Karen Y Byrd wrote:
> Sure he can offer an opinion. But where folks differ is just how legitmate his
> opinion is.
So you agree that it was not a gaffe? After all, it cannot be a gaffe to merely
offer an opinion, even if said opinion is not popular with certain powerful
interest groups.
--
[Social programs are] the least inflationary, most productive kind of government
spending...Government funds spent on poor people go directly into purchasing the
necessities of life: food, clothing, shelter - thus subsidizing production and
employment in those basic industries. - Danny Collum
Date: Fri, 04 Jul 2003 14:22:16 -0400
The Land of Ambiguity wrote:
> Faith-based foreign policy, folks!
I'd gladly take the moral, faith-based foreign policy of William Jennings Bryan,
Jimmy Carter and Andrew Young, over the cold just-the-facts
imperialism-and-destruction of Kissinger and McKinley. if you prefer bloodshed and a
lack of human rights, that's fine. Just don't expect me to second that.
--
[Social programs are] the least inflationary, most productive kind of government
spending...Government funds spent on poor people go directly into purchasing the
necessities of life: food, clothing, shelter - thus subsidizing production and
employment in those basic industries. - Danny Collum
Date: Fri, 04 Jul 2003 14:36:23 -0400
"D.F. Manno" wrote:
> Alcohol use causes liver disease, heart disease, neurological disorders,
> fetal alcohol syndrome and more, all of which drive up health care costs.
Which is why we have some rules to restrict its abuse.
> Smoking causes lung cancer, emphysema, respiratory illnesses, heart disease,
> birth defects and more, all of which drive up health care costs.
Which is why we have some rules to restrict it.
> So by your reasoning we should outlaw alcohol, tobacco
So by common sense we should restrict immoral sexual behaviors the same we
restrict other immoral behaviors that drive up health care costs.
> If the law didn't place obstacles in the way of distributing birth control
> or in obtaining abortions
So to solve the problem of births out of wedlock, we should practice
infanticide instead of simply trying to cut back on the behaviors that lead to
births out of wedlock. What a silly solution. We should strive to prevent a
problem from existing, not address it after it exists by using a solution that
creates worse problems.
--
[Social programs are] the least inflationary, most productive kind of
government spending...Government funds spent on poor people go directly into
purchasing the necessities of life: food, clothing, shelter - thus subsidizing
production and employment in those basic industries. - Danny Collum
Date: Fri, 04 Jul 2003 15:02:25 -0400
"D.F. Manno" wrote:
> > Just as pursuing immoral behaviors pollutes the culture >by refusing to draw a
> line between right and wrong.
>
> How does what two (or more) people do in the privacy of their bedroom affect you
> or anybody else?
I find this "in the privacy of their home/bedroom/whatever" logic to be one of the
strangest concepts to come around in some time.
If someone decided to keep slaves in the privacy of the house, is this okay.
If your neighbor decides to open a house of prostition, I guess this doesn't affect
anyone else in your neighborhood.
If your neighbor decides to test dangerous chemical combinations in the privacy of
his house, that's fine, huh?
If your neighbor decides to torture puppies in the privacy of his house, I guess
that's alright?
If your neighbor runs an arms smuggling business from the privacy of his house,
that's fine because it's his house, damnit, so he can do what he wants.
If your neigbhor decides never to clean his house and it becomes a breeding ground
for ants, termites and other pests, by golly, that's his right.
If your neighbor decides to drunk to excess and beat his wife in the privacy of
house, I'm not that thrilled you'll support his right to do what he wants.
Face it - just being in the "privacy of your house" entitles you to no special
benefits. We are all parts of society and cannot just cut ourselves off from the
rest. No man is an island, as John Donne wrote.
--
Republicans lie to us constantly too, to get votes, but we KNOW and EXPECT them to
lie because we know who they represent. But the two-faced Democrats pretend to be
the workers' friends, and then betrary their supposed constituency. - Ed Rollins,
5/5/00
Me wrote:
> In article <3F00D5B3.418D24B2@no-spam>,
> Mischa Gelman <mgelman@no-spam> wrote:
>
> > Me wrote:
> >
> > > government has no business interfering in the private decisions that we
> > > make.
