Another reason to hate lawyers
easyrunner
about the current trend in lawsuits. It seems that a Florida advocacy group
called ADA Act Now is suing businesses left and right for violations of the
Americans with Disabilities Act. Their M.O. is to find someone local (they
did) who is disabled, and have one of their attorneys accompany that person
around to various businesses where they proceed to take measurements and
harass the staff until they are asked to leave, then they go file a suit.
One disabled woman locally known for suing people has a suit against about
every restaurant in town, and there are a lot of restaurants in this town.
She has also sued other business just because she didn't like the angle of
the wheelchair ramp, or the location of the disabled parking spots, or even
the height of the toilet paper dispenser. I don't know about you, but I've
never seen a TP dispenser more than about 30 inches off the floor. Even if
she was just a torso on a creeper she could reach that, though I can't
imagine why she would need to if that was the case.
Personally, I rate lawyers right up there with politicians, televangelists,
child molesters, insurance salesmen, and car salesmen, and I believe this
story just reinforces my point.
Jim
<easyr...@comcast.net> wrote:
<snip>
>Personally, I rate lawyers right up there with politicians, televangelists,
>child molesters, insurance salesmen, and car salesmen, and I believe this
>story just reinforces my point.
You are far too kind.
Jim
easyrunner
news:3e2db94a...@quasar.ctc.edu...
You're right, child molesters are mentally ill and could probably be
cured...
ah fuck it, kill 'em all, but when we start, I get dibs on the
televangelists
Halcitron
Newsgroups: misc.survivalism
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 13:41:38 -0500
Do a Google.com search of the "trevor law group". :) See what they are doing
to the restaurants, nail shops, Auto shops, and many other small businesses.
BTW -- There is one good use for lawyers, fish food. They are a poor source for
strings for Spanish guitars. No guts.
Halcitron
Check your six and know when to duck.
NRA Member 2002
The Law of the Land, is the weapon in your hand.
Smith & Wesson starts where the Bill of Rights stop.
Jaxi
negative group as that disabled woman you wrote about. Not everyone has
a disability exactly like her's.<Personally I think she is nitpicking
because she's getting off on the POWER she has to affect others.> Even
though I'm disabled, I don't like what is happening. As a matter of
fact, when I first heard of the ADA when it was signed into law, I had
grave misgivings about it. Looks like it all came true and then some.
J.
easyrunner
"Jaxi" <ja...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:3E2F0326...@optonline.net...
> Just make sure(please) that you don't lump all disabled in the same
> negative group as that disabled woman you wrote about. Not everyone has
> a disability exactly like her's.<Personally I think she is nitpicking
> because she's getting off on the POWER she has to affect others.> Even
> though I'm disabled, I don't like what is happening. As a matter of
> fact, when I first heard of the ADA when it was signed into law, I had
> grave misgivings about it. Looks like it all came true and then some.
>
> J.
>
will say that the one lady mentioned is scum too for taking out her revenge
for being in a wheelchair on honest businesses.
I live next door to a man who lives in a wheelchair, he can walk a little,
but is mostly disabled. He took a bullet in the head in Vietnam and only has
very limited use of his legs and right arm, but he doesn't complain or sue
people. He doesn't even have a wheelchair ramp on his house, and he pretty
much lives alone except for his nephew who does for him what he can't do for
himself. This man walks out and checks his own mail every day even though it
takes him half an hour to do it, and that's how he wants it. It just goes to
show that some people are winners and some are losers, no matter what their
circumstances.
Ike
easyrunner wrote:
>
> I was reading a local free newspaper yesterday, and there's an article in it
> about the current trend in lawsuits. It seems that a Florida advocacy group
> called ADA Act Now is suing businesses left and right for violations of the
runner,
There have and always will be those who exploit for personal gain.
Hell look at the Music industry... They sell $18 CDs of that CD
a group will only see 5 cents the Label will get $10 The rest is divided
up with the rest of the industry.
I support the ADA Act but no matter what laws you pass there will be those
who decide that they want to exploit it. Are there busunesses who deserve
to get sued Hell yea. BUT those are a dying breed far less than those
getting sued.
What the ADA Act is suposed to be fore is to allow a person in a wheelchair
access to a business they wish to use. For example, if there is a Pizza Hut
with a Lunch buffet but you have to go up a step to get in, then that store
deserves to get sued for not puting a ramp in. If the local 4 star does not
have a toilet that a persopn in a wheelchar can not use they deserve to get
sued.
Now if a business has complyed as much as reasonaly possible then any suit
is frivolis.
Ike
Ike
easyrunner wrote:
>
> "Jaxi" <ja...@optonline.net> wrote in message
> news:3E2F0326...@optonline.net...
> > Just make sure(please) that you don't lump all disabled in the same
> > negative group as that disabled woman you wrote about. Not everyone has
> > a disability exactly like her's.<Personally I think she is nitpicking
> > because she's getting off on the POWER she has to affect others.> Even
> > though I'm disabled, I don't like what is happening. As a matter of
> > fact, when I first heard of the ADA when it was signed into law, I had
> > grave misgivings about it. Looks like it all came true and then some.
Ok Runner What about those who CAN NOT get out of their wheelchair?
Do they not have a right to eat or do business where they choose?
Folks like you should spend a week as someone who is in a wheelchair
24/7. Lets see how YOU get around...
