a scaled set of responses. How about 10 years
>> in jail for every year the minor was below majority age. Have sex
>> with a 12 year old, go to jail for 60 years. A 17 year old, 10 years.
>> Something like that.
>
> Well, I don't think anyone supports legal sex with a 10 year old - there's
> no gray area there. But it hasn't been that long ago that 14 was
> considered the age of consent in several states, and may still be in some
> - at 71 I don't keep up with that sort of thing :-).
Yeah, but that was when people died at 40 and you needed all the kids
you could have to keep the farm alive. One of the great blessings
of Capitalism, specialization, and industry is that we can live longer
with fewer children, enjoy the children we do have by seeing them
well into their middle age before we die, and not have to resort
to teenage reproduction. 14 is just plain too young. Then again,
there are people I know that I pray *never* have such contact at any
age on the off chance they reproduce, thereby polluting the gene pool.
>
> And what if the male having sex with the 14 year old is himself 14?
> Surely that's less of an offense than if he was 40. Maybe your list needs
> to be a table :-).
>
I shudder to contemplate any of the above...
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
On May 16, 7:51 am, Hanshika Sathey <[email protected]> wrote:
> SUMMER DATING + FRIENDSHIP WITH ME..!
>
> Hii.... I'm Hanshika Sathey, from Mumbai..
>
> Make Me your Best Friend
>
> Simple join to my Best Friends List..
>
> http://www.batchmates.com/MGMhome.asp?refid=1969464&reflink=21904
>
> Pls Do confirm your account after Regitration.
>
> Thanking you.
>
> Hanshika Sathey,
> (Mumbai)
Just remember to NOT leave those sheep's hind legs stuck in the fence
when you're done.
On May 17, 7:59=A0pm, B A R R Y <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sat, 17 May 2008 16:51:13 -0700 (PDT), Charlie Self
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >Do you know much about
> >Southern Baptists? Unfortunately, far too many of them talk love and
> >preach and live hate.
>
> I've seen the same, and it is kind of weird.
>
Yup. A bible thumper hollering that it is all the fault of the liberal
media!! (And THAT is because ANY media that points out the the sins
of the republican neo-cons automatically becomes 'liberal' so it can
be neatly pigeon-holed and condemned... and consequently/conveniently
be brushed aside.)
A Palestinian who wants the occupiers to go away becomes a terrorist.
How easy is that?
THOSE kind of people, deep-down, want to march and wear brown uniforms
with belt buckles that proclaim "Gott ist mit uns!!"
And so the cycle continues. Those who don't learn from history.....
On May 17, 4:10 pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> Charlie Self wrote:
> > On May 15, 7:01 pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Larry Blanchard wrote:
> >>> On Thu, 15 May 2008 16:03:50 -0500, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> >>>> As a root cause matter, the *real* problem here was ever letting the
> >>>> government get involved in *any* kind of marriage. The only role
> >>>> government should have in marriage is enforcement of contracts and
> >>>> property rights - as it would in any other voluntary arrangement
> >>>> between free citizens and to interdict in the interests of minor
> >>>> children whose parents are not caring for them. That's it.
> >>>> In short, so long as adults engage in voluntary, consensual behavior
> >>>> that is not otherwise fraudulent, forceful, or threatening, they must
> >>>> be treated as exactly equal before the law.
> >>> How about that? We agree on something :-).
> >>> But how about polygamy, or polyandry, or group marriage, or whatever. Yes
> >> How on earth any man would want more than one woman telling him what to
> >> do all the time is beyond me. It's like signing up to go to GTMO
> >> I think.
>
> >>> they should also be legal. But how do you define child abuse in those
> >>> groups? If a girl willingly (albeit brainwashed) becomes a wife at an age
> >>> below that which the state considers informed consent, does the state have
> >>> the right to step in? I'm still scratching my head on that one.
> >> I'm not. We choose an age of majority as a society. It is an average
> >> that will be too high or low for some people. But we choose one as
> >> a matter of rule of law. People engaged in sexual activity with partners
> >> below that age are committing a crime, period. Having said that, I think
> >> you have to have a scaled set of responses. How about 10 years
> >> in jail for every year the minor was below majority age. Have sex
> >> with a 12 year old, go to jail for 60 years. A 17 year old, 10 years.
> >> Something like that. Or better still make it geometric:
>
> >> Age Of Minor Jail Time
>
> >> 17 1 year
> >> 16 2 years
> >> 15 4 years
> >> 14 8 years
> >> 13 16 years
>
> >> Or non linear:
>
> >> Age Of Minor Jail Time
>
> >> 17 1 year
> >> 16 5 years
> >> 15 15 years
> >> 14 30 years
> >> 13 75 years
>
> >> Something along these lines, with room in the first couple of
> >> years for judicial latitude (a boy who just turned 18 who has
> >> sexual contact with his girlfriend who won't be 18 until
> >> next week shouldn't go to jail or be seen as a felon in
> >> any sense).
>
> > You might ought to take a better look at some of today's 13 year olds,
> > and the way they act. But my biggest dislike goes for the guys who
>
> That's called the "she was asking for it defense". It's, um, wrong
> to have sexual conduct with a 13 yo period.
>
> > molest toddlers, and there seems to be an ever-increasing number of
> > those. I don't know whether that's more getting caught, or the fact
> > that the percentage is increasing, but that news is always hard to
> > take.
>
Tim, not too long ago, some asshole here, caught and convicted of
molesting a three year old, said she was coming on to him. No denial,
no nothing. Just a statement that she was coming on to him. Three
years old. I might be wrong. The child might have been four.
If hell exists, there needs to be a special niche for people like him,
say 10 or 11 steps below Adolf and Uncle Joe.
Charlie Self wrote:
> On May 15, 7:01 pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Larry Blanchard wrote:
>>> On Thu, 15 May 2008 16:03:50 -0500, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>>>> As a root cause matter, the *real* problem here was ever letting the
>>>> government get involved in *any* kind of marriage. The only role
>>>> government should have in marriage is enforcement of contracts and
>>>> property rights - as it would in any other voluntary arrangement
>>>> between free citizens and to interdict in the interests of minor
>>>> children whose parents are not caring for them. That's it.
>>>> In short, so long as adults engage in voluntary, consensual behavior
>>>> that is not otherwise fraudulent, forceful, or threatening, they must
>>>> be treated as exactly equal before the law.
>>> How about that? We agree on something :-).
