Jeep thing or sheep thing?

"Daniel J Stern" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
> On Thu, 10 Jul 2003, Jeff Strickland wrote:
>
> > Skin color is given us, as is gender. Sexual orientation is something we
> > acquire. It is a choice we make somewhere along the line.
>
> Oh? Did you *choose* to be attracted to women? If so, when? Did your
> sixth-grade teacher pass out preference cards, and you had to check one
> box and hand it in for registration in your permanent record? OR did you
> just find yourself naturally attracted to girls?
>
> > I buy into the idea that sexual orientation is a matter of choice, a learned
> > behavior, <whatever>.
>
> That's obvious, but the only people who argue that position cannot back it
> up with any valid science -- it's just what they want to be true because
> it fits into their belief system. Unfortunately for the likes of you,
> science has a nasty habit of shooting ugly holes in beautiful theories.
>
> > Texas law is not against the group, it is against the act(s).
>
> Then why was nobody being prosecuted for ass****ing his wife?


which is a lot more widespread than discussed

"Kuzie" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Today Buddy Ebson, yesterday Barry White...this guy changes his name all the
> time to stay out of your
> killfile where he belongs. You can tell who it is by the content of his
> mail. Check the header for
> "Organization: www.apw.8m.com" and you know it the same loser! Lets all
> ignore him and maybe
> he will move to political newsgroups where he belongs.
>

why don't you just drop dead, moron. I didn't start this thread. Do you have anything
intelligent to say? I thought not....

"Matthew S. Whiting" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> Buddy Ebsen wrote:
> > "Jeff Strickland" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >
> >>"Buddy Ebsen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >>news:2QkPa.1177$Bp2.581@fed1read07...
> >>
> >>>"Jeff Strickland" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >>>news:[email protected]...
> >>>
> >>>>"Earle Horton" <[email protected]> wrote in
> >>>
> >>message
> >>
> >>>>news:[email protected]...
> >>>>
> >>>>>Jeff Strickland wrote:
> >>>>
> >>The boys wink and smile, the cops don't take a kind position at all. We have
> >>a case here in California where a woman took a kid across statelines to have
> >>sex with him. They apparently had an ongoing relationship for quite some
> >>time, and she took him to Vegas for a weekend. She is in deep ****.
> >>
> >>The latter is remedied? What remedy do we need? We have the greatest
> >>diversity of religious faith in the world, and almost all of them express
> >>the same attitude towards sex, particularly sex between coupls of the same
> >>sex. We as individuals tend to accept sexual preference despite our
> >>religious convictions and beliefs.
> >>
> >
> >
> > Then your California case is to be congratulated because that's not always the way it
> > goes. The xtian faith is the root cause of many superstitions and phobias. Having
> > diversity doesn't mean squat when the majority comprises 95% of those with "faith." If
> > your claim about the majority expressing the same attitudes towards sex and couples of
the
> > same sex were true, then the rest of the world would be as phobic and bigoted as the
U.S.
> > Clearly that is not true. So a good portion of the world has evolved while the U.S.
has
> > remained static (or regressed). I'll buy that. Your last sentence sounds nice but it's
way
> > off base. Sexual preference (other than straight) is not accepted and has not been
> > accepted in this country in a variety of arenas.
> >
> >
>
> Never heard of this xtian faith? Is this something new?
>
> Matt
>

it's a common shortcut for "christian"

Lloyd Parker wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>, Bill Putney <[email protected]> wrote:
> >Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >>
> >> I'm repulsed by people talking on cell phones in restaurants. That's
> >> despicable behavior. Does that give me the right to discriminate against
> >> them? Refuse to rent to them? Refuse to hire them?
> >
> >As a matter of fact YES. Cell phone users are not a legally protected
> >class. I could openly choose not to rent to cell phone users and
> >there's not a thing a court could do about it (not that I would do such
> >a thing, but you asked the question, and that's the answer).
> >
>
> I meant "moral right" not "legal right."

Come on Lloyd - you'd be the first to argue on any controversial point that
morals can't be introduced into any discussion because as we all know, your
morals are not the same as mine so who is to say who is right. So by the rules
of engagement that people of your general political persuasion have insisted on,
the only thing that matters is what the legal system says (i.e., we live totally
by man's rules, not by God's rules).

