On Thu, 01 Jul 2004 07:52:21 GMT, Gunner
wrote:


Morning after pills in effect, give the mother an abortion.

Classic Gunnervision. What next, a little burial ceremony for your
sheets every time you have a wet dream?

In your relentless stream of partisan propaganda, there ought to be
room to endorse obvious practical solutions, even when your party is
against them. Otherwise, you're just another sheeple.

Wayne

On Thu, 01 Jul 2004 07:48:52 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

No logic? Abortion is the killing of an unborn child. Child.
If you were to shoot a pregnant woman, killing her and the unborn
child in virtually every one of the United States, you would be
charged with (2) two counts of murder. You can only murder a human
being. Ergo, that unborn tissue mass is a child.

And yet you claim to be pro-choice. Sounds like you're pretty
conflicted.

On Thu, 01 Jul 2004 14:22:40 GMT, wmbjk
wrote:

On Thu, 01 Jul 2004 07:52:21 GMT, Gunner
wrote:


Morning after pills in effect, give the mother an abortion.

Classic Gunnervision. What next, a little burial ceremony for your
sheets every time you have a wet dream?

In gunnerworld, a collection of two cells that grew from a fertilized
egg is a what he calls a person.

In your relentless stream of partisan propaganda, there ought to be
room to endorse obvious practical solutions, even when your party is
against them. Otherwise, you're just another sheeple.

No, he's a class repugnican, whose answer to every societal ill is for
a tougher stance and more punishment.

On Thu, 01 Jul 2004 14:22:40 GMT, wmbjk
wrote:

On Thu, 01 Jul 2004 07:52:21 GMT, Gunner
wrote:


Morning after pills in effect, give the mother an abortion.

Classic Gunnervision. What next, a little burial ceremony for your
sheets every time you have a wet dream?

What part of my statement was incorrect? A fertilized ova is a human
being in an early stage of development, be definiton. A sperm cell is
not.
You however are a human being in an arrested stage of development.

In your relentless stream of partisan propaganda, there ought to be
room to endorse obvious practical solutions, even when your party is
against them. Otherwise, you're just another sheeple.

Got a good practical solution. Adoption. Or simply use birth
control. Or..dont ****.

Wayne

Gunner

In article , Gunner says...

Morning after pills in effect, give the mother an abortion. It causes
the ovum to detach from the placental wall. In effect, a planned
miscarraige. Dead child. Shrug..whats so hard to think about that?

And IUDs, they prevent implantation. So you feel the same
way about those I take it.

As long as you make the equation that a single cell zygote is
exactly the same as an adult, this all makes perfect sense
in a way.

Jim

==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

"Duck Dog" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 01 Jul 2004 07:48:52 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

No logic? Abortion is the killing of an unborn child. Child.
If you were to shoot a pregnant woman, killing her and the unborn
child in virtually every one of the United States, you would be
charged with (2) two counts of murder. You can only murder a human
being. Ergo, that unborn tissue mass is a child.

And yet you claim to be pro-choice. Sounds like you're pretty
conflicted.

Hmm. Too bad I have to read Gunner's posts by proxy. Maybe I'll un-plonk
him. g

Anyway, Gunner, you're making the wrong argument, if your intention is to
undermine Roe v. Wade because of a supposed contradiction here. There is no
contradiction.

Roe is worth reading. Few people have bothered. There was a Bill Moyers
interview of Justice Stephens that sums it up nicely, for those who like the
condensed version.

It was decided as a potential conflict of rights. Stephens (and the Court)
argued that the right to privacy was established; the time of gestation at
which a fetus becomes imbued with human rights is not. The Constitution says
nothing about it. Further, the Court held that nothing in the Constitution
allows the government to make such a decision through legislation. There is
no Constitutional authority to make that judgment. Thus the phrase, "a
woman's right to choose."

This is predicated on the common-sense idea that at some point you are
dealing with an egg and a sperm, which are the property of individuals with
a private right to decide. At the time of birth and separation, likewise,
the common-sense (and common law, and broad historical) understanding is
that you now have a human life with individual rights. Where one becomes the
other is not illuminated by the Constitution. Also, contrary to what some
people suppose, it is not illuminated by history nor common law, either.
Until the late 19th century, abortion often was considered an issue for the
woman to decide. Even the Catholic Church didn't officially oppose it until,
I think, 1898.