>>> But how about polygamy, or polyandry, or group marriage, or whatever. Yes
>> How on earth any man would want more than one woman telling him what to
>> do all the time is beyond me. It's like signing up to go to GTMO
>> I think.
>>
>>> they should also be legal. But how do you define child abuse in those
>>> groups? If a girl willingly (albeit brainwashed) becomes a wife at an age
>>> below that which the state considers informed consent, does the state have
>>> the right to step in? I'm still scratching my head on that one.
>> I'm not. We choose an age of majority as a society. It is an average
>> that will be too high or low for some people. But we choose one as
>> a matter of rule of law. People engaged in sexual activity with partners
>> below that age are committing a crime, period. Having said that, I think
>> you have to have a scaled set of responses. How about 10 years
>> in jail for every year the minor was below majority age. Have sex
>> with a 12 year old, go to jail for 60 years. A 17 year old, 10 years.
>> Something like that. Or better still make it geometric:
>>
>> Age Of Minor Jail Time
>>
>> 17 1 year
>> 16 2 years
>> 15 4 years
>> 14 8 years
>> 13 16 years
>>
>> Or non linear:
>>
>> Age Of Minor Jail Time
>>
>> 17 1 year
>> 16 5 years
>> 15 15 years
>> 14 30 years
>> 13 75 years
>>
>> Something along these lines, with room in the first couple of
>> years for judicial latitude (a boy who just turned 18 who has
>> sexual contact with his girlfriend who won't be 18 until
>> next week shouldn't go to jail or be seen as a felon in
>> any sense).
>>
>
> You might ought to take a better look at some of today's 13 year olds,
> and the way they act. But my biggest dislike goes for the guys who
That's called the "she was asking for it defense". It's, um, wrong
to have sexual conduct with a 13 yo period.
> molest toddlers, and there seems to be an ever-increasing number of
> those. I don't know whether that's more getting caught, or the fact
> that the percentage is increasing, but that news is always hard to
> take.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
On May 17, 8:56=A0pm, B A R R Y <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sat, 17 May 2008 17:26:41 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >A Palestinian who wants the occupiers to go away becomes a terrorist.
> >How easy is that?
>
> Kind of like the way my American ancestors hid in trees and shot the
> British, and didn't wage war properly?
>
A close friend of mine, who is still in the navy as a weapons expert
(writes all kinds of cool software) says that nothing has changed over
the years. A 50 cal can take out an Apache (assuming you know where to
hit it), but you're screwed if he sees you first.
So, who is the improper one in that scenario? <G>
"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:2f1Xj.3741$LL.757@trnddc04...
>
> "Rod & Betty Jo" wrote:
>
>
>> But first we get to see religious intolerance here....lucky us.
>
> No intolerance, just don't want someone trying to jam the biggest scam job
> on the planet up my keister.
>
> Keep it to your self and I'll be satisfied.
>
> Lew
>
That's an interesting crock of shit if ever I saw one. You started this
thread Lew, complete with your off-hand jab. None of the very folks you
seem so concerned about had poked their heads out of the fox hole before you
fired your first round, and yet you are whining about them pushing stuff in
your face? Pot... Kettle... Maybe you should just keep your stuff to
yourself. Clearly you're just spoiling for the very fight you profess to
despise.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On May 18, 3:15 am, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>...
> This is where I will partially agree with you in that by
> attempting to legislate certain morality with the objective of making a
> society more "Christian", one of two things happen a) people think that
> they are right with God based upon their following those codes (secular
> righteousness) and thus don't need anything else to be saved, or b) people
> are repulsed by this approach and reject the earnest attempts to reach them
> with the gospel message because all they see Christianity as is a bunch of
> rules and laws that restrict their fun. ...
Can you think of any other reason why
that might be a bad idea?
--
FF
"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:2f1Xj.3741$LL.757@trnddc04...
>
> "Rod & Betty Jo" wrote:
>
>
>> But first we get to see religious intolerance here....lucky us.
>
> No intolerance, just don't want someone trying to jam the biggest scam job
> on the planet up my keister.
That would be organized religion and the right-wing religiofacists..
>
> Keep it to your self and I'll be satisfied.
That's what I'm stressin'.
Dave in Houston
Lew Hodgett wrote:
> Somebody wrote:
>
>> I am not "wondering" about their hate. No normal person turns red in
>> the face and sprays spit when discussing such things.
>
> The operative word being "Normal" which unfortunately is seldom the
> case.
>
> The "Hell Fire and Brimstone" bunch don't appear to be able to get
> over the lions yet.
>
> Lew
So it sounds as if it is from this that you have derived your visceral
hatred of anything Christian. The sad thing is that based upon the actions
of your exposure to extremists of a denomination, you have jeopardized your
eternal soul. This is where I will partially agree with you in that by
attempting to legislate certain morality with the objective of making a
society more "Christian", one of two things happen a) people think that
they are right with God based upon their following those codes (secular
righteousness) and thus don't need anything else to be saved, or b) people
are repulsed by this approach and reject the earnest attempts to reach them
with the gospel message because all they see Christianity as is a bunch of
rules and laws that restrict their fun. Neither of which is really what
Christianity is about. Christianity is about the fact that after one dies,
the only answer that a righteous God asking why he should let you into His
heaven is that one knows that although a sinner, Christ paid for his sins
and it is by that sacrifice that one can expect salvation.
--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough
Somebody wrote:
> I am not "wondering" about their hate. No normal person turns red in
> the face and sprays spit when discussing such things.
The operative word being "Normal" which unfortunately is seldom the
case.
The "Hell Fire and Brimstone" bunch don't appear to be able to get
over the lions yet.
Lew
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>
> One coda to the above:
>
> OTOH, the left/gay alliance will not stop here. Once recognized as
> legally legitimate marriage, there is going to be a big push to
> demand that the *private* sector recognize it equally as well.
> And this I oppose, again on principle. The 14th amendment is binding
> upon *government*. If private sector institutions wish to recognize
> different unions differently, they ought to be able to. The Constitution
> also protects the "Freedom Of Assembly" - as private employers, schools,
> churches, hospitals ... are formed, their constituents and/or owners
> ought to be legally free to include or exclude anyone they wish.
>
I agree, but if your some outfit like the Boy Scouts then be ready to suffer
the consequences. There has been an assault against them for years.
--
"You can lead them to LINUX
but you can't make them THINK"
Running Mandriva release 2008.0 free-i586 using KDE on i586
Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
> On May 18, 3:15 am, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
>> ...
