On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 05:45:22 -0400, Fred Bloggs
wrote:



Jim Thompson wrote:

Can't you just envision that scenario... Fred stuck for hours waiting
in an emergency room while all the illegals get served first ;-)

...Jim Thompson

If those illegals are in more urgent need of prompt medical care then
they should be first, I have no problem with that. I could not imagine
the kind of person who would do otherwise on the basis of citizenship
status.

We've had "citizens" die in emergency waiting rooms, while illegals
are getting something for their runny nose. They use it like a
doctor's office visit.

Sooner or later there's going to be a war....

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax480)460-2142 | Brass Rat |
| http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

America: Land of the Free, Because of the Brave

"JosephKK" wrote in message


Roe v. Wade was not about the left forcing its views on the world, but
of stopping the religious right from imposing a continuing public
health nightmare. The abortions were happening in back alleys with
rusty wire coat hangers and knitting needles in the bathroom and the
young women with a "secret" were dying of complications. 'Tis better
that it be legal.

Abortions were happening in doctor's offices in the states where most of the
voters wanted it so, and the number of such states was increasing. You say
that the issue was not forced against the will of the people because the
people were wrong, which is absurdly illogical, undemocratic,
unconstitutional, and hippocritical. Preserving the system of self
government is more important than what I think about abortion, but you think
it's less important than what you think about it.


Though i am kind of ****ed off about the guv'munt paying for it.
Particularly when it is not coupled with collateral sterilization.

The connection between abortion and eugenics demonstrated by Margaret
Sanger's letters to Hitler is still in the back of proponent's minds, but
not often expressed. Around 5 years ago some guest lecturer at Harvard made
a case for infanticide based on the fact that humans are neo-nascent anyway,
and if it's ok to kill an embryo then the logic follows. Well, at least
*that* is logical.


--

Reply in group, but if emailing add another
zero, and remove the last word.

On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 20:01:56 -0700, JosephKK wrote:
Tom Del Rosso lid posted to sci.electronics.design:
....
Roe v. Wade comes to mind too. It was the left that decided to
force their
view on everyone regardless of public opinion. Naturally people on
the
right who wanted to force their way responded. Only a few
intellectuals could grasp the need to let the democratic process do
its work and allow
some states to go one way and some to go the other way. But it's
not the
GOP's fault that intellectuals are a minority. They had to get
supporters somewhere.

Roe v. Wade was not about the left forcing its views on the world, but
of stopping the religious right from imposing a continuing public
health nightmare. The abortions were happening in back alleys with
rusty wire coat hangers and knitting needles in the bathroom and the
young women with a "secret" were dying of complications. 'Tis better
that it be legal.
Though i am kind of ****ed off about the guv'munt paying for it.
Particularly when it is not coupled with collateral sterilization.

The only way to grant "rights" to a fetus is to strip its owner
of hers. Of course, in the mind of the evangelicals, women are
property.

Thanks,
Rich

On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 05:45:22 -0400, Fred Bloggs wrote:
Jim Thompson wrote:

Can't you just envision that scenario... Fred stuck for hours waiting
in an emergency room while all the illegals get served first ;-)

If those illegals are in more urgent need of prompt medical care then
they should be first, I have no problem with that. I could not imagine
the kind of person who would do otherwise on the basis of citizenship
status.

So, patch them up good enough to transport, and carry them to the
border and say, "Here, this one's yours. And here's the bill."

Cheers!
Rich

On Mon, 01 Oct 2007 07:36:33 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote:

That is not to say that MANY, MANY Hispanics are not hard-working
contributors to our society... but MANY, MANY Hispanics are loading
down the welfare/health-care system here in Arizona...

Well, it should be obvious here that the problem isn't the wetbacks,
it's the socialism.

Thanks,
Rich

"Fred Bloggs" wrote in message
...


radiosrfun wrote:
Maybe he doesn't understand ILLEGAL = NOT
ON THE TAX ROLLS. They may be working, but not paying into the tax
system. THAT is what hurts the system.

All the unpaid tax revenue from the illegals x1000 and it still is a
negligible fraction of the money wasted...they are not a problem. *AND*
tax evasion is so rampant among the *LEGAL* Americans, that the IRS has
given up prosecuting cases involving less than $40K, there's just not
enough legal resource to handle the load. Apparently *LEGAL* Americans are
a *MUCH BIGGER* tax problem than poor working immigrants. Why aren't
ranting about them.

Yea, let's vote in the "FairTax" it picks up the underground
economy.

On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 11:20:36 -0400, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
"JosephKK" wrote in message

Though i am kind of ****ed off about the guv'munt paying for it.
Particularly when it is not coupled with collateral sterilization.

The connection between abortion and eugenics demonstrated by Margaret
Sanger's letters to Hitler is still in the back of proponent's minds, but
not often expressed. Around 5 years ago some guest lecturer at Harvard made
a case for infanticide based on the fact that humans are neo-nascent anyway,
and if it's ok to kill an embryo then the logic follows. Well, at least
*that* is logical.

