Jeep thing or sheep thing?

This site contains affiliate links for which LandyZone may be compensated if you make a purchase.
In article <[email protected]>,
"Douglas A. Shrader" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"'nuther Bob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Sun, 3 Aug 2003 13:47:59 -0500, "Douglas A. Shrader"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >With that method, my vote, and the votes of millions of Americans living
>in
>> >rural areas, will not count. All Presidents would be selected by the
>several
>> >major cities. Fair? Not even close.
>>
>> So it's fairer to allow particular states to control who becomes
>> President ? Your argument is laughable.
>>
>
>That is exactly what you are trying to do. Your total lack of comprehension
>is laughable. You demonstrate a total ignorance of the entire electoral
>system.
>
>> >You try hard to argue your side, but in my opinion you are wrong on ever
>> >point you've made in this thread, and I disagree with your conclusions as
>> >well.
>>
>> So you're a neo-conservative, support no matter who's in office as
>> long as he's a Republican. Who cares.
>>
>> Bob
>
>I support whoever I feel will do the best job, I don't care if it's a Dem,
>Rep. or independent.
>In case you care, I'm a registered Democrat, I voted against Gore solely
>because of his anti-gun stance.

Yes, heaven forbid we try to stop kids from shooting other kids.

>I opposed Clinton because 1: his socialist healthcare "reform" which would
>have destroyed the finest healthcare in the world.

Finest? If you're rich. Why do we spend more per capita on health care than
any other nation and yet have more people not covered?

>2: He has no Morals, no guts, and no intelligence. A dead chimp would have
>made a better President than Clinton.
>
>
 
In article <[email protected]>,
"Douglas A. Shrader" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"'nuther Bob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Sun, 03 Aug 2003 18:21:26 GMT, "David Allen"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >To derive a national count from the aggregate of each state election is
>not
>> >to be representative of a real national popular election. It's similar
>to
>> >the baseball analogy where number of runs over a season doesn't correlate
>> >perfectly with number of games won. There is a correlation, but it's a
>> >loose one. Hope that helps.
>>
>> Stop dancing. One person, one vote, all done.
>>
>> Bob
>
>That is what we have now.
>Your way, picture this.
>Imaginary country. 60% of the population lives in one state. They all vote
>the same. Whoever they vote for wins every time.
>Now, since theirs are the only votes that matter, whoever is elected will
>pander to their interests. They pay fewer taxes, get the bulk of the
>payouts, anything they want, whatever it takes to keep their vote.
>Meanwhile, the 40% of the people who live in the other 49 states pay the
>lions share of taxes and get nothing in return, since they don't have enough
>votes between them to affect the election, no one cares what they want or
>need.
>In the real world, the cowboy in Wyoming should have an equal chance of
>seeing someone elected who will help him and his state as a yuppie in New
>York or LA. That is what the Electoral system does, that is what your
>popular vote would take away.

Just the opposite. No matter how heavily WY goes for a candidate, that state
has 3 electoral votes. No candidate cares about it! The candidates are going
to pander to CA, where even if you squeak by, you get 55 electoral votes.

>If you can't see that I suggest you do some major research into the
>electoral system, and why it exists, because you are major league deluding
>yourself here, regardless of what insults you decide to use to deny it.
>
>
 
In article <[email protected]>,
"Douglas A. Shrader" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Bill Putney" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> 'nuther Bob wrote:
>> >
>> > On Sun, 03 Aug 2003 12:18:12 -0400, Bill Putney <[email protected]>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > >I think that's absurd - it should be way down on the priority list for
>> > >the country with everything else going on. I still think that anything
>> > >you can propose that wouldn't bankrupt the country to administer is
>> > >going to have its own set of new flaws. I have no vested interest in
>> > >the electoral college - but if someone wants to propose something to
>> > >replace it, lets make darn sure we're not going to create something
>> > >worse (and, as with many "progressive" ideas, some problems may not be
>> > >possible to anticipate).
>> >
>> > Sorry, Bill, it's a simple solution with little time needed to debate
>> > or implement. Tally the votes like they do now, submit the total
>> > like they do now, add them up instead of applying the margins to
>> > the electoral votes. All done.
>> >
>> > Bob
>>
>> And if there's a recount, how long does that take, how much does that
>> cost, what if 100,000 votes burn up in a fire or otherwise get lost.
>> With the electoral system, those burned up 100k missing votes would be
>> less likely to create a problem (except in an extremely tight election -
>> in fact - I think that's where any sysem has the potential to break down
>> - but some are more prone to it than others. It seems to me that the
>> electoral college system is the least sensitive to polarizing the
>> country and delaying the results than, say, a pure popular vote system).
>
>Pretty obvious Bob hasn't put much thought into it.
>Shame really, but a popular vote just won't work in a country as large and
>diverse as the USA.