>> This is where I will partially agree with you in that by
>> attempting to legislate certain morality with the objective of making a
>> society more "Christian", one of two things happen a) people think that
>> they are right with God based upon their following those codes (secular
>> righteousness) and thus don't need anything else to be saved, or b) people
>> are repulsed by this approach and reject the earnest attempts to reach them
>> with the gospel message because all they see Christianity as is a bunch of
>> rules and laws that restrict their fun. ...
>
> Can you think of any other reason why
> that might be a bad idea?
The bigotry of the nonbeliever is for me nearly as funny as the bigotry
of the believer.
Albert Einstein
Larry Blanchard wrote:
> But how about polygamy, or polyandry, or group marriage, or whatever. Yes
> they should also be legal. But how do you define child abuse in those
> groups? If a girl willingly (albeit brainwashed) becomes a wife at an age
> below that which the state considers informed consent, does the state have
> the right to step in? I'm still scratching my head on that one.
Whatever? Just leave the sheep out of this - it's difficult to know if
they consent or can be brainwashed. I don't think it's consent when
they say baaaaa-d.
Robatoy wrote:
> On May 17, 8:56Â pm, B A R R Y <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Sat, 17 May 2008 17:26:41 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy
>>
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >A Palestinian who wants the occupiers to go away becomes a terrorist.
>> >How easy is that?
>>
>> Kind of like the way my American ancestors hid in trees and shot the
>> British, and didn't wage war properly?
>>
> A close friend of mine, who is still in the navy as a weapons expert
> (writes all kinds of cool software) says that nothing has changed over
> the years. A 50 cal can take out an Apache (assuming you know where to
> hit it), but you're screwed if he sees you first.
>
> So, who is the improper one in that scenario? <G>
I think it's comes down to, alls fair in love and war!!! and of course who
has the bigger guns.
--
"You can lead them to LINUX
but you can't make them THINK"
Running Mandriva release 2008.0 free-i586 using KDE on i586
Larry Blanchard wrote:
> On Thu, 15 May 2008 16:03:50 -0500, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>
>> As a root cause matter, the *real* problem here was ever letting the
>> government get involved in *any* kind of marriage. The only role
>> government should have in marriage is enforcement of contracts and
>> property rights - as it would in any other voluntary arrangement
>> between free citizens and to interdict in the interests of minor
>> children whose parents are not caring for them. That's it.
>>
>> In short, so long as adults engage in voluntary, consensual behavior
>> that is not otherwise fraudulent, forceful, or threatening, they must
>> be treated as exactly equal before the law.
>
> How about that? We agree on something :-).
>
> But how about polygamy, or polyandry, or group marriage, or whatever. Yes
> they should also be legal. But how do you define child abuse in those
> groups? If a girl willingly (albeit brainwashed) becomes a wife at an age
> below that which the state considers informed consent, does the state have
> the right to step in? I'm still scratching my head on that one.
>
> BTW, I ran across a sentence in a book today that reminded me of the
> cults, etc.. "The biggest lies are those we tell ourselves."
>
Insofar as group clusters are concerned, we already have partnerships,
corporations, etc. People and animals (or vegetables) are covered by a
bill of sale.
kreegah,
jo4hn
"Tim Daneliuk" wrote
> of *your* morality, and it's just as obnoxious. Law exists to preserve
> liberty, not make us all act "properly".
That depends .... or you old, or young, and do you want a city of "Laws", or
a city of the "Republic"?
Re-read your Plato, dude! ;)
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 5/14/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)
Doug Winterburn wrote:
> Mike Marlow wrote:
>> "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:80492d85-237d-4565-8286-062057ed4e97@b64g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> Yup. A bible thumper hollering that it is all the fault of the liberal
>> media!! (And THAT is because ANY media that points out the the sins
>> of the republican neo-cons automatically becomes 'liberal' so it can
>> be neatly pigeon-holed and condemned... and consequently/conveniently
>> be brushed aside.)
>>
>>
>> *************************************************
>>
>> Not at all unique to bible thumpers, or even more likely to be found in
>> them. That's pretty much human nature.
>>
>
> As in the liberal references to Faux News.
Well lets take a look at PMSNBC, and NBC in general, shall we. It is so
blindingly liberal, at least most of the time Fox will give you 2 sides of
the story. Keith Overbit I don't believe has ever had a conservative on his
show, and constantly bashes Republicans. Never points out the abuses of the
liberals, except ole Hilary. Where Fox reports on both, usually. I don't
think I have ever heard Mr Overbit even mention he is Liberal or a leftest
lunatic. Wonder why that is?
--
"You can lead them to LINUX
but you can't make them THINK"
Running Mandriva release 2008.0 free-i586 using KDE on i586
Mike Marlow wrote:
> "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:80492d85-237d-4565-8286-062057ed4e97@b64g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Yup. A bible thumper hollering that it is all the fault of the liberal
> media!! (And THAT is because ANY media that points out the the sins
> of the republican neo-cons automatically becomes 'liberal' so it can
> be neatly pigeon-holed and condemned... and consequently/conveniently
> be brushed aside.)
>
>
> *************************************************
>
> Not at all unique to bible thumpers, or even more likely to be found in
> them. That's pretty much human nature.
>
As in the liberal references to Faux News.
On May 17, 11:15=A0pm, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
> =A0Christianity is about the fact that after one dies,
> the only answer that a righteous God asking why he should let you into His=
> heaven is that one knows that although a sinner, Christ paid for his sins
> and it is by that sacrifice that one can expect salvation.
>
Pretty much sums it up for me, and the foundation of my faith is
exactly that.
But I can't reconcile Christ's teachings and the behaviour of the
thugs in the White House.
Allowing the slaughter of civilians in Gaza alone is just plain wrong.
And many other examples.
But you, Mark, are so dug in, that any further discussions on these
issues feels futile.
It took 19 terrorists to pull off 911. They came from 'over there'.
How many Muslims on this planet, Mark? Take that number and divide the
number 19 into that. You'd have to eliminate 50 million+ to reduce
that number from 19 to 18. You have, by some estimates, 5 million in
your country..so that would make a nice start? Kill them all so 911
can't happen again? Is that the logic? Ooops, we have to kill those
who could spawn the likes of Timothy McVeigh too.
Listen, I know my argument is ridiculous and there are times when
rising up to defeat an enemy is warranted, but it should never be a
decision made by the money lenders.
These are all the words I am going to spend on this in this thread.
r
On Fri, 16 May 2008 16:13:51 -0500, "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:
>"Tim Daneliuk" wrote
>
>> to teenage reproduction. 14 is just plain too young.