I'm ****ed off about Da Gubmint paying for _ANYTHING_, since the only
money it has has been stolen from our paychecks.

The only question that needs to be answered in the abortion issue is,
"Whose property are you and your organs?"

In fact, since antichoice is a religious thing, Da Gubmint is expressly
prohibited from making any law enforcing it.

Thanks,
Rich

On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 11:48:49 -0500, mike wrote:
"Fred Bloggs" wrote in message
radiosrfun wrote:
Maybe he doesn't understand ILLEGAL = NOT
ON THE TAX ROLLS. They may be working, but not paying into the tax
system. THAT is what hurts the system.

All the unpaid tax revenue from the illegals x1000 and it still is a
negligible fraction of the money wasted...they are not a problem. *AND*
tax evasion is so rampant among the *LEGAL* Americans, that the IRS has
given up prosecuting cases involving less than $40K, there's just not
enough legal resource to handle the load. Apparently *LEGAL* Americans are
a *MUCH BIGGER* tax problem than poor working immigrants. Why aren't
ranting about them.

Yea, let's vote in the "FairTax" it picks up the underground
economy.

What _really_ needs to be done is to strip the federal gov't back
to Constitutional levels.

Vote me in, and I will fire the IRS!

Cheers!
Rich

On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 20:55:36 -0500, flipper wrote:

On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 05:41:53 -0400, Fred Bloggs
wrote:



radiosrfun wrote:
Maybe he doesn't understand ILLEGAL = NOT
ON THE TAX ROLLS. They may be working, but not paying into the tax
system. THAT is what hurts the system.

All the unpaid tax revenue from the illegals x1000 and it still is a
negligible fraction of the money wasted.

Not even the number of illegals is known, much less how much
unreported income, so, as is typical for liberals, you simply 'make
up' something.

Without liberals from where would we draw our village idiots ?:-)

[snip]

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax480)460-2142 | Brass Rat |
| http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

America: Land of the Free, Because of the Brave

"Richard The Dreaded Libertarian" wrote in message
news

I'm ****ed off about Da Gubmint paying for _ANYTHING_, since the only
money it has has been stolen from our paychecks.

The only question that needs to be answered in the abortion issue is,
"Whose property are you and your organs?"

In fact, since antichoice is a religious thing, Da Gubmint is
expressly prohibited from making any law enforcing it.

Not religious for me. I'm an atheist, and a clump of cells, like you. It's
illegal after 28 weeks, but that's not religious. I just don't want
unelected courts making legislation. Every country has some kind of
restrictions, but this is the only democracy where it's decided by an
unelected court, and that's why the debate has been so acrimonious. It
would have been a lot easier on the country if it was allowed to develop
democratically in each state.

An issue like this needs concensus, and we don't have one nationally. We
have one consensus in Utah and another in Vermont, so let the people decide
their laws. So what if a few states have stiff restrictions? They'll take
a bus to the next state over.


--

Reply in group, but if emailing add another
zero, and remove the last word.

"flipper" wrote in message

On Tue, 2 Oct 2007 09:13:21 -0400, "Tom Del Rosso"
wrote:

"flipper" wrote in message


Isn't leaving it to the states still the official Republican Party
position?

The official position of the overall party, yes. But not the
position of evangelicals, so I was just explaining why they became
significant in the GOP.

I think the simpler explanation is there's a significant enough number
of them to matter and the Republican Party is 'closer', or 'more
useful', to their views than the other.

But they're closer to the GOP because of Roe. Before Roe the evangelicals
were not all in one party.


--

Reply in group, but if emailing add another
zero, and remove the last word.

Jim Thompson wrote:

On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 20:55:36 -0500, flipper wrote:

On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 05:41:53 -0400, Fred Bloggs
wrote:



radiosrfun wrote:
Maybe he doesn't understand ILLEGAL = NOT
ON THE TAX ROLLS. They may be working, but not paying into the tax
system. THAT is what hurts the system.

All the unpaid tax revenue from the illegals x1000 and it still is a
negligible fraction of the money wasted.

Not even the number of illegals is known, much less how much
unreported income, so, as is typical for liberals, you simply 'make
up' something.

Without liberals from where would we draw our village idiots ?:-)


From whatever was left. A village can't survive for long without
it's idiot to spur others on to work harder, and smarter.


--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 22:24:20 -0400, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
"Richard The Dreaded Libertarian" wrote in message

I'm ****ed off about Da Gubmint paying for _ANYTHING_, since the only
money it has has been stolen from our paychecks.

The only question that needs to be answered in the abortion issue is,
"Whose property are you and your organs?"

In fact, since antichoice is a religious thing, Da Gubmint is
expressly prohibited from making any law enforcing it.