Works in India.

>
>>
>> Can we agree that the 2000 election was a once in a century anomaly?
>
>Unless Gore runs again, 'eh? ;-)
>
>>
>> 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! =-----
>
>
 
In article <[email protected]>,
"David Allen" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Marc" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> DTJ <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >On Sun, 03 Aug 2003 15:20:41 GMT, 'nuther Bob
>> ><[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> >>On Sun, 03 Aug 2003 04:52:24 GMT, "David Allen"
>> >><[email protected]> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>>I wouldn't call the electoral college stupid. It recognizes the
>interest of
>> >>>states. If the election was strictly a national popular vote, large
>> >>>metropolitan cities would always determine the presidency. That's
>where
>> >>>campaigns would focus and their interests catered to. Note how the
>> >>>campaigns of the electoral method focus on "battleground states".
>These
>> >>>states were not necessarily CA or NY or FL. The smaller states of the
>time
>> >>>clearly saw the advantage of the electoral system so they wouldn't get
>shut
>> >>>out and the interests of their populations become irrelevent.
>> >>
>> >>That's nonsense - you are arguing both sides of the same issue. Using
>> >>the popular vote would insure that *every* citizens vote would count
>> >>as much as every other citizen. Obviously the politicians would
>> >>concentrate on the more populated areas as they do now. That's
>> >>irrelevant. What is relevant is ONE vote PER VOTER. With the current
>> >>system, votes in certain states are worth more, other states less.
>> >
>> >No, you are just an idiot. The electoral college votes are based on
>> >population in each state. Thus voters are treated equally.
>>
>> All electoral college members have the same vote. Assuming that 100% of
>> the electoral votes go to one block for a state, then people from a less
>> populous state have a greater percentage of involvement in the selection
>of
>> the president than those from a more populous state. That isn't "equally"
>> as far as I can tell.
>>
>
>That's right actually. The selection of a president was never meant to be
>equally weighted per individual across the country.

Sure, and senators were never meant to be chosen in popular voting either.
Times change.


>The president's task is
>to execute the business of government according to laws passed by congress,
>the house representing the people and the senate representing the states.
>Accordingly, the founders wanted to just have the senate elect a president
>to do the job. After much debate and other possible methods discussed, the
>electoral system was devised giving the power to elect the president to the
>states (the state legislatures) by selecting electors representative of each
>congressional district and then 2 electors representative of the 2 senators
>in each state. So the weighting of electors to population is not equal from
>state to state. This gives less densly populated states a slight weighting
>in their favor. Theoretically, you could have a state with 10 people in it
>and they would have 3 electoral votes.

But why would any candidate bother with it? Why now would a candidate bother
with Wyoming, with its 3 electoral votes? But with, say, 50,000 popular
votes, WY would demand a candidate's attention.

>
>This is in recognition of the sovereignty and independence of states. One
>could argue that this is less and less relevent in modern times (especially
>post civil war and post industrial age and post information age). Many
>issues are being federalized and the federal government is becoming the
>great equalizer for many issues previously the domain of states and
>individuals. States are becoming less and less unique as we become more and
>more governed by federal law versus state law.
>
>I still don't think it will change because states with lower population
>densities would never sign on to a national popular vote. With a 3/4's
>requirement to pass a constitutional amendment, it's a high hurdle to jump.
>
>> Marc
>> For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
>
>
 

"'nuther Bob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 04 Aug 2003 07:42:04 -0800, Marc <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >
> >I think that it is that you think the least populous states vote for the
> >candidates you generally support, so you support a system, however
flawed,
> >that supports the candidates you prefer.
>
> That's the key point. Forget about right or wrong, they feel that
> a popular vote would allow a Democrat to get in by courting the
> "city" vote across the country. They don;t want a Democrat, so
> they don't want a popular vote. In other words, an honest system
> doesn't favor them, so they want to continue an unbalanced system.
>
> Bob
>
I think what we really need it an IQ test for voters. If a voter is to
stupid to figure out
a simple ballot that your average 2nd grader could use then maybe we don't
want
them choosing our leaders?