> >
> > So if I were to dump toxic waste in my backyard, that's fine? If I were to
> > forge money and then leave it lying around somewhere, that's fine? If I
> > decide to go out and shoot a few bald eagles (are they even endangered
> > anymore?) that's fine? There should be limits on what people are allowed to
> > do - as long as those limits are agreed upon by most people, by the lawmakers
> > of the land and by common sense, then what's the problem?
>
> What you do in your back yard should be your business as long as it
> harms no one else. Dumping toxic waste in your back yard would more
> than likely cause harm to other individuals because the chemicals from
> the waste would run off into other areas that do not belong to you.
Hmmm, so I wish to have a romantic relationship with a Sheepdog or keep a Meth lab
in the basement for personal use thats cool too??? I'll use a pooper scooper to
stop the run off. I think this how Rome started going down hill........
Rich Loether wrote:
> We can continue to pass every law anyone can think of or try to find
> a basis for it all. I suggest we give freedom a try. It worked here
> for quite a while.
Freedom is dead Rich, it has been for decades.
The only battle left in this country is over who is going to get to hold
the leash of that giant beast that's been breed and lives in DC.
Someday we may get another chance at freedom, but probably not in our
lifetime.
Paul Galvanek - Ver. 4.0
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 17:13:38 -0400
"D.F. Manno" wrote:
> > Which is why we have some rules to restrict its abuse.
>
> What restrictions? Aside from banning its sale to and use by minors, and aside
> from a few states circumscribing its sale, there are no rules restricting alcohol
> abuse.
And rules regarding its usage for drivers. And rules in numerous settings limiting
drinks (many entertainment events stop selling alcohol at a certain point in the
proceedings). And of course drunks get tossed out of bars, baseball games, etc.
> > Which is why we have some rules to restrict it.
>
> Again, what restrictions? There are even fewer restrictions on the sale of tobacco
> than on alcohol.
There are all kinds of rules limiting advertising for tobacco or its consumption in
public and private locations. There (thankfully) aren't too many places people are
allowed to smoke.
> I note that you carefully edited out my argument about overeating and junk food.
> You had no comeback to that, did you?
I didn't feel a need to rebut every single point you made, but there are plenty of
limits on overeating and junk food. On top of the societal rejection of overweight
individuals (and if fags received half as much abuse as overweight people, they'd be
whining straight to the Supreme Court) we have rules against junk food vendors in
some school systems, patients in a hospital are often placed on ADA or
weight-reduction diets, etc.
> It's only infanticide to the fanatics who want to outlaw it for
> religious reasons.
What does religion have to do with it?
What about those atheists who oppose abortion on ethical grounds?
--
Freddie Patek, asked how it feels to be the smallest player in major league
baseball: "A heck of a lot better than being the smallest player in the minors"
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 17:21:29 -0400
"D.F. Manno" wrote:
> > I find this "in the privacy of their >home/bedroom/whatever" logic to be
> one of the strangest >concepts to come around in some time.
>
> Well, since 1789, anyway.
Except for the multitude of examples I posted, which constitute just a small
sample of limits on what people can do in their own home.
> > If someone decided to keep slaves in the privacy of the >house, is this
> okay.
>
> No, because it affects other people who do not consent to the activity.
Except that slaveowners didn't consider slaves to be people.
But by pointing out that consent is an issue, you show that we cannot do
whatever we want in our home just because it is our home, that the rights of
society matter. Now, if the rights of society matter in this case, why not
the right of society to discourage other behaviors that it finds immoral?
> > If your neighbor decides to open a house of prostition, I
> > guess this doesn't affect anyone else in your >neighborhood.
>
> As long as it meets the requirements that any other business does, and as
> long as other crimes aren't being committed, it doesn't.
So if your neighbor did do so, you wouldn't complain to anyone about it
because it doesn't affect you. I'm sorry you're so cold and heartless and
unconcerned about the greater good of society and just treatment of women.