>
>Actually, and inarguably, at whatever age a human is old enough to
>"reproduce" is decided entirely by nature.
Which may be why some states have the age of consent set at thirteen.
Canuckistanis seem to think 14 is fine.
Having a sixteen year old daughter, I believe the age should be 24, as
in 24 hours after I'm dead.
Mr. D. needs to not confuse the legal concepts of "age of consent",
"age of license", and "age of majority".
Tom Watson
tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet
www.home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1
Charlie Self wrote:
> Agreed. I was onoce a Baptist, my wife is an SB, and I'm tempted to go
> to church tomorrow (not seriously, though) to see what the sonorous
> one has to say about the California ruling. He's been preaching
> neoconservatism and hatred of Obama and Clinton all along, according
> to my wife.
>
> One does wonder why so many Christians are so full of hate when they
> are supposedly strong practitioners of a religion of love.
I'm curious if this "hate" your wonder about is not just moral conviction,
if someone takes a public ethical stand is it always hateful? My
comprehension of religious hate requires something ranging from a Rev.
Wright all the way to a Muslim extremist....interesting enough their message
is less about religion and more in search of a common enemy to unite and
inspire the flock........Incidentally if your wife's minister preaches
politics from the Sunday morning service he should be soundly chastised as
he will likely damage the very institution he champions. The rest of the
week is fair game, although for a healthy church the members should only
know his moral convictions and guess his political views. Rod
On May 15, 4:42 pm, "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Rod & Betty Jo" wrote:
>
> > But first we get to see religious intolerance here....lucky us.
>
> No intolerance, just don't want someone trying to jam the biggest scam
> job on the planet up my keister.
>
> Keep it to your self and I'll be satisfied.
>
> Lew
Agreed. I was onoce a Baptist, my wife is an SB, and I'm tempted to go
to church tomorrow (not seriously, though) to see what the sonorous
one has to say about the California ruling. He's been preaching
neoconservatism and hatred of Obama and Clinton all along, according
to my wife.
One does wonder why so many Christians are so full of hate when they
are supposedly strong practitioners of a religion of love.
"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:6x%Wj.22454$lj.18582@trnddc01...
> The ninth circuit court just handed down a decision allowing same sex
> marriage here in California.
>
> Time to watch the bible thumpers knee jerk reaction like they just had a
> 2300 Volt probe stuck where the moon doesn't shine.
>
> Lew
>
>
He he he... So that is how California is going to implement population
control.
On May 15, 4:14 pm, "Rod & Betty Jo" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Lew Hodgett wrote:
> > The ninth circuit court just handed down a decision allowing same sex
> > marriage here in California.
>
> > Time to watch the bible thumpers knee jerk reaction like they just had
> > a 2300 Volt probe stuck where the moon doesn't shine.
>
> > Lew
>
> But first we get to see religious intolerance here....lucky us.
>
> Having a state Supreme court act as King without regard to both the CA
> legislature and the CA 2000 public initiative should give anyone pause. This
> is clearly a arrogant attempt to place their view above the will of the
> people, a fine example of the all knowing all powerful Big brother. Even
> worse the imagined "social injustice" doesn't exist as CA has a very
> comprehensive domestic partner act. Possibly a insight as to what kind of
> federal judges we may get under a Obama presidency. That the highest court
> in the state chooses to overturn a 5000 year old word or concept definition
> might also tell you they don't have nearly enough to do in their normal day
> job. Rod
As put forward in Brown versus the Kansas Board of Education:
"Separate but equal is inherently unequal"
The court system is there to help keep things orderly and interpret
what is and is not legal. The voters approved a law that the courts
judged went against the state's constitution. Either it was plainly
against the constitution or the defense lawyers didn't do a very good
job. The outcome would have been the same had the voters attempted to
pass a law forbidding a public education to children of rich people.
If it's unconstitutional, it's going to get struck down.
That said, the voters are attempting to put a measure on the ballot to
make it constitutional in California.
I doubt it'll pass, but there is a chance it will.
-Nathan
On May 15, 5:03 pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> Rod & Betty Jo wrote:
>
> ...
>
>
>
> Since I allege that I am some form of Constitutional "Originalist"
> and do not like people fiddling with a so-called "Living Constitution":
>
> I think you're wrong here as a matter of law. The Equal Protection
> clause of the 14th Amendment makes it pretty plain:
>
> No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge
> the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;
> nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property,
> without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its
> jurisdiction the ***equal protection of the laws***. (Emphasis mine.)
While we are on the subject of the 14th Amendment,
note the separate use of the words 'person' and 'citizen.'
I daresay that an interpretation based on textualism, original
intent, and even Scalia's 'originalism' would be hard pressed
to ignore that.
>
> It doesn't matter how offensive, immoral, other otherwise yucky people may
> view homosexuality. It has nothing to do with the definition of the word
> "marriage". This is exactly about whether the law will treat everyone
> equally. I would also view any legislative attempt to do an end-around
> (pardon the pun) this finding by the court as blatantly un-Constitutional.
>
It is interesting to note that in the aptly named Lovings v Virgina,
the state argued that Virginia's law prohibiting interracial
marriages
did not violate the 14 Amendment because it was just as illegal
for Negroes to marry Caucasians as it was for Caucasians to
marry Negroes. That was 1966.
Now consider the question before the Ninth Circuit, "Is is just as
illegal for a man to marry a man as it is for a woman to marry a
man?" Even the test Virginia's proffered in _Lovings_ fails.
> As a root cause matter, the *real* problem here was ever letting the
> government get involved in *any* kind of marriage. The only role
> government should have in marriage is enforcement of contracts and
> property rights - as it would in any other voluntary arrangement
> between free citizens and to interdict in the interests of minor
> children whose parents are not caring for them. That's it.
>
> In short, so long as adults engage in voluntary, consensual behavior
> that is not otherwise fraudulent, forceful, or threatening, they must
> be treated as exactly equal before the law.
Agreed, but those are so many points of involvement of the
state in marriage, that the state can justify setting some sort
of standard for what is a marriage, just as it does for what
is a contract. And therein lies the opportunity for legislators
to impose their preferences, and why we need an independent
judiciary (though Scalia might not agree) to weed them back
out.
If this gets to the USSC, it will be interesting to see what
pedantic gymnastics Scalia will employ in his opinion.
Perhaps he will decide that the original meaning of 'person'
excluded homosexuals...