 

"RickMerrill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Douglas A. Shrader wrote:
>
> > "'nuther Bob" <[email protected]> wrote in
message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >
> >>On Sun, 3 Aug 2003 13:53:28 -0500, "Douglas A. Shrader"
> >><[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>With a true popular vote system
> >>>like you propose, 80% of the country would be ignored by the high
> >
> > population
> >
> >>>20%.
> >>
> >>
> >>You seem to have a problem with simplicity. ONE PERSON, ONE VOTE.
> >>That makes all votes equal. Duh.
> >>
> >>Bob
> >
> >
> > Your so simple minded reason escapes you. There is far more involved
here
> > than just votes, there is the little matter of EVERYONE is expected to
> > SUPPORT the government, but with the popular vote, ONLY those red areas
on
> > the map I posted would BENIFIT because the government would have NO
> > INCENTIVE to provide those areas with SERVICES, because THEIR VOTES
WOULDN"T
> > COUNT. Sheesh, you really are dense.
>
> Hey Doug, do what you said you would do and stop replying to the Bob! - RM

Uh, I have. This is the first time I've even read this group since I said
that. Don't know why your thinking otherwise here.
>


 
On Mon, 4 Aug 2003 19:12:48 -0500, "Douglas A. Shrader"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>> Hey Doug, do what you said you would do and stop replying to the Bob! - RM
>
>Uh, I have. This is the first time I've even read this group since I said
>that. Don't know why your thinking otherwise here.

Good strategy. When all your falsehoods have been exposed and your
arguments disproven, run and hide.

Bob
 

"'nuther Bob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 4 Aug 2003 19:12:48 -0500, "Douglas A. Shrader"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> Hey Doug, do what you said you would do and stop replying to the Bob! -
RM
> >
> >Uh, I have. This is the first time I've even read this group since I said
> >that. Don't know why your thinking otherwise here.
>
> Good strategy. When all your falsehoods have been exposed and your
> arguments disproven, run and hide.
>
> Bob

So who disproved what? All you've proven is you have no clue what the
electoral collage is or why we have it, and your so sure your popular vote
idea is the perfect answer to everything you wonder why no one else ever
thought of it. Never has occurred to you that it it has been considered many
times, and it has never passed because it is not a good idea. You just go on
living in your little dream world, I thought when I first posted that you
were able to have an intelligent, open discussion about it, but I was wrong,
as you proved with your very first reply when you chose to insult and
belittle rather than discuss. You wish to pat yourself on the back and claim
a non-existant victory, go ahead. Your still wrong, and still to closed
minded to see it.


 
On Mon, 4 Aug 2003 21:16:21 -0500, "Douglas A. Shrader"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>So who disproved what? All you've proven is you have no clue what the
>electoral collage is or why we have it,

Wrong, my arrogant friend. I know exactly why the electoral college
was created. Go read some of the Founding Fathers papers on the
subject. You'll find that it is being used quite a bit differently
than it was designed. But the fact is, times have changed and even
the Founding Fathers would not endorse its use today.

>and your so sure your popular vote
>idea is the perfect answer to everything you wonder why no one else ever
>thought of it.

No, I don't wonder about that. I do wonder how people like you can
be so pig headed about it though. Oh, wait, I know... you don't
think it will favor _your_ candidate, so you don't want it.

>Never has occurred to you that it it has been considered many
>times, and it has never passed because it is not a good idea.

The only reason that is hasn't passed is that the two major political
parties have a vested interest in it. They also have a vested interest
in pork. That doesn't make either a "good idea".

>You just go on
>living in your little dream world, I thought when I first posted that you
>were able to have an intelligent, open discussion about it, but I was wrong,
>as you proved with your very first reply when you chose to insult and
>belittle rather than discuss.

