otforme (Charlie Self) wrote in message ...
Leon responds:

Oh you know, that pesky constitution and all.


Well you know, if that pesky constitution were perfect, there would not have
been any laws written since. It is not a know all solve all solution and
can be interpreted numerous ways.


Uh, no, not so. The pesky Constitution was written to provide a basis for
future laws. In 220 years, give or take, there have been very few changes to
the document. And our founding fathers made it exceptionally difficult to
change specifically to protect if from people who would prefer to ignore
certain aspects, or to change them to suit their, or a locally fashionable,
whim.

Charlie Self


.....and yet the Supreme Court does just that on a regular basis. An
Oligarchy of 9 folks appointed for life that can make laws by
decree...and we pretend to be a nation of law, not men. BTW if you are
on the more liberal side you can decry the Oligarchy decreeing the
"appointment" of our current President. On the more conservative side,
the Oligarchy "found" by decree a right to murde..ahhhh abort your
bab...ahhh fetus. So this isn't just a left-right diatribe (although
from the emphasis added to the preceding you can easily guess which
way I lean).

Dave Hall

Secret Squirrel wrote in message
Once again the public schools have failed us. Judges do not make laws.
They interpret and adjudicate them. The legislature makes laws. Its that
whole 3 seperate arms of government concept.

That's a good one!! If I hire someone to "interpret" spanish for me
and he tells me that "uno" means "take out the trash", he was NOT
interpreting, he was just making it up. That is what judges do as far
as I am concerned. When Supreme Court Justice Blackmum spoke
approvingly about a "living Constitution" he was simply saying that he
was happy that he did not have to abide by some document written and
approved by some old white guys and that he (with the concurrance of 4
other Justices) could just make it up as they go and "pass laws" by
decree. This is the very definition of a dictatorship - or more
specifically an Oligarchy - 9 people in power for life that can make
law by decree.

Dave Hall

On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 13:13:12 GMT, "Leon"
wrote:


"Secret Squirrel" wrote in message
.97.131...
"Leon" wrote in news:8COUc.1953$e_.345
@newssvr24.news.prodigy.com:
.
Oh you know, that pesky constitution and all.


Well you know, if that pesky constitution were perfect, there would not have
been any laws written since. It is not a know all solve all solution and
can be interpreted numerous ways.



'course, leon, one of it's functions is to keep you, and other idiots
like you, in check. thank god it's there.

(David Hall) wrote in
om:

Secret Squirrel wrote in message
Once again the public schools have failed us. Judges do not make
laws. They interpret and adjudicate them. The legislature makes laws.
Its that whole 3 seperate arms of government concept.

That's a good one!! If I hire someone to "interpret" spanish for me
and he tells me that "uno" means "take out the trash", he was NOT
interpreting, he was just making it up.

Thats hardly the same thing. One is a case where there is a simple fact
and a single word at that. The other is one where there is legislation
that can run into hundreds of pages of not always crystal clear text.

That is what judges do as far
as I am concerned. When Supreme Court Justice Blackmum spoke
approvingly about a "living Constitution" he was simply saying that he
was happy that he did not have to abide by some document written and
approved by some old white guys and that he (with the concurrance of 4
other Justices) could just make it up as they go and "pass laws" by
decree. This is the very definition of a dictatorship - or more
specifically an Oligarchy - 9 people in power for life that can make
law by decree.

And yet the very concept of these 9 people appointed for life was created
by those same "old white guys" Those same 9 people are appointed by the
president. The president who, the last election not withstanding, was
appointed by the majority of voters and only after approval by the
Senate, again placed there by the voters.


Dave Hall

"BUB 209" wrote in message
...
that responsible posting begins with admitting one has made a mistake?
Or...?
The latter of course.
I can see there's a problem with this.
Shouldn't go off half-cocked on
political topics in a woodworking
newsgroup, especially when the gun
is pointed your way, or Charlie's way.
I'll work on it, or shut up....
Now that that's out of the way...