> If it makes you feel any better, by the exact same kind of reasoning,
> cultural conservatives and people of religious conviction ought to
> be free to openly condemn homosexuality as immoral without living
> in fear of being brought up on hate speech charges. Like I said
> (well, really the 14th Amendment), *equal* protection...
Indeed.
--
FF
....
On May 16, 5:00 pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> Larry Blanchard wrote:
> > > On Fri, 16 May 2008 09:17:06 -0500, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>
> >> >> ... The Constitution
> >> >> also protects the "Freedom Of Assembly" - as private employers, schools,
> >> >> churches, hospitals ... are formed, their constituents and/or owners
> >> >> ought to be legally free to include or exclude anyone they wish.
>
> > > As long as those NGOs are not taking government funds, I agree in
> > > principle. Unfortunately, most of them are grabbing all they can get.
>
> Agreed. If you take a dime of public money, you have to live by
> public rules. That means government contractors, schools,
> airlines, and so forth.
Oh, and don't forget interstate commerce. Does the air you
breathe cross state lines?
Perhaps more to the point, does the sate have laws governing
insurance, employment, etc etc? If so, must the state not enforce
them consistently with the 24th Amendment? But what does that
mean?
Last I checked, the 14th Amendment stopped at private property
property not open to the public (there is a term of art I am
forgetting
here.). If you want to keep white peopleo ut of your home, fine. A
shopping mall, no. A private club, yes.
Dunno if that is the best place to draw the line, but where ever it
is drawn it is bound to be fuzzy.
>
> An excellent example of this can be seen at the moment wherein
> government is jamming anti-smoking legislation down the throats of
> small, privately owned bars and restaurants ...
Last I heard, Scalia thought it was fine for the Feds to make it
illegal to grow or smoke locally grown pot, in private. I wonder
if would think it is OK for local governments to prohibit smoking
tobacco in public?
--
FF
On May 17, 3:08 pm, "Rod & Betty Jo" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Charlie Self wrote:
> > Agreed. I was onoce a Baptist, my wife is an SB, and I'm tempted to go
> > to church tomorrow (not seriously, though) to see what the sonorous
> > one has to say about the California ruling. He's been preaching
> > neoconservatism and hatred of Obama and Clinton all along, according
> > to my wife.
>
> > One does wonder why so many Christians are so full of hate when they
> > are supposedly strong practitioners of a religion of love.
>
> I'm curious if this "hate" your wonder about is not just moral conviction,
> if someone takes a public ethical stand is it always hateful? My
> comprehension of religious hate requires something ranging from a Rev.
> Wright all the way to a Muslim extremist....interesting enough their message
> is less about religion and more in search of a common enemy to unite and
> inspire the flock........Incidentally if your wife's minister preaches
> politics from the Sunday morning service he should be soundly chastised as
> he will likely damage the very institution he champions. The rest of the
> week is fair game, although for a healthy church the members should only
> know his moral convictions and guess his political views. Rod
I am not "wondering" about their hate. No normal person turns red in
the face and sprays spit when discussing such things.
Incidentally, that's a small country church where about 99% of the
parishioners think he is not harsh enough.
And you're right, for a healthy church, etc. Do you know much about
Southern Baptists? Unfortunately, far too many of them talk love and
preach and live hate.
Scott Lurndal <[email protected]> wrote:
:>
:>Having a state Supreme court act as King without regard to both the CA
:>legislature and the CA 2000 public initiative should give anyone pause.
: Typically republican claptrap when they disagree with a court decision.
: The supreme court found that the law was in contradiction to the
: constitution. The constitution wins. Purely a matter of law.
: I think any real American should rejoice in the decision. The state
: is refraining from involvment in the affairs of the people, shouldn't
: that be the way it is? If you don't like gay marriage, don't marry a
: gay. But don't take your biblical fundamentalism and personal beliefs
: and attempt to apply them to the rest of the populace.
Very well said. The Founders would approve.
-- Andy Barss
Rod & Betty Jo wrote:
> Lew Hodgett wrote:
>> The ninth circuit court just handed down a decision allowing same sex
>> marriage here in California.
>>
>> Time to watch the bible thumpers knee jerk reaction like they just had
>> a 2300 Volt probe stuck where the moon doesn't shine.
>>
>> Lew
>
> But first we get to see religious intolerance here....lucky us.
>
> Having a state Supreme court act as King without regard to both the CA
> legislature and the CA 2000 public initiative should give anyone pause. This
> is clearly a arrogant attempt to place their view above the will of the
> people, a fine example of the all knowing all powerful Big brother. Even
> worse the imagined "social injustice" doesn't exist as CA has a very
> comprehensive domestic partner act. Possibly a insight as to what kind of
> federal judges we may get under a Obama presidency. That the highest court
> in the state chooses to overturn a 5000 year old word or concept definition
> might also tell you they don't have nearly enough to do in their normal day
> job. Rod
>
>
Rod -
Since I allege that I am some form of Constitutional "Originalist"
and do not like people fiddling with a so-called "Living Constitution":
I think you're wrong here as a matter of law. The Equal Protection
clause of the 14th Amendment makes it pretty plain:
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge
the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;
nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property,
without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its
jurisdiction the ***equal protection of the laws***. (Emphasis mine.)
It doesn't matter how offensive, immoral, other otherwise yucky people may
view homosexuality. It has nothing to do with the definition of the word
"marriage". This is exactly about whether the law will treat everyone
equally. I would also view any legislative attempt to do an end-around
(pardon the pun) this finding by the court as blatantly un-Constitutional.
As a root cause matter, the *real* problem here was ever letting the
government get involved in *any* kind of marriage. The only role
government should have in marriage is enforcement of contracts and
property rights - as it would in any other voluntary arrangement
between free citizens and to interdict in the interests of minor
children whose parents are not caring for them. That's it.
In short, so long as adults engage in voluntary, consensual behavior
that is not otherwise fraudulent, forceful, or threatening, they must
be treated as exactly equal before the law.
If it makes you feel any better, by the exact same kind of reasoning,
cultural conservatives and people of religious conviction ought to
be free to openly condemn homosexuality as immoral without living
in fear of being brought up on hate speech charges. Like I said
(well, really the 14th Amendment), *equal* protection...
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Dave in Houston wrote:
> "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:2f1Xj.3741$LL.757@trnddc04...
>> "Rod & Betty Jo" wrote:
>>
>>
>>> But first we get to see religious intolerance here....lucky us.