Pardon me ? Find an insult that I've posted. You must be confusing me
with some of your partisan friends.

>You wish to pat yourself on the back and claim
>a non-existant victory, go ahead. Your still wrong, and still to closed
>minded to see it.

Right... I think the system can be changed and you insist that it
has to stay the same... and I'm closed minded. LOL.

Bob
 
"David Allen" <[email protected]> wrote:

>That's right actually. The selection of a president was never meant to be
>equally weighted per individual across the country.

No one has ever made a statement contradictory to that one.

>The president's task is
>to execute the business of government according to laws passed by congress,
>the house representing the people and the senate representing the states.
>Accordingly, the founders wanted to just have the senate elect a president
>to do the job.

One of the most important reasons cited was that they thought that (even
with the standards that today would be considered strict) the average voter
was a moron and shouldn't have a direct voice in the selection of their
leader.

Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
 
"David Allen" <[email protected]> wrote:

>I never thought of the electoral college method as favoring any party. I
>disagree that different campaigns would yield the same results. Like the
>baseball analogy. If the team with the most runs over a season won the
>pennant versus the team with the most wins, the strategies would be really
>different with likewise different results.

As you state it, no. You'd not worry about pitching and fielding as much
as running up the score. However, the system is a zero sum game. It would
be more like a goals for minus goals against. The offense and defense
would be equally weighted.

I'd assert that in the majority of the cases, the goal ratio and the win
record would correlate highly. I think that the total scores may change
with a change of the method of getting into the playoffs, but that the end
result would be the same.

Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
 
On Mon, 04 Aug 2003 22:33:06 -0800, Marc <[email protected]> wrote:

>One of the most important reasons cited was that they thought that (even
>with the standards that today would be considered strict) the average voter
>was a moron and shouldn't have a direct voice in the selection of their
>leader.

A point that passes right by some of our other posters... they are
the very folks that the FF didn't think should be voting. I can see
why :)

Bob
 

"'nuther Bob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 04 Aug 2003 22:33:06 -0800, Marc <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >One of the most important reasons cited was that they thought that (even
> >with the standards that today would be considered strict) the average
voter
> >was a moron and shouldn't have a direct voice in the selection of their
> >leader.
>
> A point that passes right by some of our other posters... they are
> the very folks that the FF didn't think should be voting. I can see
> why :)
>

Oh, I disagree. Democrats SHOULD be allowed to vote as long as they're
legal citizens, not convicted felons, only once per election ... and they're
alive :)


> Bob


 
In article <[email protected]>,
Marc <[email protected]> wrote:
>"David Allen" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>That's right actually. The selection of a president was never meant to be
>>equally weighted per individual across the country.
>
>No one has ever made a statement contradictory to that one.
>
>>The president's task is
>>to execute the business of government according to laws passed by congress,
>>the house representing the people and the senate representing the states.
>>Accordingly, the founders wanted to just have the senate elect a president
>>to do the job.
>
>One of the most important reasons cited was that they thought that (even
>with the standards that today would be considered strict) the average voter
>was a moron and shouldn't have a direct voice in the selection of their
>leader.
>
>Marc
>For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
Yes, bur remember originally, people voted for electors -- the wisest and most
able people in their communities or states; these people then gathered and
picked a president. They didn't "pledge" to be for a certain candidate;
candidates were not listed on ballots, just the names of electors.
 
David Allen wrote:
> "'nuther Bob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>On Mon, 04 Aug 2003 22:33:06 -0800, Marc <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>One of the most important reasons cited was that they thought that (even
>>>with the standards that today would be considered strict) the average
>>
> voter
>
>>>was a moron and shouldn't have a direct voice in the selection of their
>>>leader.
>>
>>A point that passes right by some of our other posters... they are
>>the very folks that the FF didn't think should be voting. I can see
>>why :)
>>
>
>
> Oh, I disagree. Democrats SHOULD be allowed to vote as long as they're
> legal citizens, not convicted felons, only once per election ... and they're
> alive :)

But those restrictions will completely shut down elections in Chicago...
:)


Matt

 
What??? Apparently not a single post here today!

Has everybody run out of detours and non-sequiturs?

Phew.