> > If your neighbor decides to test dangerous chemical >combinations in the
> privacy of his house, that's fine, huh?
>
> No, because it affects other people who do not consent to the activity.
Again, you concede that the privacy of the home is not enough to provide
sanction for any activity someone desires.
> > If your neighbor decides to torture puppies in the privacy >of his house,
> I guess that's alright?
>
> As long as there isn't excessive noise and as long as other crimes aren't
> being committed, it is.
Again, thanks for showing your lack of concern for other living creatures.
> > If your neighbor runs an arms smuggling business from >the privacy of his
> house, that's fine because it's his house, >damnit, so he can do what he
> wants.
>
> No, because it affects other people who do not consent to the activity.
Who is it affecting? It might not even affect anyone in this country - while
the presence of homosexual activity in a country does affect the culture in
that land - a presence others might not consent to.
> > If your neigbhor decides never to clean his house and it >becomes a
> breeding ground for ants, termites and other >pests, by golly, that's his
> right.
>
> No, because it affects other people who do not consent to the activity.
So once more you concede that privacy isn't the issue and the "It's my house.
I can do what I want" argument is not valid. Thanks for disproving the points
made by those on your side of this debate.
> > If your neighbor decides to drunk to excess and beat his >wife in the
> privacy of house, I'm not that thrilled you'll >support his right to do
> what he wants.
>
> No, because it affects other people who do not consent to the activity.
What about the numerous victims of abuse who consent to it? Many such victims
continue to return to bad situations. Should we allow such horrible systems
to exist?
And fags continuing immoral behaviors affects our culture, so it also affects
other people who do not consent to the existance of that activity.
> > Face it - just being in the "privacy of your house" entitles >you to no
> special benefits.
>
> The first Congress and the country said otherwise when it enacted the
> Fourth Amendment: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons,
> houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,
> shall not be violated."
It addresses unreasonable searches and seizures, not the right to do whatever
they darn well please.
--
Freddie Patek, asked how it feels to be the smallest player in major league
baseball: "A heck of a lot better than being the smallest player in the
minors"
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 17:39:58 -0400
Ric wrote:
> This reasoning is flat out rediculous.
I agree I'm of the liberal mindset, but I wouldn't go so far as to call it a red mentality.
> There are all sorts of private activities that are appropriate when done in the privacy
> of your own home but
> not in public view. You can't compare intimate relations with torturing puppies. Well,
> at least I wouldn't.
The question was whether the activities of people in their bedrooms affected others. I was
merely providing many examples of how their behaviors in the bedroom did affect others. How
is it "rediculous" to answer a question with numerous answers?
--
Freddie Patek, asked how it feels to be the smallest player in major league baseball: "A
heck of a lot better than being the smallest player in the minors"
In article <Ef3Sa.21709$J%2.2271839@no-spam>,
"i'm from north of here" <Me@no-spam> wrote:
> "D.F. Manno" <dommanno@no-spam> wrote
>
> > The sexual revolution is over. You lost. Sex and pregnancy are no
> > longer inextricably linked, thanks to science and changes in morality.
> > Sexual intercourse doesn't have to lead to pregnancy, pregnancy no
> > longer requires sexual intercourse, and pregnancies don't have to be
> > carried to term.
>
> My goodness. This is like talking to a retard. Sex causes babies.
No, it doesn't, otherwise this planet's population problem would be a
lot worse than it is.
Saying that "sex causes babies" implies that every single act of
sexual intercourse leads to a birth, and that's retarded.
> If you
> don't want a baby, either dont' have sex or use birth control.
Or have an abortion.
> Abortion is not birth control
It prevents birth, ergo, it is birth control.
> or at least it shouldn't for any moral person.
Neither the government nor self-appointed guardians of morality such
as the anti-abortion nuts have any authority to tell women that they
have to carry all pregnancies to term.
Abortion is the women's choice. Period.
--
D.F. Manno
dommanno@no-spam
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." (Benjamin Franklin)