>> No intolerance, just don't want someone trying to jam the biggest scam job
>> on the planet up my keister.
>
> That would be organized religion and the right-wing religiofacists..
There are *way* bigger scams pal:
1) The government is here to help
2) From each according to his ability to each according to their need
3) There is no important teleology to the physical universe
4) Universal healthcare will be cheaper
5) Do it for the children
6) Do it for the common good
7) If it saves just one life
8) Madonna is a musician
9) Noam Chomsky is a deep thinker
10) Rap is music
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Lew Hodgett wrote:
> The ninth circuit court just handed down a decision allowing same sex
> marriage here in California.
>
> Time to watch the bible thumpers knee jerk reaction like they just had
> a 2300 Volt probe stuck where the moon doesn't shine.
>
> Lew
But first we get to see religious intolerance here....lucky us.
Having a state Supreme court act as King without regard to both the CA
legislature and the CA 2000 public initiative should give anyone pause. This
is clearly a arrogant attempt to place their view above the will of the
people, a fine example of the all knowing all powerful Big brother. Even
worse the imagined "social injustice" doesn't exist as CA has a very
comprehensive domestic partner act. Possibly a insight as to what kind of
federal judges we may get under a Obama presidency. That the highest court
in the state chooses to overturn a 5000 year old word or concept definition
might also tell you they don't have nearly enough to do in their normal day
job. Rod
Tom Watson wrote:
> On Fri, 16 May 2008 16:13:51 -0500, "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> "Tim Daneliuk" wrote
>>
>>> to teenage reproduction. 14 is just plain too young.
>> Actually, and inarguably, at whatever age a human is old enough to
>> "reproduce" is decided entirely by nature.
>
> Which may be why some states have the age of consent set at thirteen.
>
> Canuckistanis seem to think 14 is fine.
>
> Having a sixteen year old daughter, I believe the age should be 24, as
> in 24 hours after I'm dead.
>
> Mr. D. needs to not confuse the legal concepts of "age of consent",
> "age of license", and "age of majority".
>
>
Noted.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
On Sat, 17 May 2008 17:26:41 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>A Palestinian who wants the occupiers to go away becomes a terrorist.
>How easy is that?
Kind of like the way my American ancestors hid in trees and shot the
British, and didn't wage war properly?
---------------------------------------------
** http://www.bburke.com/woodworking.html **
---------------------------------------------
evodawg wrote:
> Doug Winterburn wrote:
>
>> Mike Marlow wrote:
>>> "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:80492d85-237d-4565-8286-062057ed4e97@b64g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>> Yup. A bible thumper hollering that it is all the fault of the liberal
>>> media!! (And THAT is because ANY media that points out the the sins
>>> of the republican neo-cons automatically becomes 'liberal' so it can
>>> be neatly pigeon-holed and condemned... and consequently/conveniently
>>> be brushed aside.)
>>>
>>>
>>> *************************************************
>>>
>>> Not at all unique to bible thumpers, or even more likely to be found in
>>> them. That's pretty much human nature.
>>>
>> As in the liberal references to Faux News.
>
> Well lets take a look at PMSNBC, and NBC in general, shall we. It is so
> blindingly liberal, at least most of the time Fox will give you 2 sides of
> the story. Keith Overbit I don't believe has ever had a conservative on his
> show, and constantly bashes Republicans. Never points out the abuses of the
> liberals, except ole Hilary. Where Fox reports on both, usually. I don't
> think I have ever heard Mr Overbit even mention he is Liberal or a leftest
> lunatic. Wonder why that is?
>
Because rabid leftist think that their position is "middle of the road" they
are so disconnected from Western History and tradition.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
"Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message
> Swingman wrote:
> > "Tim Daneliuk" wrote
> >
> >> of *your* morality, and it's just as obnoxious. Law exists to preserve
> >> liberty, not make us all act "properly".
> >
> > That depends .... or you old, or young, and do you want a city of
"Laws", or
> > a city of the "Republic"?
> >
> > Re-read your Plato, dude! ;)
> >
>
> I know what I don't want: Someone deciding that their moral code is
> so right, they get to jam it down my throat...
>
> P.S. I am neither old nor young.
>
> P.P.S. Plato had his betters, Locke leaps to mind. Plato is
> essentially obsolete. He was replaced by Marx for
> people on the political left and by guys like Hagee for
> people on the right.
Tsk, tsk ... "An intelligent man will prize those studies which result in
his soul getting soberness, righteousness, and wisdom ..."
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 5/14/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)
Larry Blanchard wrote:
> On Fri, 16 May 2008 16:00:30 -0500, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>
>>>> And we have to be on the alert for those who think "lack of recognition"
>>>> and "exclusion" are the same thing. A private hospital may well refuse to
>>>> provide equal benefits for employees based on whatever, but they should
>>>> not be able to refuse treatment. Nor should they be able to exclude a
>>>> legal partner from visitation rights or a voice in care decisions.
>> Why? Assume that such an institution is wholly private and is not
>> acting with fraud, force, or threat. How is the government (all of us)
>> morally entitled to tell them what to do even if they do discriminate
>> on the basis of gender, race, religion, etc.? I'm not saying that them
>> doing so is *morally* OK, I'm saying it ought not to be *illegal* -
>> i.e., Any of the government's business.
>
> So the private health care system has the right to refuse treatment to
> anyone it dislikes or whom it feels will not be a profit opportunity? I
> don't think you'll find a lot of support for that viewpoint.
>
Perhaps not, but anything else requires violating someone's freedom.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
jo4hn wrote:
> Larry Blanchard wrote:
>> On Thu, 15 May 2008 16:03:50 -0500, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>>
>>> As a root cause matter, the *real* problem here was ever letting the
>>> government get involved in *any* kind of marriage. The only role
>>> government should have in marriage is enforcement of contracts and
>>> property rights - as it would in any other voluntary arrangement
>>> between free citizens and to interdict in the interests of minor
>>> children whose parents are not caring for them. That's it.
>>>
>>> In short, so long as adults engage in voluntary, consensual behavior
>>> that is not otherwise fraudulent, forceful, or threatening, they must
>>> be treated as exactly equal before the law.
>>
>> How about that? We agree on something :-).
>>
>> But how about polygamy, or polyandry, or group marriage, or whatever.
>> Yes
>> they should also be legal. But how do you define child abuse in those
>> groups? If a girl willingly (albeit brainwashed) becomes a wife at an
>> age
>> below that which the state considers informed consent, does the state
>> have
>> the right to step in? I'm still scratching my head on that one.