:)
DAS
--
---
NB: To reply directly replace "nospam" with "schmetterling"
---
"Ted Mittelstaedt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Bill Putney" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> >
> > Thanks Ted. But if you look at the opinion of the justices and the
> > logic behind their decision, it's general application has only one
> > conclusion: Anything that you can think of that is mutually agreed to by
> > adults that doesn't directly damage others is OK.
> >
>
> Then let's get a marijuana conviction up there and see how they would
rule.
>
> Bill, don't forget that the majority of the justices that make up the
> currently
> sitting US Supreme Court have been issuing many rulings in the last 10
> years that they have taken pains to claim aren't precedent setting. They
> did
> this with the recent affirmative action decision, for example.
>
> I find this behavior rather disgusting, frankly. The US Supreme Court
> exists
> to interpret the constitution and when an interpretation is made it must
> apply
> equally, across the board. You cannot say, for example, that flag burning
> is
> permitted as freedom of speech under the US Constitution, then turn around
> and uphold the legality of the DMCA which bans online, but not printed
> media,
> publication of encryption algorithms used to encrypt music and movies on
> DVD's
>
> And you cannot make a ruling like the sodomy ruling and then uphold a
state
> ban on gay marriages.
>
> There is a trend today among conservatives to claim the
> Supreme Court is going more liberal, because of decisions like the sodomy,
> affirmative action, and flag burning. ( I don't remember if they ruled on
> that
> last one but I thought they did)
>
> But this is disingenuous. 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 precedent. Every time
they
> are
> able to issue a ruling that is conservative, they make sure it CAN be used
> to
> set future precedent.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> Even this gay sex ruling is conservative. It is only stating what is
> effectively
> the law of the land among practically all states as the anti-gay sex
statues
> became unenforceable years ago in practically all states. Of course, the
> one state in the Union that still thought it could get away with arresting
> someone on this was Texas, who else would you expect.
>
> >
> > This gets over into assisted suicide and other things too that I might
> > feel differently on from one day to the next. Some of these matters I
> > decide by looking at what God has to say about it, but I know that
> > anything having to do with God in a positive light is extremely
> > offensive to many of certian political leanings and free speech ion
> > those areas is not tolerated, so I often just shut up.
> >
>
> Well the problem with what God has to say is that you can never really
> know for certainty what He wants, now can you?
>
> I don't mind it if people in a discussion bring God into the picture, my
own
> philosophy isn't threatened by that like some other people's. But the
> problem
> is that people like to make statements like "God said to do this" instead
of
> truthful statements like "I believe that God said to do this" and that
just
> drags
> the discussion down.
>
> If you believe that God gives us freewill, then you have to also come to
the
> understanding that God expects everyone to work out their own, consistent,
> moral framework by which to live, based on their own understanding of what
> God is telling them is The Right Thing To Do. He is not providing the
> roadmap
> to get to the goal, He is providing the Goal itself. It is up to us to
> figure out how
> to get there, keeping in mind that everything we do are the steps, or
> missteps,
> on that road.
>
> Ted
>
>
>


 
Heh heh, reminds me of a cartoon back in the cold war days....

A single battered soldier standing in a barren, scorched battlefield with
nothing as far as the eye can see. His explanation? "I think we won!".