IOW, you would reject anything I had to say on moral grounds on any controversial
subject, so legal considerations are the only thing left. Again - legally, I can
refuse to rent to a cell-phone-talker-in-a-restaurant with total legal immunity.

I'll take this a step further: If I as a landlord don't charge someone a late
rent charge because I know the person's situation and feel a little compassion, I
set myself up for a lawsuit because I didn't show the same consideration for
another person whose situation may have been totally different. So guess what -
the legal system has forced me to remove all compassion from all tenant
situations and always be an a**hole no matter what the situation just to protect
my right to charge a late charge when it is clearly justified. So the way the
legal system has evolved, internal morality, ethics, and compassion will only be
a liability (and that's the way some people prefer it) and everyone's motivation
in doing practically *anything* is whether they will run the risk of getting sued
or not (or "how will this affect my taxes").

Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with
"x")




-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

Daniel J Stern wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Jul 2003, Matthew S. Whiting wrote:
>
>
>
>>I've never seen any conclusive science one way or the other on this
>>issue. Can you provide a reference or two?
>
>
> No issue of psychology is ever "conclusively" known, because that's not
> how humans work. However, most of the science carried out by actual
> scientists, including the American Psychological Association and the
> American Medical Association -- and most of the policy based on this
> science -- supports the notion that homosexuality is, in at least some
> cases, innate by one mechanism or another, and not simply a matter of
> chosen sexual behavior. More info is available at these organizations'
> websites and in their publications, and there's a great deal more besides.
>
>
> It's mostly the religious-agenda types who publish "research" supporting
> the notion that homosexuals are simply heterosexuals making the wrong
> behavioral choices.

OK, I don't consider behavioral psychology to be a real science. I
thought you were talking about genetics. I've seen no evidence for a
genetic basis for homosexuality. I believe the religious beliefs are at
least as valid as the beliefs of the APA, since neither is based on hard
science.


Matt

Buddy Ebsen wrote:
> "Matthew S. Whiting" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
>>Buddy Ebsen wrote:
>>
>>>"Jeff Strickland" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Buddy Ebsen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>news:2QkPa.1177$Bp2.581@fed1read07...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Jeff Strickland" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>"Earle Horton" <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>>>
>>>>message
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Jeff Strickland wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>The boys wink and smile, the cops don't take a kind position at all. We have
>>>>a case here in California where a woman took a kid across statelines to have
>>>>sex with him. They apparently had an ongoing relationship for quite some
>>>>time, and she took him to Vegas for a weekend. She is in deep ****.
>>>>
>>>>The latter is remedied? What remedy do we need? We have the greatest
>>>>diversity of religious faith in the world, and almost all of them express
>>>>the same attitude towards sex, particularly sex between coupls of the same
>>>>sex. We as individuals tend to accept sexual preference despite our
>>>>religious convictions and beliefs.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Then your California case is to be congratulated because that's not always the way it
>>>goes. The xtian faith is the root cause of many superstitions and phobias. Having
>>>diversity doesn't mean squat when the majority comprises 95% of those with "faith." If
>>>your claim about the majority expressing the same attitudes towards sex and couples of
>>
> the
>
>>>same sex were true, then the rest of the world would be as phobic and bigoted as the
>>
> U.S.
>
>>>Clearly that is not true. So a good portion of the world has evolved while the U.S.
>>
> has
>
>>>remained static (or regressed). I'll buy that. Your last sentence sounds nice but it's
>>
> way
>
>>>off base. Sexual preference (other than straight) is not accepted and has not been
>>>accepted in this country in a variety of arenas.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Never heard of this xtian faith? Is this something new?
>>
>>Matt
>>
>
>
> it's a common shortcut for "christian"
>
>

I know. I was making a point. It is amazing how the folks that call
Christians homophobic are afraid to use Christ. And it is Christian
with a capital C.


Matt

On Fri, 11 Jul 2003, Matthew S. Whiting wrote:

> OK, I don't consider behavioral psychology to be a real science.

Most of the world disagrees with you on that count.

> I believe the religious beliefs are at least as valid as the beliefs of
> the APA, since neither is based on hard science.

Pfft. The religious beliefs are based on superstition, fear, miracles and
blind faith, none of which is open for question or scrutiny -- and that's
why it's trumped by psychological science.

DS

On Fri, 11 Jul 2003, Matthew S. Whiting wrote:

> It is amazing how the folks that call Christians homophobic are afraid
> to use Christ.