Not religious for me. I'm an atheist, and a clump of cells, like you. It's
illegal after 28 weeks, but that's not religious. I just don't want
unelected courts making legislation. Every country has some kind of
restrictions, but this is the only democracy where it's decided by an
unelected court, and that's why the debate has been so acrimonious. It
would have been a lot easier on the country if it was allowed to develop
democratically in each state.

An issue like this needs concensus, and we don't have one nationally. We
have one consensus in Utah and another in Vermont, so let the people decide
their laws. So what if a few states have stiff restrictions? They'll take
a bus to the next state over.

Well, here in the good ol' USA, we have this thing called a Constitution.

----------excerpt---------
AMENDMENT XIV
Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.
Note: Article I, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by section 2 of the 14th amendment.
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the
jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State
wherein they reside. 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.
....
----------/excerpt---------

It's right there, in black and white. "All persons born..."

Ergo, if it's not born, it's not a person, and is still the property
of the one who is providing every single atom of its substance, i.e.,
its creator. (except for half a cell's worth of DNA from the
spermdonor.)

Now, if the woman who is creating this thing wishes to endow it with
"rights", that's her prerogative, as it is her property until "the
miracle of childbirth", when it becomes a separate person, with
all of the rights of every other born person.

The only way to grant "rights" to an unborn is to strip its existing,
born owner of her unaliensble, God-given rights to life, liberty and
property.

Thanks,
Rich

On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 20:16:28 -0500, flipper wrote:
On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 16:12:01 GMT, Richard The Dreaded Libertarian
On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 20:01:56 -0700, JosephKK wrote:
Tom Del Rosso lid posted to sci.electronics.design:
...
Roe v. Wade comes to mind too. It was the left that decided to
force their
view on everyone regardless of public opinion. Naturally people on
the
right who wanted to force their way responded. Only a few
intellectuals could grasp the need to let the democratic process do
its work and allow
some states to go one way and some to go the other way. But it's
not the
GOP's fault that intellectuals are a minority. They had to get
supporters somewhere.

Roe v. Wade was not about the left forcing its views on the world, but
of stopping the religious right from imposing a continuing public
health nightmare. The abortions were happening in back alleys with
rusty wire coat hangers and knitting needles in the bathroom and the
young women with a "secret" were dying of complications. 'Tis better
that it be legal.
Though i am kind of ****ed off about the guv'munt paying for it.
Particularly when it is not coupled with collateral sterilization.

The only way to grant "rights" to a fetus is to strip its owner
of hers.

That's a sophist word game and one could just as easily say the only
way to grant 'rights' to a murder victim is to strip the murderer of
his.

The crux of the matter is the definition of 'human' and from where
rights originate.

Of course, in the mind of the evangelicals, women are
property.

Now you're just showing your ignorance.


Your type is famous for accusing your opponents of doing exactly what
you're doing.

Here's the facts:
http://www.archives.gov/national-arc..._11-27.html#14

Note "All persons born..."

You'd think you religious types would afford some significance to the
expression "the miracle of childbirth."

You've got one person.
You've got one pregnant person.
You've got one VERY pregnant person.
*** THE MIRACLE OF CHILDBIRTH ***
Now, you've got two people.

How could it be any simpler?

Thanks,
Rich

On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 19:05:22 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote:
On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 20:55:36 -0500, flipper wrote:
On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 05:41:53 -0400, Fred Bloggs
radiosrfun wrote:
Maybe he doesn't understand ILLEGAL = NOT
ON THE TAX ROLLS. They may be working, but not paying into the tax
system. THAT is what hurts the system.

All the unpaid tax revenue from the illegals x1000 and it still is a
negligible fraction of the money wasted.

Not even the number of illegals is known, much less how much
unreported income, so, as is typical for liberals, you simply 'make
up' something.

Without liberals from where would we draw our village idiots ?:-)


Hey, we need someone to protect us from the criminally insane, like
the neocons.

Cheers!
Rich

On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 22:28:55 -0500, flipper wrote:
On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 22:21:38 GMT, Richard The Dreaded Libertarian
....
Not to mention, how could there be "or naturalized" in the first
sentence if not "born... in the United States" meant you're not a
person?

Well, if you can give a fetus a citizenship test, and it can take
the oath while it's still in the womb, I guess you could naturalize
a fetus, as long as its owner consents to having her right to life,
liberty, and property thrown into the toilet.

And the government is expressly prohibited from getting into the
religion business.

Thanks,
Rich

On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 22:33:13 -0500, flipper wrote:
On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 23:07:47 GMT, Richard The Dreaded Libertarian

And the government is expressly prohibited from getting into the
religion business.

What I "can give..." is irrelevant because it is the 14'th that says
"All persons born or naturalized" and using your loony tunes 'logic'
it is the 14'th that's declaring a fetus can be naturalized.

Aren't you the loon that's claiming that fetuses have "rights", that
somehow override the rights of its owner?

Thanks,
Rich