But the right of a woman to privacy, and of the consequent right to decide
what is her body and what is not, is established under Griswold v.
Connecticut and the logical extension thereof. Thus, if there is a conflict
of rights, one such right is established, and the other is unknown. The
right to choose is affirmed by default.

The case of a double murder is based partly on this logic. If a woman is
carrying a fetus, it is presumed that she has, at that time at least,
decided that she is carrying a child that she intends to deliver. Thus,
someone who kills the gestating fetus has illegally usurped her right, her
decision about what is and what is not an individual human being, and thus
has committed murder, because SHE is presumed to have decided it was an
actual child. You may argue, but you will lose in court, because the weight
of law and precedent is overwhelmingly against you.

It's interesting to see what right-wing Justices say about all of this. This
is the dissenting opinion (Scalia, joined by Rehnquist, White, and Thomas)


"The permissibility of abortion, and the limitations upon it, are to be
resolved like most important questions in our democracy: by citizens trying
to persuade one another and then voting. . . . The issue is whether it [the
power of a woman to abort her unborn child] is a liberty protected by the
Constitution of the United States. I am sure it is not. I reach that
conclusion . . . because of two simple facts: (1) the Constitution says
absolutely nothing about it, and (2) the longstanding traditions of American
society have permitted it to be legally proscribed."

Defenders of Constitutional Originalism take note: The conservative justices
are denying a right because THE CONSTITUTION DOESN'T SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZE
IT !, and because tradition have allowed it, REGARDLESS OF ANY RIGHTS THAT
MAY BE INVOLVED !

This sounds like conservative judge Bork on matters relating to the 10th
Amendment: If the Constitution doesn't specifically grant a right, it
doesn't exist, says Bork. Likewise in this case, say the conservative
Justices.

So much for conservatives and God-given rights, eh? Forget that the issue
here is abortion: just look at the principle. If it isn't spelled out, it
can't be a right. Thus, as Bork has implied, the 10th is utterly
meaningless.

This is why you libertarians don't want to see conservative Justices on the
bench. They'll gut the concept of Constitutional limitations of
Congressional authority.

Ed Huntress

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
. net...


It's interesting to see what right-wing Justices say about all of this.
This
is the dissenting opinion (Scalia, joined by Rehnquist, White, and
Thomas)...

Sorry, I didn't clarify, but that was Scalia's dissent in Planned Parenthood
of Southeastern Pa. v. Case, not Roe. "Planned Parenthood" was a later
abortion case, in which Scalia argued to overturn Roe.

Ed Huntress

On Thu, 01 Jul 2004 16:03:58 GMT, Gunner
wrote:


Got a good practical solution. Adoption. Or simply use birth
control. Or..dont ****.

Oh yeah, real practical, those methods have worked so well thus
far....

Face it, there are always going to be unwanted pregnancies. What kind
of fool prefers them to morning after pills? The good sheeple kind,
the loyal party foot-soldier, er... chair soldier. And of course one
of the most beloved party planks is that there's unlimited money to
pay for all those unwanted kiddies, hospital bills .... oops, there
seems to be a flaw in your plan. Will they kick you out for that, or
just award you more demerit points?

Wayne

It being a dull day, I decide to respond to what Gunner
fosted Thu, 01 Jul 2004 07:52:44 GMT on
misc.survivalism , viz:
On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 09:47:10 -0400, "Phillip Vogel"
wrote:


"Gunner" wrote in message
. ..

Btw...Im not a fundie..Im Buddhist. But da facts is da facts.

I'm sure the rest of the Buddhists are thrilled.

Who cares if they are or not?

Proper Buddhist attitude. One must not be come attached to what others
think of you, that way lies .. detours from the eight fold path?


tschus
pyotr

"taking a 4x4 up the eight fold path!" sig line of Nurse Jones, back in
the dark ages of Usenet.

Gunner

--
pyotr filipivich
"With Age comes Wisdom. Although more often, Age travels alone."

In article , Gunner says...

What part of my statement was incorrect? A fertilized ov(um)
[singular]
is a human
being in an early stage of development, be definiton. A sperm cell is
not.

Sure it is. It's a haploid cell, perfectly capable of
developing into a human being. So is every one of the
ova (plural) that are discarded by every woman of child-bearing
age. Are you going to pass a law that says that each
one *has* be be fertilized, and brought to term? And
if not, why not? Give cites, as a famous person once
said....