Huh? In the first place, I call homophobes homophobic. I call Christians
Christians. Can't speak for anyone else. In the second place, never
ascribe to malice what can be more simply explained by laziness. It's
easier to type Xian than it is to type Christian.


DS

Buddy Ebsen wrote:
>
> "Jeff Strickland" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > "Earle Horton" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > > Jeff Strickland wrote:
> >
> > I was using an extreme on purpose. We normally consider kiddie porn to be
> > very young children, but it is technically any porn that involves a minor.
> > So, we could have a relationship between an adault and a 14- or 15-yr old
> > child. We sometimes hear of women and boys, but I think that it is seldom
> > the case of a boy complaining of having sex, the vast majority of violations
> > is men and girls. The women on boys cases tend to be discovered by
> > "accident", where men on girl cases tend to be reported.
> >
>
> It's part of the hypocrisy. If an adult man screws a teenage girl, then the **** hits the
> fan. If an adult woman screws a teenage boy, people wink and smile (unless there are
> prominent people involved). American's attitudes towards sex are influenced by their
> addiction to the christian religion. Until the latter is remedied, the former will remain
> confused at best. Most of the industrialized nations of the earth look and us and laugh
> (again) over our sexual phobias and biases.

You do realize that there are those in our country (many in
universities) who strongly advocate that we should consider adults
having sex with children as normal and acceptable behavior. I guess us
Christians are sure hung up in our religion since we think that ought
not to be allowed.

Here's an example: The AIDs problem in Africa - the liberal's solution
is live and let live - take money from the taxpayers and ship it over
there to buy condoms, then tell the people to be sure to use their
condoms and have fun. The (for lack of a better word) conservative's
solution is to tell the people "Hey - quit screwing everything that
walks and have one spouse". Guess which solution works and fits with
life.

The liberal will say that the conservative solution is imposing on
people's freedom and that it forces one's morals on others.

But in the end, one solution (the "give everybody a condom and tell them
to have a good time" one) results in one country having an AIDs rate of
40%, while the other solution ("control yourself and have some
self-respect") drops the AIDs rate in another country from 21% to 6%.

Now - which solution is the more moral and compassionate? The one that
results in untold misery, poverty, and death (and guess what - not just
the individuals who participated in the sex are affected - how about the
children? - how about the rest of their society who have no hope of a
healthy economy or decnt life because of their behaviour?), or the one
that imposes standards and saves countless lives and gives some chance
of prosperity and hope?

We all will be paying for the consequences of decisions that are made.
We will be "technically" and "legally" right, but countless people will
suffer - but that's OK because we feel *good* about it. That's the
difference between conservatism and liberalism.

Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

Jeff Strickland wrote:
>
> ...but if there are laws in a community that say no stool pushing,
> then there should be no stool pushing. We all know that stool pushing is
> going on, even between men and women, but the law is no stool pushing, so if
> you are going to be pushing stools around the room, you might want to be
> sure you are going to be alone, or be prepared to face the consequence...

This thing you call stool pushing - is that what, around here, we call
fudge-packing? 8^)

Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

"Matthew S. Whiting" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> Daniel J Stern wrote:
> > On Thu, 10 Jul 2003, Matthew S. Whiting wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >>I've never seen any conclusive science one way or the other on this
> >>issue. Can you provide a reference or two?
> >
> >
> > No issue of psychology is ever "conclusively" known, because that's not
> > how humans work. However, most of the science carried out by actual
> > scientists, including the American Psychological Association and the
> > American Medical Association -- and most of the policy based on this
> > science -- supports the notion that homosexuality is, in at least some
> > cases, innate by one mechanism or another, and not simply a matter of
> > chosen sexual behavior. More info is available at these organizations'
> > websites and in their publications, and there's a great deal more besides.
> >
> >
> > It's mostly the religious-agenda types who publish "research" supporting
> > the notion that homosexuals are simply heterosexuals making the wrong
> > behavioral choices.
>
> OK, I don't consider behavioral psychology to be a real science. I
> thought you were talking about genetics. I've seen no evidence for a
> genetic basis for homosexuality. I believe the religious beliefs are at
> least as valid as the beliefs of the APA, since neither is based on hard
> science.
>
>
> Matt
>

what? then you accept creation science as well?