>>
>> BTW, I ran across a sentence in a book today that reminded me of the
>> cults, etc.. "The biggest lies are those we tell ourselves."
>>
> Insofar as group clusters are concerned, we already have partnerships,
> corporations, etc. People and animals (or vegetables) are covered by a
> bill of sale.
> kreegah,
> jo4hn
John -
For the first time in my life, I finally understand "hot" peppers ...
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
On Sat, 17 May 2008 16:51:13 -0700 (PDT), Charlie Self
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Do you know much about
>Southern Baptists? Unfortunately, far too many of them talk love and
>preach and live hate.
I've seen the same, and it is kind of weird.
---------------------------------------------
** http://www.bburke.com/woodworking.html **
---------------------------------------------
On Thu, 15 May 2008 16:03:50 -0500, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> As a root cause matter, the *real* problem here was ever letting the
> government get involved in *any* kind of marriage. The only role
> government should have in marriage is enforcement of contracts and
> property rights - as it would in any other voluntary arrangement
> between free citizens and to interdict in the interests of minor
> children whose parents are not caring for them. That's it.
>
> In short, so long as adults engage in voluntary, consensual behavior
> that is not otherwise fraudulent, forceful, or threatening, they must
> be treated as exactly equal before the law.
How about that? We agree on something :-).
But how about polygamy, or polyandry, or group marriage, or whatever. Yes
they should also be legal. But how do you define child abuse in those
groups? If a girl willingly (albeit brainwashed) becomes a wife at an age
below that which the state considers informed consent, does the state have
the right to step in? I'm still scratching my head on that one.
BTW, I ran across a sentence in a book today that reminded me of the
cults, etc.. "The biggest lies are those we tell ourselves."
On Thu, 15 May 2008 18:01:59 -0500, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> I'm not. We choose an age of majority as a society. It is an average
> that will be too high or low for some people. But we choose one as
> a matter of rule of law. People engaged in sexual activity with partners
> below that age are committing a crime, period. Having said that, I think
> you have to have a scaled set of responses. How about 10 years
> in jail for every year the minor was below majority age. Have sex
> with a 12 year old, go to jail for 60 years. A 17 year old, 10 years.
> Something like that.
Well, I don't think anyone supports legal sex with a 10 year old - there's
no gray area there. But it hasn't been that long ago that 14 was
considered the age of consent in several states, and may still be in some
- at 71 I don't keep up with that sort of thing :-).
And what if the male having sex with the 14 year old is himself 14?
Surely that's less of an offense than if he was 40. Maybe your list needs
to be a table :-).
On Fri, 16 May 2008 09:17:06 -0500, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> OTOH, the left/gay alliance will not stop here. Once recognized as
> legally legitimate marriage, there is going to be a big push to
> demand that the *private* sector recognize it equally as well.
> And this I oppose, again on principle. The 14th amendment is binding
> upon *government*. If private sector institutions wish to recognize
> different unions differently, they ought to be able to. The Constitution
> also protects the "Freedom Of Assembly" - as private employers, schools,
> churches, hospitals ... are formed, their constituents and/or owners
> ought to be legally free to include or exclude anyone they wish.
As long as those NGOs are not taking government funds, I agree in
principle. Unfortunately, most of them are grabbing all they can get.
And we have to be on the alert for those who think "lack of recognition"
and "exclusion" are the same thing. A private hospital may well refuse to
provide equal benefits for employees based on whatever, but they should
not be able to refuse treatment. Nor should they be able to exclude a
legal partner from visitation rights or a voice in care decisions.
On Fri, 16 May 2008 16:00:30 -0500, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>> > And we have to be on the alert for those who think "lack of recognition"
>> > and "exclusion" are the same thing. A private hospital may well refuse to
>> > provide equal benefits for employees based on whatever, but they should
>> > not be able to refuse treatment. Nor should they be able to exclude a
>> > legal partner from visitation rights or a voice in care decisions.
>
> Why? Assume that such an institution is wholly private and is not
> acting with fraud, force, or threat. How is the government (all of us)
> morally entitled to tell them what to do even if they do discriminate
> on the basis of gender, race, religion, etc.? I'm not saying that them
> doing so is *morally* OK, I'm saying it ought not to be *illegal* -
> i.e., Any of the government's business.
So the private health care system has the right to refuse treatment to
anyone it dislikes or whom it feels will not be a profit opportunity? I
don't think you'll find a lot of support for that viewpoint.
"Rod & Betty Jo" <[email protected]> writes:
>Lew Hodgett wrote:
>> The ninth circuit court just handed down a decision allowing same sex
>> marriage here in California.
>>
>> Time to watch the bible thumpers knee jerk reaction like they just had
>> a 2300 Volt probe stuck where the moon doesn't shine.
>>
>> Lew
>
>But first we get to see religious intolerance here....lucky us.
What intolerance? It's the "bible thumpers" who attempt to apply
their beliefs to everyone else.
>
>Having a state Supreme court act as King without regard to both the CA
>legislature and the CA 2000 public initiative should give anyone pause.
Typically republican claptrap when they disagree with a court decision.
The supreme court found that the law was in contradiction to the
constitution. The constitution wins. Purely a matter of law.
I think any real American should rejoice in the decision. The state
is refraining from involvment in the affairs of the people, shouldn't
that be the way it is? If you don't like gay marriage, don't marry a
gay. But don't take your biblical fundamentalism and personal beliefs
and attempt to apply them to the rest of the populace.
scott
Swingman wrote:
> "Tim Daneliuk" wrote
>
>> of *your* morality, and it's just as obnoxious. Law exists to preserve
>> liberty, not make us all act "properly".
>
> That depends .... or you old, or young, and do you want a city of "Laws", or
> a city of the "Republic"?
>
> Re-read your Plato, dude! ;)
>
I know what I don't want: Someone deciding that their moral code is
so right, they get to jam it down my throat...
P.S. I am neither old nor young.
P.P.S. Plato had his betters, Locke leaps to mind. Plato is
essentially obsolete. He was replaced by Marx for
people on the political left and by guys like Hagee for
people on the right.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> Rod & Betty Jo wrote:
>> Lew Hodgett wrote:
>>> The ninth circuit court just handed down a decision allowing same sex
>>> marriage here in California.
>>>
>>> Time to watch the bible thumpers knee jerk reaction like they just had
>>> a 2300 Volt probe stuck where the moon doesn't shine.