What "gun" are you talking about?


Help me to learn: at what time was "society" less corrupt?


But where do you go from here? Do you
accept the "absolute cliche" the way
a pathologist would examine a bullet
wound, or do you take steps to reduce
the occurrence of such?

What is an "absolute cliche?"
Reduce the occurence of what? I'm strongly in favor of reducing the number
of bullet wounds.

And you really don't think it matters who
runs the show, the way the Italians in
WW2 were happy to shout Heil Hitler or
sing Yankee Doodle Dandy?

Where did this one come from?

Charlie was right. Your communication skills need honing. (Obww)

General Jimmy Stewart!!!!!

Eddie Munster wrote:

Jimmy Stewart!!!

Charlie Self wrote:
Doug Winterburn responds:


He wasn't a liberal, but that's no reason to demean him. He most
certainly attempted to enlist at the start of WWII, but was turned down
for a shoulder injury, age (34) and family status (4 children). He did
all he could to support the military through the USO and other efforts.
He was honored with the Congressional Gold Medal for his effort


Superpatriot who never fought but led people to believe he did.

His earache was a shoudler injury? Someone else told me it was a knee injury
from his football days. Age of 34 when? How old was David Niven, Douglas
Fairbanks, the host of others who went in, regardless of their fame and
fortune?

Why didn't people who actually fought, or at least participated in the military
effort away from the comforts of home and family, get similar awards?

Was it because they didn't attack the antiwar views of the '60s and early '70s?

Wayne was a hawk when it was safe for him to be a hawk.

Charlie Self
"Bore, n.: A person who talks when you wish him to listen." Ambrose Bierce, The
Devil's Dictionary

In article 31, Secret Squirrel wrote:

Thats correct, and since the administration has labeled these people
enemy combatants, they are by definition prisoners of war.

That is not correct.

The Geneva Convention allows spies and saboteurs to be shot on sight.

Also correct, however once taken into custody they become prisoners of
war and enntitled to certain treatments which are still being withheld by
this administration.

That is also not correct. Certain specific conditions must be met in order for
a prisoner to be subject to the Geneva Conventions; these include serving in a
regular army or organized militia, and wearing the uniform or insignia
thereof. The terrorists whom we captured do not meet these conditions, and
they are not protected by the G.C.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

I'll snip out the parts that don't apply

On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 07:02:40 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 21:41:08 -0700, Mark & Juanita
calmly ranted:

On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 20:06:06 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 22:38:54 GMT, (Dave Mundt) calmly
ranted:

It is a complicated issue, and one that I was discussing
with an acquaintance a week or so ago. He feels, and I agree,
that America is at a crossroads. We can, as a society, decide
to run down the path of increasing extremities, decadance and
decay, or we can turn to the path of becoming that shining beacon
that folks THOUGHT we were at the time that France gifted us with
the Statue Of Liberty. It might be a harder path, but, in the
long run, it will do more than all the guns in the world to make
us safer from terrorism and decay, both internal and external.

Ooh, ooh! I vote for the latter, to be sure. The question
remains: What will it take to accomplish this? It certainly
won't happen with the current crop of either Republicans
OR Democrats in power + the herds of voters grazing on their
daily ration of pork.


I fear Larry, that the prior comment was actually advocating expanding
the pork. i.e. by taking from the upper "extreme" and giving that taken to
the "lower" extreme.

I just reread it and don't find that angle at all.
(Say it ain't so, Dave!) I see the proper amount of
contempt for the legal system and a wish for better
leadership by and for the people.

Please quote the part which gives you that idea, Mark.

-snip-


Where I found that implication was the following:
Back to the looting problem...that may well come from the
social stresses caused by the ever increasing distance between the
"haves" and "have nots" in America.

So how do we decrease that distance between the have's and the have-nots?
This is where I was getting the feeling that Dave was implying that somehow
we have to narrow that gap. One of the ways to do that is through
government intervention and the perennial, "tax those who have benefited
most from our society" in order to "help those who need it most".