"Matthew S. Whiting" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> Buddy Ebsen wrote:
> > "Matthew S. Whiting" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> >
> >>Buddy Ebsen wrote:
> >>
> >>>"Jeff Strickland" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >>>news:[email protected]...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>"Buddy Ebsen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >>>>news:2QkPa.1177$Bp2.581@fed1read07...
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>"Jeff Strickland" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >>>>>news:[email protected]...
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>"Earle Horton" <[email protected]> wrote in
> >>>>>
> >>>>message
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>news:[email protected]...
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>Jeff Strickland wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>The boys wink and smile, the cops don't take a kind position at all. We have
> >>>>a case here in California where a woman took a kid across statelines to have
> >>>>sex with him. They apparently had an ongoing relationship for quite some
> >>>>time, and she took him to Vegas for a weekend. She is in deep ****.
> >>>>
> >>>>The latter is remedied? What remedy do we need? We have the greatest
> >>>>diversity of religious faith in the world, and almost all of them express
> >>>>the same attitude towards sex, particularly sex between coupls of the same
> >>>>sex. We as individuals tend to accept sexual preference despite our
> >>>>religious convictions and beliefs.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Then your California case is to be congratulated because that's not always the way it
> >>>goes. The xtian faith is the root cause of many superstitions and phobias. Having
> >>>diversity doesn't mean squat when the majority comprises 95% of those with "faith."
If
> >>>your claim about the majority expressing the same attitudes towards sex and couples
of
> >>
> > the
> >
> >>>same sex were true, then the rest of the world would be as phobic and bigoted as the
> >>
> > U.S.
> >
> >>>Clearly that is not true. So a good portion of the world has evolved while the U.S.
> >>
> > has
> >
> >>>remained static (or regressed). I'll buy that. Your last sentence sounds nice but
it's
> >>
> > way
> >
> >>>off base. Sexual preference (other than straight) is not accepted and has not been
> >>>accepted in this country in a variety of arenas.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>Never heard of this xtian faith? Is this something new?
> >>
> >>Matt
> >>
> >
> >
> > it's a common shortcut for "christian"
> >
> >
>
> I know. I was making a point. It is amazing how the folks that call
> Christians homophobic are afraid to use Christ. And it is Christian
> with a capital C.
>
>
> Matt
>

sorry but for me its all lower case. I have no use or respect for organized fraud.

Buddy Ebsen wrote:
>
> "Jeff Strickland" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > Then, the thread digressed badly with charges that Americans are, among
> > other things, hateful.

> Have you listened to AM radio or Pat Robberson?

Hmmm - where I'm from, on the a.m. talk station, Douglas Wilder, the
first black governor of the State of Virginia (and if I'm not mistaken,
the first black governor in the whole country) had his own talk show for
years. In fact they had him on as a guest yesterday morning during my
drive to work.

He was really amused at a joke the interviewer told him: "How many
Richmonders does it take to change a light bulb? Answer: 4 - one to
change it and three to talk about how nice the old bulb was."

Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

Buddy Ebsen wrote:
>
> ...If
> your claim about the majority expressing the same attitudes towards sex and couples of the
> same sex were true, then the rest of the world would be as phobic and bigoted as the U.S.
> Clearly that is not true. So a good portion of the world has evolved while the U.S. has
> remained static (or regressed)...

Try getting caught having gay sex in Saudi Arabia and see what happens
to you. Yeah - I guess we should all aspire to the wonderful attitudes
of, what, France?

Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

Daniel J Stern wrote:
>
> Then why was nobody being prosecuted for ass****ing his wife?

Whose wife?

Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

"Bill Putney" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> Jeff Strickland wrote:
> >
> > ...but if there are laws in a community that say no stool pushing,
> > then there should be no stool pushing. We all know that stool pushing is
> > going on, even between men and women, but the law is no stool pushing, so if
> > you are going to be pushing stools around the room, you might want to be
> > sure you are going to be alone, or be prepared to face the consequence...
>
> This thing you call stool pushing - is that what, around here, we call
> fudge-packing? 8^)
>
> Bill Putney
> (to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
> address with "x")


tasteless!

"Bill Putney" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> Buddy Ebsen wrote:
> >
> > ...If
> > your claim about the majority expressing the same attitudes towards sex and couples of
the
> > same sex were true, then the rest of the world would be as phobic and bigoted as the
U.S.
> > Clearly that is not true. So a good portion of the world has evolved while the U.S.
has
> > remained static (or regressed)...
>
> Try getting caught having gay sex in Saudi Arabia and see what happens
> to you. Yeah - I guess we should all aspire to the wonderful attitudes
> of, what, France?
>


off with your head! I don't know; my suspicion is the French are more open than we are

Earle Horton wrote:
>
> ...No government should have absolute power over its citizens, not even a
> democratic government elected by the people...