>>>
>>> Lew
>> But first we get to see religious intolerance here....lucky us.
>>
>> Having a state Supreme court act as King without regard to both the CA
>> legislature and the CA 2000 public initiative should give anyone pause. This
>> is clearly a arrogant attempt to place their view above the will of the
>> people, a fine example of the all knowing all powerful Big brother. Even
>> worse the imagined "social injustice" doesn't exist as CA has a very
>> comprehensive domestic partner act. Possibly a insight as to what kind of
>> federal judges we may get under a Obama presidency. That the highest court
>> in the state chooses to overturn a 5000 year old word or concept definition
>> might also tell you they don't have nearly enough to do in their normal day
>> job. Rod
>>
>>
>
>
> Rod -
>
> Since I allege that I am some form of Constitutional "Originalist"
> and do not like people fiddling with a so-called "Living Constitution":
>
> I think you're wrong here as a matter of law. The Equal Protection
> clause of the 14th Amendment makes it pretty plain:
>
> No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge
> the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;
> nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property,
> without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its
> jurisdiction the ***equal protection of the laws***. (Emphasis mine.)
>
> It doesn't matter how offensive, immoral, other otherwise yucky people may
> view homosexuality. It has nothing to do with the definition of the word
> "marriage". This is exactly about whether the law will treat everyone
> equally. I would also view any legislative attempt to do an end-around
> (pardon the pun) this finding by the court as blatantly un-Constitutional.
>
> As a root cause matter, the *real* problem here was ever letting the
> government get involved in *any* kind of marriage. The only role
> government should have in marriage is enforcement of contracts and
> property rights - as it would in any other voluntary arrangement
> between free citizens and to interdict in the interests of minor
> children whose parents are not caring for them. That's it.
>
> In short, so long as adults engage in voluntary, consensual behavior
> that is not otherwise fraudulent, forceful, or threatening, they must
> be treated as exactly equal before the law.
>
> If it makes you feel any better, by the exact same kind of reasoning,
> cultural conservatives and people of religious conviction ought to
> be free to openly condemn homosexuality as immoral without living
> in fear of being brought up on hate speech charges. Like I said
> (well, really the 14th Amendment), *equal* protection...
>
One coda to the above:
OTOH, the left/gay alliance will not stop here. Once recognized as
legally legitimate marriage, there is going to be a big push to
demand that the *private* sector recognize it equally as well.
And this I oppose, again on principle. The 14th amendment is binding
upon *government*. If private sector institutions wish to recognize
different unions differently, they ought to be able to. The Constitution
also protects the "Freedom Of Assembly" - as private employers, schools,
churches, hospitals ... are formed, their constituents and/or owners
ought to be legally free to include or exclude anyone they wish.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Rod & Betty Jo wrote:
> Lew Hodgett wrote:
>> The ninth circuit court just handed down a decision allowing same sex
>> marriage here in California.
>>
>> Time to watch the bible thumpers knee jerk reaction like they just had
>> a 2300 Volt probe stuck where the moon doesn't shine.
>>
>> Lew
>
> But first we get to see religious intolerance here....lucky us.
>
Ah, but don't you know that's not bigotry -- just ask Robatoy. You see
it's OK to attack people who hold religious beliefs (unless they are
islamic, then it's racist).
Just for the record, I don't believe that having laws enacted to enforce
religious viewpoints is a good idea. It a) turns people off to religion
and/or b) it makes people comfortable with a civic righteousness that may
actually do more harm than good by making people think they are doing right
by the Lord.
OTOH, having certain laws that enforce moral codes does make for a more
prosperous and peaceful society. Things like "do not steal", "do not
commit murder" are pretty good ideas regardless of one's religious beliefs.
The idea that adultery may be a bad idea goes beyond just religious
injunctions, it prevents various STD's and maintains the integrity of the
family -- all beneficial to society. Same thing goes for the idea of not
bearing false witness -- preserving peoples' reputations also benefits
society. Same for the idea of coveting, that leads to the idea that "what
is yours should be mine", leading to either a) theft, or b) the idea that
people can elect others to the government to take from some people and give
to them. Respect for parents and authority? Again, that provides for a
peaceful society and good relations among people in that society.
The real problem here is the continuing incrementalism, the more
traditional societal norms are destroyed, the more problems we are going to
see in society.
--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough
Andrew Barss wrote:
>> I think any real American should rejoice in the decision. The state
>> is refraining from involvment in the affairs of the people, shouldn't
>> that be the way it is? If you don't like gay marriage, don't marry a
>> gay. But don't take your biblical fundamentalism and personal
>> beliefs and attempt to apply them to the rest of the populace.
> Very well said. The Founders would approve.
> -- Andy Barss
Not likely....they'd be falling on the floor laughing at the very
concept...... Marriage as in matrimony of the day by practice and definition
would always include opposite sexes and in this country generally one man
and one women. One may note the serious harassment of Mormons in the
following century.
The current desire for legal homosexual marriage has little to do with
actual marriage but rather an attempt for societal acceptance of the
lifestyle (they wish to be considered normal even if nature really says
otherwise). Perceived benefits including legal and personal commitment are
readily available or possible via domestic partnerships and/or simple
personal commitment. One anomaly of the marriage acceptance push or the
implied monogamy desire is the lifestyle itself is frequently promiscuous
(especially among many males) and the no strings anonymous sex is one of the
appeals. Rod
"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:fb9524f8-4203-4823-90aa-4056e4e1490f@c58g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> I am not "wondering" about their hate. No normal person turns red in
> the face and sprays spit when discussing such things.
My 84 yr old aunt does on politics (Democrat) but nobody could accuse her of
normal.
>
> Incidentally, that's a small country church where about 99% of the
> parishioners think he is not harsh enough.
>
> And you're right, for a healthy church, etc. Do you know much about
> Southern Baptists? Unfortunately, far too many of them talk love and
> preach and live hate.
Nope ....West coast here..... Although we do attend a large(5000-10,000)
Baptist church here but the pastor strongly preaches the bible and I'm yet
to see much on baptist doctrine. I do have 3 brother-inlaws as preachers and
one as a hospital chaplin (former minister) and a now passed away
father-inlaw with a 60 yr career as a minister(always small churches and if
he had one winter coat he'd find someone to give it to). I have a
Grandfather and a Grandmother as well that preached and have never heard any
of them or anyone preach hate or intolerance.....I have snoozed a time or
two in church but doubt if I missed it. I have no doubt it happens but my
experience shows far from the norm.......Rod