Jim

==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

In article , Ed Huntress
says...

Defenders of Constitutional Originalism take note: The conservative justices
are denying a right because THE CONSTITUTION DOESN'T SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZE
IT !, and because tradition have allowed it, REGARDLESS OF ANY RIGHTS THAT
MAY BE INVOLVED !

Well, trying to deny it, anyway. Didn't you say that
was the *minority* opinion?

Jim

==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

"jim rozen" wrote in message
...
In article , Ed Huntress
says...

Defenders of Constitutional Originalism take note: The conservative
justices
are denying a right because THE CONSTITUTION DOESN'T SPECIFICALLY
AUTHORIZE
IT !, and because tradition have allowed it, REGARDLESS OF ANY RIGHTS
THAT
MAY BE INVOLVED !

Well, trying to deny it, anyway. Didn't you say that
was the *minority* opinion?

Yeah, that case went 5:4. It was a close one. If Scalia (or Bork) doesn't
find a right specifically written into the Constitution, they don't believe
it exists. That is, unless the right would support a conservative issue.
Which makes the 10th Amendment nothing more than an antique curiosity.

Ed Huntress

On 1 Jul 2004 09:13:10 -0700, jim rozen
wrote:

In article , Gunner says...

Morning after pills in effect, give the mother an abortion. It causes
the ovum to detach from the placental wall. In effect, a planned
miscarraige. Dead child. Shrug..whats so hard to think about that?

And IUDs, they prevent implantation. So you feel the same
way about those I take it.

Of course

As long as you make the equation that a single cell zygote is
exactly the same as an adult, this all makes perfect sense
in a way.

Jim

If allowed to develop naturally, that single cell organism becomes an
adult.

If allowed to develp naturally your 12 yr old becomes an adult.

At no time in the growth cycle, from fertilization to moving to Miami
and buying a condo, is there any change to another species or life
form.

Gunner, Pro Choice.


================================================= =
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
================================================= =

On Thu, 01 Jul 2004 19:29:15 GMT, wmbjk
wrote:

On Thu, 01 Jul 2004 16:03:58 GMT, Gunner
wrote:


Got a good practical solution. Adoption. Or simply use birth
control. Or..dont ****.

Oh yeah, real practical, those methods have worked so well thus
far....

Face it, there are always going to be unwanted pregnancies. What kind
of fool prefers them to morning after pills? The good sheeple kind,
the loyal party foot-soldier, er... chair soldier. And of course one
of the most beloved party planks is that there's unlimited money to
pay for all those unwanted kiddies, hospital bills .... oops, there
seems to be a flaw in your plan. Will they kick you out for that, or
just award you more demerit points?

Wayne

And this means what?

Gunner

On 1 Jul 2004 16:51:06 -0700, jim rozen
wrote:

In article , Gunner says...

What part of my statement was incorrect? A fertilized ov(um)
[singular]
is a human
being in an early stage of development, be definiton. A sperm cell is
not.

Sure it is. It's a haploid cell, perfectly capable of
developing into a human being. So is every one of the
ova (plural) that are discarded by every woman of child-bearing
age. Are you going to pass a law that says that each
one *has* be be fertilized, and brought to term? And
if not, why not? Give cites, as a famous person once
said....

Jim

Haploid cells do not spontaneously go into pathogenesis in human
species. They have the Potential of being a human being, but cannot
without outside influences. A fertilized egg IS a human being if
allowed to continue its growth cycle and ultimately may buy a
Southbend 10k.

Gunner

On Fri, 02 Jul 2004 06:47:53 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

On Thu, 01 Jul 2004 19:29:15 GMT, wmbjk
wrote:

On Thu, 01 Jul 2004 16:03:58 GMT, Gunner
wrote:


Got a good practical solution. Adoption. Or simply use birth
control. Or..dont ****.

Oh yeah, real practical, those methods have worked so well thus
far....

Face it, there are always going to be unwanted pregnancies. What kind
of fool prefers them to morning after pills? The good sheeple kind,
the loyal party foot-soldier, er... chair soldier. And of course one
of the most beloved party planks is that there's unlimited money to
pay for all those unwanted kiddies, hospital bills .... oops, there
seems to be a flaw in your plan. Will they kick you out for that, or
just award you more demerit points?