"Dori Schmetterling" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> What??? Apparently not a single post here today!
>
> Has everybody run out of detours and non-sequiturs?
>
> Phew.
>
> :)
> DAS
> --
> ---
> NB: To reply directly replace "nospam" with "schmetterling"
> ---
> "Ted Mittelstaedt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > "Bill Putney" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > > Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> > >
> > > Thanks Ted. But if you look at the opinion of the justices and the
> > > logic behind their decision, it's general application has only one
> > > conclusion: Anything that you can think of that is mutually agreed to
by
> > > adults that doesn't directly damage others is OK.
> > >
> >
> > Then let's get a marijuana conviction up there and see how they would
> rule.
> >
> > Bill, don't forget that the majority of the justices that make up the
> > currently
> > sitting US Supreme Court have been issuing many rulings in the last 10
> > years that they have taken pains to claim aren't precedent setting.
They
> > did
> > this with the recent affirmative action decision, for example.
> >
> > I find this behavior rather disgusting, frankly. The US Supreme Court
> > exists
> > to interpret the constitution and when an interpretation is made it must
> > apply
> > equally, across the board. You cannot say, for example, that flag
burning
> > is
> > permitted as freedom of speech under the US Constitution, then turn
around
> > and uphold the legality of the DMCA which bans online, but not printed
> > media,
> > publication of encryption algorithms used to encrypt music and movies on
> > DVD's
> >
> > And you cannot make a ruling like the sodomy ruling and then uphold a
> state
> > ban on gay marriages.
> >
> > There is a trend today among conservatives to claim the
> > Supreme Court is going more liberal, because of decisions like the
sodomy,
> > affirmative action, and flag burning. ( I don't remember if they ruled
on
> > that
> > last one but I thought they did)
> >
> > But this is disingenuous. 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 precedent. Every time
> they
> > are
> > able to issue a ruling that is conservative, they make sure it CAN be
used
> > to
> > set future precedent.
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > Even this gay sex ruling is conservative. It is only stating what is
> > effectively
> > the law of the land among practically all states as the anti-gay sex
> statues
> > became unenforceable years ago in practically all states. Of course,
the
> > one state in the Union that still thought it could get away with
arresting
> > someone on this was Texas, who else would you expect.
> >
> > >
> > > This gets over into assisted suicide and other things too that I might
> > > feel differently on from one day to the next. Some of these matters I
> > > decide by looking at what God has to say about it, but I know that
> > > anything having to do with God in a positive light is extremely
> > > offensive to many of certian political leanings and free speech ion
> > > those areas is not tolerated, so I often just shut up.
> > >
> >
> > Well the problem with what God has to say is that you can never really
> > know for certainty what He wants, now can you?
> >
> > I don't mind it if people in a discussion bring God into the picture, my
> own
> > philosophy isn't threatened by that like some other people's. But the
> > problem
> > is that people like to make statements like "God said to do this"
instead
> of
> > truthful statements like "I believe that God said to do this" and that
> just
> > drags
> > the discussion down.
> >
> > If you believe that God gives us freewill, then you have to also come to
> the
> > understanding that God expects everyone to work out their own,
consistent,
> > moral framework by which to live, based on their own understanding of
what
> > God is telling them is The Right Thing To Do. He is not providing the
> > roadmap
> > to get to the goal, He is providing the Goal itself. It is up to us to
> > figure out how
> > to get there, keeping in mind that everything we do are the steps, or
> > missteps,
> > on that road.
> >
> > Ted
> >
> >
> >
>
>


 
You know, that fits every ng debate.