We are still bombarded by
thousands of ads a day pushing consumerism and having "stuff" that
validates our existence. On the other side of the coin, there are
fewer and fewer sources that might point out that having "stuff"
does not make a person's life better, or make one a better person.
That sort of spiritual teaching is falling into disrepute in
America, alas. The bottom line is that there are more and more
pressures to fill that spiritual void with "stuff" and the economy
is making it harder and harder for folks to do so...which pushes
a person to the point of theft.

BTW, I certainly agree with portions of the above paragraph -- people
have allowed materialism to become their god. Thus more things translates
to more happiness in such a mindset. At the same time, I don't believe
that the lack of funds necessarily means that this drives people to steal.
Lack of morality training is more of a contributor than lack of money.

.... snip

It is a complicated issue, and one that I was discussing
with an acquaintance a week or so ago. He feels, and I agree,
that America is at a crossroads. We can, as a society, decide
to run down the path of increasing extremities,

Again, that comment about increasing extremities -- does this mean he
wants the government to somehow, through regulation or taxation to decrease
the extremes?


decadance and
decay, or we can turn to the path of becoming that shining beacon
that folks THOUGHT we were at the time that France gifted us with
the Statue Of Liberty. It might be a harder path, but, in the
long run, it will do more than all the guns in the world to make
us safer from terrorism and decay, both internal and external.
Ok...I am stepping away from the soap box now.
Regards
Dave Mundt
-snip-


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Heart Attacks: God's revenge for eating his little animal friends
-- http://www.diversify.com Comprehensive Website Development --

On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 16:48:41 GMT, "Leon"
wrote:


"Secret Squirrel" wrote in message
.97.131...


It can be interpreted in many ways. However some of the parts that are not
really subject to interpretation are the right to a trial, and the
guarantee of protections from cruel and unusual punishments.

I strongly suspect that 228 years ago that if which you are referring to was
pointed at those that may try to carry over old rules, laws, and habits from
the "Old Country". I also strongly suspect that the rules were written to
protect those that may or may not be innocent from the common man that did
not have the fairness or sense to tell if the accused was guilty or not when
caught.
That said, If I see the crime happen, I do not need a jury to decide if I
really saw it or not.

Do you refer your case to a jury when you correct your child?


Leon,

You are falling into a trap. There seems to be some confusion here
equating the act of *apprehending* a person suspected of committing a crime
with an act of punishment for committing said crime. A jury conviction is
not required to apprehend a suspected perpetrator of a crime. If the
suspect resists apprehension, then reasonable force to effect that
apprehension does not equate to punishment. If the perp (OK, the suspected
perp) is allowed to resist and simply walk away, the amount of arrests for
crimes will plummet and crime will skyrocket as criminals realize that with
a slight amount of resistance they can escape, if they are careful to cover
their tracks, they risk little chance of future apprehension.

Re-iterating: Apprehension is not punishment. Death because one has
resisted being detained is not punishment, it is a consequence of one's
actions. i.e., no resistance, no death, regardless of the ineptness of the
one doing the detaining.

On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 18:00:36 GMT, (Dave Mundt) wrote:

Greetings and Salutations...
Going to touch on a couple of things here...bear with
me.

On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 21:41:08 -0700, Mark & Juanita
wrote:

On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 20:06:06 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 22:38:54 GMT, (Dave Mundt) calmly
ranted:

.... snip


I fear Larry, that the prior comment was actually advocating expanding
the pork. i.e. by taking from the upper "extreme" and giving that taken to
the "lower" extreme.