Wayne

And this means what?

Gunner

It means that you'd rather waste your life and your health writing
reams of contradictory nonsense in the delusional belief that's
"effective", instead of just admitting that some of your party's
policy is not in the public's interest. Blocking the way to easy
availability of morning after pills, and making prescription drug
reimportation illegal, are two good examples. If you disagree with the
leadership on either of these issues, you've gone miles out of your
way to avoid saying so, which is to be expected from a good little
loyal chair soldier. In the process, we've been treated to your
money-is-no-object opinion that adoption is a "practical" solution to
unwanted pregnancy.

Wayne

On Fri, 02 Jul 2004 14:57:03 GMT, wmbjk
wrote:

On Fri, 02 Jul 2004 06:47:53 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

On Thu, 01 Jul 2004 19:29:15 GMT, wmbjk
wrote:

On Thu, 01 Jul 2004 16:03:58 GMT, Gunner
wrote:


Got a good practical solution. Adoption. Or simply use birth
control. Or..dont ****.

Oh yeah, real practical, those methods have worked so well thus
far....

Face it, there are always going to be unwanted pregnancies. What kind
of fool prefers them to morning after pills? The good sheeple kind,
the loyal party foot-soldier, er... chair soldier. And of course one
of the most beloved party planks is that there's unlimited money to
pay for all those unwanted kiddies, hospital bills .... oops, there
seems to be a flaw in your plan. Will they kick you out for that, or
just award you more demerit points?

Wayne

And this means what?

Gunner

It means that you'd rather waste your life and your health writing
reams of contradictory nonsense in the delusional belief that's
"effective", instead of just admitting that some of your party's
policy is not in the public's interest.

Of course I admit that the Republican party has a number of negatives
about it. Indeed. Which is why Im a Republitarian.

On the other hand..I admit that the majority of the Republicans
platform is far less harmful than the Dems majority. The Dems even
have some things I like. Damned shame its such a tiny fraction.


Blocking the way to easy
availability of morning after pills, and making prescription drug
reimportation illegal, are two good examples. If you disagree with the
leadership on either of these issues, you've gone miles out of your
way to avoid saying so, which is to be expected from a good little
loyal chair soldier.

Im very much pro choice. If RU-384 was available over the counter, Id
not bitch. However..as my posts indicate quite clearly, Ive no
illusions about the process, nor do I use weasel wording or some self
delusional mumbo jumbo to justify the murder of a human being. Which
is more than I can say for you. I noticed a distinct lack of comment
from you on my "illogic" when I ran it through the ladder.

The only comment in fact..was a weasel about how a woman could be the
definer of whether or not her child is a human or not. And I covered
that quite well in my comments to Jim that he needed permission from
his wife to kill his daughter.


In the process, we've been treated to your
money-is-no-object opinion that adoption is a "practical" solution to
unwanted pregnancy.

Wayne

Where in my posts did I mention money? I did indicate that adoption
was a very viable solution for some women. You call me and
extremist..but simply spew out the lies and half truths you need to
justify your world view..as evidenced by the lies in your post above.

If cost was the issue, ammo is cheap, and simply putting a $.02 22lr
round in the back of your daughters neck at the skull junction is very
cheap. Far cheaper than an abortion, even when its paid for by the
State.

Gunner

"The entire population of Great Britain has been declared insane by
their government. It is believed that should any one of them come in
possession of a firearm, he will immediately start to foam at the
mouth and begin kiling children at the nearest school. The proof of
their insanity is that they actually believe this."
-- someone in misc.survivalism

In article , wmbjk says...

It means that you'd rather waste your life and your health writing
reams of contradictory nonsense in the delusional belief that's
"effective", instead of just admitting that some of your party's
policy is not in the public's interest. Blocking the way to easy
availability of morning after pills, and making prescription drug
reimportation illegal, are two good examples. If you disagree with the
leadership on either of these issues, you've gone miles out of your
way to avoid saying so, which is to be expected from a good little
loyal chair soldier. In the process, we've been treated to your
money-is-no-object opinion that adoption is a "practical" solution to
unwanted pregnancy.

Notice that both political parties are walking pretty far around
this issue right now. They realize that it's a good way to
*lose* votes.

Most folks who vote democratic don't feel like abortions should
be 'on demand, at any time.'