David Allen wrote:
> Heh heh, reminds me of a cartoon back in the cold war days....
>
> A single battered soldier standing in a barren, scorched battlefield with
> nothing as far as the eye can see. His explanation? "I think we won!".
>
> "Dori Schmetterling" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>What??? Apparently not a single post here today!
>>
>>Has everybody run out of detours and non-sequiturs?
>>
>>Phew.
>>
>>:)
>>DAS
>>--
>>---
>>NB: To reply directly replace "nospam" with "schmetterling"
>>---
>>"Ted Mittelstaedt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>
>>>"Bill Putney" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>>>Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>>>>
>>>>Thanks Ted. But if you look at the opinion of the justices and the
>>>>logic behind their decision, it's general application has only one
>>>>conclusion: Anything that you can think of that is mutually agreed to
>>>
> by
>
>>>>adults that doesn't directly damage others is OK.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Then let's get a marijuana conviction up there and see how they would
>>
>>rule.
>>
>>>Bill, don't forget that the majority of the justices that make up the
>>>currently
>>>sitting US Supreme Court have been issuing many rulings in the last 10
>>>years that they have taken pains to claim aren't precedent setting.
>>
> They
>
>>>did
>>>this with the recent affirmative action decision, for example.
>>>
>>>I find this behavior rather disgusting, frankly. The US Supreme Court
>>>exists
>>>to interpret the constitution and when an interpretation is made it must
>>>apply
>>>equally, across the board. You cannot say, for example, that flag
>>
> burning
>
>>>is
>>>permitted as freedom of speech under the US Constitution, then turn
>>
> around
>
>>>and uphold the legality of the DMCA which bans online, but not printed
>>>media,
>>>publication of encryption algorithms used to encrypt music and movies on
>>>DVD's
>>>
>>>And you cannot make a ruling like the sodomy ruling and then uphold a
>>
>>state
>>
>>>ban on gay marriages.
>>>
>>>There is a trend today among conservatives to claim the
>>>Supreme Court is going more liberal, because of decisions like the
>>
> sodomy,
>
>>>affirmative action, and flag burning. ( I don't remember if they ruled
>>
> on
>
>>>that
>>>last one but I thought they did)
>>>
>>>But this is disingenuous. 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 precedent. Every time
>>
>>they
>>
>>>are
>>>able to issue a ruling that is conservative, they make sure it CAN be
>>
> used
>
>>>to
>>>set future precedent.
>>>
>>>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.
>>>
>>>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.
>>>
>>>Even this gay sex ruling is conservative. It is only stating what is
>>>effectively
>>>the law of the land among practically all states as the anti-gay sex
>>
>>statues
>>
>>>became unenforceable years ago in practically all states. Of course,
>>
> the
>
>>>one state in the Union that still thought it could get away with
>>
> arresting
>
>>>someone on this was Texas, who else would you expect.
>>>
>>>
>>>>This gets over into assisted suicide and other things too that I might
>>>>feel differently on from one day to the next. Some of these matters I
>>>>decide by looking at what God has to say about it, but I know that
>>>>anything having to do with God in a positive light is extremely
>>>>offensive to many of certian political leanings and free speech ion
>>>>those areas is not tolerated, so I often just shut up.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Well the problem with what God has to say is that you can never really
>>>know for certainty what He wants, now can you?
>>>
>>>I don't mind it if people in a discussion bring God into the picture, my
>>
>>own
>>
>>>philosophy isn't threatened by that like some other people's. But the
>>>problem
>>>is that people like to make statements like "God said to do this"
>>
> instead
>
>>of
>>
>>>truthful statements like "I believe that God said to do this" and that
>>
>>just
>>
>>>drags
>>>the discussion down.
>>>
>>>If you believe that God gives us freewill, then you have to also come to
>>
>>the
>>
>>>understanding that God expects everyone to work out their own,
>>
> consistent,
>
>>>moral framework by which to live, based on their own understanding of
>>
> what
>
>>>God is telling them is The Right Thing To Do. He is not providing the
>>>roadmap
>>>to get to the goal, He is providing the Goal itself. It is up to us to
>>>figure out how
>>>to get there, keeping in mind that everything we do are the steps, or
>>>missteps,
>>>on that road.
>>>
>>>Ted
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>


--
___________________________________________________________
tw
03 TJ Rubicon
01 XJ Sport

There is a very fine line between "hobby" and "mental illness."
-- Dave Barry

http://www.7slotgrille.com/jeepers/tj/twaldron/index.html
(Please remove the OBVIOUS to reply by email)
___________________________________________________________

 
I'm confused?

Who makes the sheep anyway?

Nissan?
Chrysler?
Jeep?

Is there a 4x4 sheep, if so it sold in america, or is it like suburu and you
can find only 4x4 sheep in america but both 2x4 and 4x4 sheep in australia?



 
On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 15:44:27 GMT, "Thomas W."
<[email protected]> wrote:

>You know, that fits every ng debate.
>

It could. Back on topic for this thread ...

Anybody want to read a newspaper article about how
Bush and cabinet ignored all the CIA and DIA warnings about what
a post-war Iraq would really be like ? Funny, Bush was wrong
again. Pointers on request.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, the ACLU is suing the Mormon church
over that street they adopted ? Pointers available.

Bob
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Discodevon
Jeep Cherokee 2.7 crd 2002
Replies
9
Views
1K
Firebobby1
Firebobby1
F
Help 😪 this thing is driving me mad 😆
Replies
9
Views
1K
freelandertd4bmw
F
Zorro587
Noise gone but prop shaft queries abound
Replies
14
Views
1K
Chris_68
C
feyniriel
Gearbox fault P38?
Replies
3
Views
839
Grrrrrr
Grrrrrr
xDParis64
Freelander 1 Skid Plate Bolt Sizes + Engine Compression
Replies
19
Views
754
J_D
J_D
Back
Top