Hum...I don't know if *I* am the "prior comment" here or not.
I suspect I am. In any case, let me touch on this a bit, too. When
I said "extreme" I was actually thinking more of some of the trend
towards black and white thinking as discussed above. However, I have
also spoken out with concern about the increasing disparity between
the lowest paid job in a given company and the highest paid job. It
makes no real sense for there to be a 50x or more difference between
the lowest and highest paid jobs. The main result of this is that it
fuels the trend of society in general to have more and more folks
drifting into poverty from what used to be the "Middle Class". I
would suggest that it would be BRIGHTER for the companies to do more
to pump up the pay of the lower ranks and lower the pay of the higher
ranks a bit.
Do I advocate the government using taxes to do this.
Emphatically, NO! Money to a politician is like crack to an addict.
It becomes the center of their lives, and, it does not matter how much
they have, they always need more. What good does it for anyone for
the goverment to take (as an example) a million bucks from one guy,
keep $900,000 of it for their own programs, and, "give back" $100,000
to folks in poverty? As we have seen time and time again over the
years, way too much of that cash ends up in the pockets of the "fat
cats" again through lucrative governmental contracts, double dealing
and padded billing.


David,

I apologize, I misinterpreted your remarks. I am somewhat
sensitive to the attitude that the government should make sure that
everybody are "equals" as opposed to "equal under the law" and took your
comment on extremes in society in that light. Again, my apologies, I think
you and I share very similar opinions.

Mark

John Stossel (sic), in a recent book titled "Give me a break"
has an interesting chart, showing the percentage of the GNP that is
eaten up by the government. It is a power curve that goes from a low
of a few percent back in the 40s to over 40% today. Think about
that. Actually, I found an interesting page that touches on this
very subject he
http://www.patriotist.com/taxfacts.htm
The facts that I recognize there seem to be fairly good...although
they seem to quote the GNP percent as 20%. On the other hand, they
also point out that we have to work until July to pay for our
share of the taxes collected by the government.
No...letting government do it is not a good way to go
about it. However, at some point, if the gap between the haves,
the "have mores" and the "have nots" gets too great...there may
well be a forceful realignment of wealth that will not be fun for
anyone, but, will be really uncomfortable for the folks at the
top of the pyramid. Now...in the late 1300s, the Black Death
acted as the agent to redistribute wealth in Europe, and, did
a pretty good job of it. I doubt that it will work as well
here, though.

I think what we are going to see here is simply nature taking its course.
The builder generation is aging and the boomer generation is going to
inherit the wealth they built -- some will be used for good, some not.
But, the boomer generation is also aging -- as their heirs inherit, or as
they spend their wealth, I think we will see that being redistributed as a
function of the capitalist process. One thing that can be noticed is that
second generation millionaires, with a few notable exeptions, have a
notoriously bad reputation for being able to hold on to the wealth they
have been given, rather than earned.

On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 07:50:11 -0500, Secret Squirrel
wrote:

"J. Clarke" wrote in
:

Secret Squirrel wrote:

"J. Clarke" wrote in news:cg2pr80r83
@news4.newsguy.com:

Secret Squirrel wrote:

"George" george@least wrote in :

.... snip

In your opinion.

Not my opinion, simply a statement of fact. You're attempting to argue
semantics and you've gotten it wrong.

So when kids get bussed all over creation to promote racial balance,
what law are the local governments obeying?

Not an issue of law, but rather one of public policy. Again you're
comparing apples and oranges.

Public policy instituted by judicial fiat, not by legislative action.
The courts ruled that various municipalities *had* to enforce the
judicially commanded desegregation by busing students from one area to
another. In many cases, the judges also determined how many students were
to be bused and from where. The judges certainly viewed what they were
doing as a matter of law, they further overturned legislative actions and
ordered that legislative bodies enact laws to implement their decrees.
Doesn't sound much like public policy nor local government to me.

On 26 Aug 2004 04:25:58 GMT, Carl Nisarel wrote:
But heard, half-heard in the stillness, Larry Jaques writes --

See "More Guns, Less Crime" by John Lott, "

No, See:

http://tinyurl.com/zcs2
http://tinyurl.com/xlnr
http://tinyurl.com/zcrr
http://tinyurl.com/zcsh
http://tinyurl.com/zcsk

Why hide the URLs behind tinyurl links? Are they that obviously
biased sources that you don't want people to know what they're
blindly clicking on?