Most who vote republican don't feel like they should be illegal
under all cirumcstances.

But there's a contingent who would like to see the issues become
more polar, and eliminate the middle ground.

Jim

==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

In article , Gunner says...

Haploid cells do not spontaneously go into pathogenesis in human
species.

Actually they do. All you need is one each of male and female
versions in a dark room (station wagon would do in a pinch)
and allow the single most powerful force in nature to occur.

Jim

==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

In article , Gunner says...

If allowed to develop naturally, that single cell organism becomes an
adult.

If allowed to develp naturally your 12 yr old becomes an adult.

And eventually, given the passing of time, the same 12 year
old becomes dead.

A single cell zygote then is the *same* thing as a 12 year old.
And the 12 year old is the *same* thing as an adult.
And the adult is the *same* thing as a corpse.

Very zen approach to life.

It all goes around in a circle.

Jim

==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

In article , Ed Huntress
says...

Yeah, that case went 5:4. It was a close one. If Scalia (or Bork) doesn't
find a right specifically written into the Constitution, they don't believe
it exists. That is, unless the right would support a conservative issue.
Which makes the 10th Amendment nothing more than an antique curiosity.

Did you see the recent decision where *Scalia* authored the majority
opinion that strengthened the rights to jury trial? Basically the
courts were using information not presented to juries when considering
sentencing. Scalia of all the justices said that this amounts
to an infringement on the 6th amendment.

Jim

==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

On Fri, 02 Jul 2004 16:44:42 GMT, Gunner
wrote:


Of course I admit that the Republican party has a number of negatives
about it. Indeed. Which is why Im a Republitarian.

I'm surprised they let you join. Aren't they the guys who believe
government should have very few obligations, none of which are writing
checks for Gunnervision HQ staff?

Im very much pro choice. If RU-384 was available over the counter, Id
not bitch.

Look how many posts you wrote on the topic before fessing up with that
sniveling endorsement. Sheesh! Seems like something you'd be
wholeheartedly in support of, *if* you really were "very pro choice".
Seems you're more anti-dem than pro anything.

I noticed a distinct lack of comment
from you on my "illogic" when I ran it through the ladder.

So much contradiction and foolishness, so little time. But I'm glad
you brought up missing responses... where are yours about drug
reimportation? How will you pay for your drugs if the GOP is able to
enforce the ban on reimportation, and the price about doubles? How
many paragraphs of GOP sheeple **** will you write before admitting
you're against that ban?

Where in my posts did I mention money? I did indicate that adoption
was a very viable solution for some women.

Of course it's viable for some. And I'm not surprised you need the
connection between money and your position spelled out. Do you think
the majority of mothers who are only continuing unwanted pregnancies
because they didn't have a practical alternative, are likely to be
paying their hospital bills? And if adoption is so practical, then why
are there so many foster homes, and armies of social service workers
to supervise them? How is any of that more practical than a pill?

If cost was the issue, ammo is cheap, and simply putting a $.02 22lr
round in the back of your daughters neck at the skull junction is very
cheap. Far cheaper than an abortion, even when its paid for by the
State.

Ah yes, a classic Gunnervision tactic: ignore one major component
(nine months of pregnancy and a hospital bill), leave out a practical
option (the cost of a pill), and substitute some drama-queen
foolishness in their place. sigh Regardless, exactly how does
anything cost less just because the price is paid by the State?


Wayne

In article , Gunner says...

On the other hand..I admit that the majority of the Republicans
platform is far less harmful than the Dems majority. The Dems even
have some things I like. Damned shame its such a tiny fraction.

Tradeoff, tradeoffs. That's politics. Yes I voted for
Shumer but that was because I would be *damned* if I
voted for that skunk D'Amato.

The only comment in fact..was a weasel about how a woman could be the
definer of whether or not her child is a human or not.

Well seeing as this is not spelled out in the constitution, and
all rights not defined as 'for the government' in that document
are reserved for the people, I would say the 'people' in this
case, enjoy that right.

Jim

==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

In article , wmbjk says...

So much contradiction and foolishness, so little time. But I'm glad
you brought up missing responses... where are yours about drug
reimportation? How will you pay for your drugs if the GOP is able to
enforce the ban on reimportation, and the price about doubles? How
many paragraphs of GOP sheeple **** will you write before admitting
you're against that ban?