A truly democratic government, by definition, *does* in fact have
absolute rule over its citizens - IOW - the majority rules in all
cases. IOW, in a true democracy, if the majority votes to put a person
to death just because they don't like the color of his shoes, then he
gets put to death. We live in a constitutional republic - the
Constitution trumps the majority will by specifying rights that can't be
abridged. IOW, the Constitution is the only thing that stands between
us and mob rule ( = anarchy = true democracy).

(I know - picky, picky, picky)

Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

On Thu, 10 Jul 2003, Bill Putney wrote:

> > Then why was nobody being prosecuted for ass****ing his wife?
>
> Whose wife?

What's the matter, don't you read grammatically-correct English?

DS

"Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "David Allen" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> "The currently sitting court is very conservative.
> >> Every
> >> time they are forced by the Constitution to issue a ruling that is the
> >least
> >> bit
> >> liberal, they make sure it can't be used to set precident. Every time
> >they
> >> are
> >> able to issue a ruling that is conservative, they make sure it CAN be
used
> >> to
> >> set future precident.
> >>
> >> Over time, it is setting up a framework that will make it more and more
> >> impossible to get any kind of rulings that are in favor of the least
> >little
> >> bit
> >> of personal freedom. After all that's what all this liberal vs
> >conservative
> >> bull**** really boils down to, liberals want total personal freedom,
> >> conservatives want total control of people's lives by the state.
Either
> >> extreme is terrible, of course.
> >>
> >
> >I disagree. In theory, the liberal / conservative thing is mostly about
the
> >role and scope of the federal government. In most of these morality
cases
> >the issue centers around whether state or local legislatures can pass
such
> >laws. Liberals tend to look for ways the federal government can expand
it's
> >jurisdiction on such morality issues. Conservatives tend to view the
> >federal government as being constitutionally limited, unable to impose
> >itself on local jurisdictions.
> >
> >>
> >> From a historical perspective, the US Supreme Court has hardly ever
> >> been at the forefront of expanding personal freedoms. The
conservatives
> >> like to tell people that they are, just because of Roe vs Wade. But
don't
> >> ever forget that the US Supreme Court never freed the slaves, the
> >> executive branch of the government did that. By contrast, the Court
> >> helped to _strengthen_ the legal teeth of slavery. If you view the Roe
vs
> >> Wade decision in the historical context, you will quickly see that the
few
> >> liberal years of the court then were an aberration.
> >>
> >
> >What you have to remember is that it's not the job of the Court to
"expand
> >personal freedoms" (read expand federal jurisdiction over local
> >jurisdiction). As repugnant as slavery is, the court found no
consitutional
> >powers granted to the federal government to prohibit states from allowing
> >it. It was left to the legislature and the states to amend the
constitution
> >giving the courts the ability to rule in slavery cases. Of course, we
all
> >know it almost tore the union apart. One might argue that it would have
> >been better for the courts to "find" a prohibition against slavery in the
> >constitution and spare us the result of Dred Scott but, assuming the
court
> >was technically correct in it's ruling, it set the stage for a
constitional
> >amendment prohibiting slavery leaving no question as to it's
> >constitutionality.
> >
> >In Roe v. Wade, the courts "found" an implied right that states could not
> >violate (right to privacy) and thus expanded it's jurisdiction over
states
> >without legislation. This leaves one to wonder what other things can be
> >"found" in the constitution allowing the federal government to usurp
power
> >from the local jurisdictions.
>
>
> Well, there is article IX.
>
I'm sure you mean the ninth amendment. I can accept that a privacy right
can't be denied because it isn't enumerated. But a derived right must be
strongly rooted in other express rights. There has to be a limit to derived
rights. Where is that limit? Some rights just can't be found in the
constitution. Those rights are reserved to the states and the people (tenth
amendment).

>
> > You might think of Roe v. Wade as "expanding"
> >your personal freedom because the ruling went in your direction, but the
> >true impact is a Judicial branch that can impose law based on popular /
> >political views rather than interpret law based on a technical analysis
of
> >the law.
> >
> >