But wait - I thought it was a *global* enconomy. That we should
be enjoying the benefits of lower costs.

Oh. Not for the consumers. Got it.

Jim

==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

"jim rozen" wrote in message
...
In article , Ed Huntress
says...

Yeah, that case went 5:4. It was a close one. If Scalia (or Bork) doesn't
find a right specifically written into the Constitution, they don't
believe
it exists. That is, unless the right would support a conservative issue.
Which makes the 10th Amendment nothing more than an antique curiosity.

Did you see the recent decision where *Scalia* authored the majority
opinion that strengthened the rights to jury trial? Basically the
courts were using information not presented to juries when considering
sentencing. Scalia of all the justices said that this amounts
to an infringement on the 6th amendment.

Nope, I didn't see that one. Scalia is not very predictable, except in one
regard: He never allows anything to get in the way of a decision he wants to
make. Bork has a disparaging, sneering name for that type of judge:
"Results-oriented."

Ed Huntress

On 2 Jul 2004 09:47:51 -0700, jim rozen
wrote:


Notice that both political parties are walking pretty far around
this issue right now. They realize that it's a good way to
*lose* votes.

The issue was assigned to the FDA, whose advisory panel recommended
over-the-counter availability. My guess is that those were mostly
religious-right votes at stake, so the panel was overruled.

Think about this - that pill will likely be available over-the-counter
some time after the election, no matter who wins. How many abortions
could have been prevented in the meantime? One article says "Research
indicates that 1.7 million unintended pregnancies and 800,000
abortions a year could be prevented through increased access to EC."
Of course there's always the compassionate and "practical" option of
an extra 800,000 adoptions per year. Gunner probably got that idea
from his dog and cat breeding experience.

But there's a contingent who would like to see the issues become
more polar, and eliminate the middle ground.

You mean like somebody's preference to write about shooting babies
rather than simply stating his position? Maybe he's just shy about
giving his opinions..... :-)

Wayne

On 2 Jul 2004 13:28:11 -0700, jim rozen
wrote:

In article , wmbjk says...

So much contradiction and foolishness, so little time. But I'm glad
you brought up missing responses... where are yours about drug
reimportation? How will you pay for your drugs if the GOP is able to
enforce the ban on reimportation, and the price about doubles? How
many paragraphs of GOP sheeple **** will you write before admitting
you're against that ban?

But wait - I thought it was a *global* enconomy. That we should
be enjoying the benefits of lower costs.

Oh. Not for the consumers. Got it.

Jim

In this case, the ban is not enforced against individuals (yet), but
prevents counties, states, etc. from negotiating better deals from
Canada and Europe. I'm sure those multi-million dollar big-pharma
donations had no effect on the rule-making process......

Anyway, for the time being Gunner can take advantage of import prices,
while shilling for those who are trying to take the deal away from
him, all without incurring any penalty. Excepting of course the minor
inconvenience of being called on his one-sided rants by some of us
here. :-)

Wayne

In article , wmbjk says...

You mean like somebody's preference to write about shooting babies
rather than simply stating his position? Maybe he's just shy about
giving his opinions..... :-)

Well there's that. But I think the other side can also
boast of a hard-line contingent. All it takes is one to
display the coat-hanger images and then it's off to the
races, dead babies vs. coathangers.

The middleground is much larger than one would guess, by
viewing the rhetoric. That middle ground is what the politicos
want to hit. They cannot do that by advocating a total ban,
it would alienate too many into voting *against* the candidate.

Jim

==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

jim rozen writes:

But wait - I thought it was a *global* enconomy. That we should
be enjoying the benefits of lower costs.

Modern economy *is* global. It's up to each country to what degree it
wants to participate openly in that global economy. The more open you
are to non-taxed imports from other countries, the lower the prices
you pay for goods will become.

Oh. Not for the consumers. Got it.

It's all about reallocation of money. You know, "stealing money out
of people's wallets to give it to others", as has been said here?
That's the *only* thing protectionism actually does: when a country
levies tariffs on imported goods, in order to "protect" its own
manufacturers, what actually happens is that money is taken from the
country's own consumers and given to those manufacturers. In the end,
it's always the consumer who foots the bill. All government schemes
that benefit someone reallocate money to those beneficiaries, and
wherever that money comes from, it will, in the end, be balanced out
by less money in the pocket of the average Joe.

That isn't to say that it should never be done. Our governments do
lots of wealth reallocation that we really want. We should just be
aware of who, in the end, pays. Next time you hear someone react to a
new tariff by saying "that'll teach them furriners!", you might want
to remind him that the price of the lesson comes out of *his* pocket.

-tih
--
Tom Ivar Helbekkmo, Senior System Administrator, EUnet Norway
www.eunet.no T: +47-22092958 M: +47-93013940 F: +47-22092901

On 2 Jul 2004 09:54:34 -0700, jim rozen
wrote:

In article , Gunner says...

Haploid cells do not spontaneously go into pathogenesis in human
species.

Actually they do. All you need is one each of male and female
versions in a dark room (station wagon would do in a pinch)
and allow the single most powerful force in nature to occur.

Jim


Thats not pathogenisis in a single gender. Thats called ****ing.

Gunner

That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's
cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays
there.
- George Orwell

On 2 Jul 2004 09:58:52 -0700, jim rozen
wrote:

In article , Gunner says...

If allowed to develop naturally, that single cell organism becomes an
adult.

If allowed to develp naturally your 12 yr old becomes an adult.

And eventually, given the passing of time, the same 12 year
old becomes dead.

A single cell zygote then is the *same* thing as a 12 year old.
And the 12 year old is the *same* thing as an adult.
And the adult is the *same* thing as a corpse.

Very zen approach to life.

It all goes around in a circle.

Jim
Very Good, Grasshopper!

Gunner

That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's
cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays
there.
- George Orwell

On 2 Jul 2004 13:26:20 -0700, jim rozen
wrote:

In article , Gunner says...

On the other hand..I admit that the majority of the Republicans
platform is far less harmful than the Dems majority. The Dems even
have some things I like. Damned shame its such a tiny fraction.

Tradeoff, tradeoffs. That's politics. Yes I voted for
Shumer but that was because I would be *damned* if I
voted for that skunk D'Amato.

The only comment in fact..was a weasel about how a woman could be the
definer of whether or not her child is a human or not.

Well seeing as this is not spelled out in the constitution, and
all rights not defined as 'for the government' in that document
are reserved for the people, I would say the 'people' in this
case, enjoy that right.

Jim

Ok. Then you have the right to butcher your daughter (subject to your
wife's approval. Correct?

Or does it fall under

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of
Happiness.--"

http://www.law.indiana.edu/uslawdocs/declaration.html

This btw..should be read to your children Sunday.


Gunner

That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's
cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays
there.
- George Orwell

On Sat, 03 Jul 2004 08:10:22 GMT, Strabo wrote:

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/found...v1ch12s25.html

No discussion of real property there.

You sure revealed ole Ben! He always did have a thing for royalty
and fancy trappings. Guess that's why he wasn't invited to some
of the meetings. :-)

He also had a "thing" for pubescent little girls. Which was
considered slightly eccentric, but legal in those days. From various
sources, he satisfied his tastes visa vis young girls in France, for a
very long time....

Gunner

That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's
cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays
there.
- George Orwell

"Gunner" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 03 Jul 2004 08:10:22 GMT, Strabo wrote:

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/found...v1ch12s25.html

No discussion of real property there.

You sure revealed ole Ben! He always did have a thing for royalty
and fancy trappings. Guess that's why he wasn't invited to some
of the meetings. :-)

He also had a "thing" for pubescent little girls. Which was
considered slightly eccentric, but legal in those days. From various
sources, he satisfied his tastes visa vis young girls in France, for a
very long time....

I hadn't heard that. When he was our representative to the French
Court, he was, IIRC, in his seventies. Even then, he was reputed to be
quite the ladies' man, but with the ladies of the Court, not little
girls. Got a source for his alleged paedophilia?

Jeff

In article , Gunner says...

Ok. Then you have the right to butcher your daughter (subject to your
wife's approval. Correct?

I missed the part where the constitution says that a zygote
is a person. By all means point that out to me.

Jim

==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

In article , Gunner says...

Thats not pathogenisis in a single gender. Thats called ****ing.

You mean "pa*r*thenogenisis." Pathogens are disease causing
organisms. Well, OK. A toddler in daycare is indeed a disease
causing organism. Anyone who has a kid in pre-school understands
this the hard way.

****ing is is quite a natural way for the the species to reproduce.
That's how folks are wired. Pretending that it it just won't happen
because some 'important person' gives the magic incantation of
"just say no" is the height of idiocy.

Jim

==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

In article , Tom Ivar Helbekkmo says...

But wait - I thought it was a *global* enconomy. That we should
be enjoying the benefits of lower costs.

Modern economy *is* global.

Um, global yes, for the Merck Medco to sent their manufacturing
overseas. Global, no, for the US citizen who wants to purchase
drugs from the same company at their foreign prices.

That was my point. The administration has responded to the
drug lobby by rigging the shell game.

Jim

==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

Strabo wrote:
On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 21:47:51 +0100, Guido
wrote:

When talking about the rich having a greater voice in
government than the poor he was even clearer:

"Private Property therefore is a Creature of Society,
and is subject to the Calls of that Society, whenever
its Necessities shall require it, even to its last
Farthing; its Contributions therefore to the public
Exigencies are not to be considered as conferring a
Benefit on the Publick, entitling the Contributors to
the Distinctions of Honour and Power, but as the Return
of an Obligation previously received, or the Payment
of a just Debt."
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/found...v1ch12s25.html

No discussion of real property there.


You sure revealed ole Ben! He always did have a thing for royalty
and fancy trappings. Guess that's why he wasn't invited to some
of the meetings. :-)


****t wanna to hear about that "person of a wicked,
malicious and seditious disposition" Thomas Paine's advocacy
of a progressive income tax to finance education, relief for
the poor, old aged pensions and public works for the unemployed?

"jim rozen" wrote in message
...
In article , Tom Ivar Helbekkmo says...

But wait - I thought it was a *global* enconomy. That we should
be enjoying the benefits of lower costs.

Modern economy *is* global.

Um, global yes, for the Merck Medco to sent their manufacturing
overseas. Global, no, for the US citizen who wants to purchase
drugs from the same company at their foreign prices.

That was my point. The administration has responded to the
drug lobby by rigging the shell game.

The US is the only developed country in the world that doesn't regulate drug
prices. Thus, our Big Pharma companies sock us with the full weight of their
up-front costs. By the way, money spent by Big Pharma on marketing is
roughly twice their entire research and development budget, including the
budget for getting FDA approvals.

By accounting for foreign sales separately they can show a profit on foreign
operations, even when drug prices are less than half those in the US, by,
first, using the FDA approval data for foreign approvals, while showing all
of those expenses in US operations; and, second, by treating all such sales
are marginal income, with nearly all expenses charged to US operations.

It's a really neat business.

Ed Huntress

On Sat, 03 Jul 2004 13:11:12 GMT, "Jeff McCann"
wrote:


"Gunner" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 03 Jul 2004 08:10:22 GMT, Strabo wrote:

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/found...v1ch12s25.html

No discussion of real property there.

You sure revealed ole Ben! He always did have a thing for royalty
and fancy trappings. Guess that's why he wasn't invited to some
of the meetings. :-)

He also had a "thing" for pubescent little girls. Which was
considered slightly eccentric, but legal in those days. From various
sources, he satisfied his tastes visa vis young girls in France, for a
very long time....

I hadn't heard that. When he was our representative to the French
Court, he was, IIRC, in his seventies. Even then, he was reputed to be
quite the ladies' man, but with the ladies of the Court, not little
girls. Got a source for his alleged paedophilia?

Jeff

Ill do a detailed search shortly. Keep in mind however..that when it
was proper and legal to marry a 13 yr old girl, etc...it was not
considered pedophilia. That was quite common in those days.

One of my favorite sayings about Franklin...

A pretty young French woman once tapped him on his ample pot belly and
said Dr. Franklin, "if this were on a young woman, we would know what
to think".
He replied " Half an hour ago, mademoiselle, it WAS on a young woman.
Now what do you think?"

http://www.libertymatters.org/libert...summer01-6.htm
"Franklin also earned a reputation as a philanderer, often seen in the
European brothels while serving as America’s Ambassador of France.
Although Franklin claims his wife changed his habits and made him an
honest man, history has accounted for this part of his life
differently."

Franklin was a member in good standing of the Hellfire Club, which was
a very famous S&M brothel of its time as well..

Google turns up some very tantalizing bits and pieces about this great
man.

Gunner



That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's
cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays
there.
- George Orwell