NOT having a lawyer as I found out will get you in deep shit. Tell ya
what I'm sure there is a law school at a college near you. Go to it and
prove that you are MORE competent in EVERY law that you can do better...
Ike
Jeff McCann
needs a wheelchair. I haven't sued anybody yet, but I have politely
informed a few local businesses (actually, usually the local branches of
major corporate businesses) that they are losing business and exposing
themselves to liability for failing to comply with the law. Generally,
when I explain the particular difficulty we experienced in patronizing
their business in a friendly and non-threatening way, I've received a
positive response.
Because I want to allow my mother the opportunity to enjoy a dinner out,
a movie, or a shopping trip, does that make me a bad person? All I want
is for my mother to have a decent life and enjoy the things she is still
able to do. Is it unreasonable to expect businesses to comply with the
law? Would it be wrong if I then sued on my mother's behalf after being
unable to obtain reasonable compliance through lesser means? Under
every system, society or law, there seems to be a certain percentage of
people who will abuse it in some way or another, and that's a function
of human nature, not the system, society or law.
Jeff
Ray Keller
"Jeff McCann" <NoS...@noThanks.Com> wrote in message
news:EMdY9.11561$zF6.8...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> Well, I'm a lawyer, and I took in my mother to live with me now that she
> needs a wheelchair. I haven't sued anybody yet, but I have politely
> informed a few local businesses (actually, usually the local branches of
> major corporate businesses) that they are losing business and exposing
> themselves to liability for failing to comply with the law. Generally,
> when I explain the particular difficulty we experienced in patronizing
> their business in a friendly and non-threatening way, I've received a
> positive response.
>
> Because I want to allow my mother the opportunity to enjoy a dinner out,
> a movie, or a shopping trip, does that make me a bad person? All I want
> is for my mother to have a decent life and enjoy the things she is still
> able to do. Is it unreasonable to expect businesses to comply with the
> law?
Would it be wrong if I then sued on my mother's behalf after being
> unable to obtain reasonable compliance through lesser means?
Untill you accept and fight for the constitution as it was written your just
another whore.
Jeff McCann
"Robert Sturgeon" <rst...@inreach.com> wrote in message
news:a2r23v8at35f5pfih...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 24 Jan 2003 16:24:04 GMT, "Jeff McCann" <NoS...@noThanks.Com>
> wrote:
>
> >Well, I'm a lawyer, and I took in my mother to live with me now that
she
> >needs a wheelchair. I haven't sued anybody yet, but I have politely
> >informed a few local businesses (actually, usually the local branches
of
> >major corporate businesses) that they are losing business and
exposing
> >themselves to liability for failing to comply with the law.
Generally,
> >when I explain the particular difficulty we experienced in
patronizing
> >their business in a friendly and non-threatening way, I've received a
> >positive response.
> >
> >Because I want to allow my mother the opportunity to enjoy a dinner
out,
> >a movie, or a shopping trip, does that make me a bad person?
>
> out, a movie, or a shopping trip." You want to force other people to
> allow it, whether they see the business as profitable or not.
>
> > All I want
> >is for my mother to have a decent life and enjoy the things she is
still
> >able to do.
>
> through a 24" door, she isn't able to do it.
>
> > Is it unreasonable to expect businesses to comply with the
> >law?
>
I'm glad you feel free to pick and choose which laws have to be complied
with, IF you are willing to pay the consequences. I, for example, don't
feel free to burn down businesses that don't comply with the law.
Businesses should be required to follow the law. They aren't free to
dump their trash on the sidewalk, dump their grease down the sewer,
maintain unsanitary conditions or do lots of other things that they
might find convenient or profitable. Tough. Living in a society of
laws is a burden all must answer to.
Why so eager for a Hobbsian Dystopia? You are not that tough.
> > Would it be wrong if I then sued on my mother's behalf after being
> >unable to obtain reasonable compliance through lesser means? Under
> >every system, society or law, there seems to be a certain percentage
of
> >people who will abuse it in some way or another, and that's a
function
> >of human nature, not the system, society or law.
>
> You are, of course, free to use the law to get your way. But it won't
> be right.
In this case, it would be
> --
> Robert Sturgeon
> http://www.vistech.net/users/rsturge
>
> Proud member of the vast right wing
> conspiracy and the evil gun culture.
Jeff McCann
"Ray Keller" <rayk...@theriver.com> wrote in message
news:b0rrjt$5fh$0...@206.25.50.83...
Sorry, Ray. I missed your appointment to the Supreme Court. YOU are
not the arbiter of the Constitution, what is constitutional, or what the
Constitution means "as written." See Article I, Section VII. The law
is, in fact constitutional. I also invite you to call me a whore to my
face.
Ray Keller
"Jeff McCann" <NoS...@noThanks.Com> wrote in message
Every citizen is "arbiter" of what is constitutional
what is constitutional, or what the
> Constitution means "as written." See Article I, Section VII. The law
> is, in fact constitutional.
Liar
I also invite you to call me a whore to my
> face.
No problem
Like most lawyers you are a liar and whore trying to convince the populis
that only a member of the bar can determin what is legal or constitutional.
Jeff McCann
Political Scientists call that "anarchy."
> what is constitutional, or what the
> > Constitution means "as written." See Article I, Section VII. The
law
> > is, in fact constitutional.
>
> Liar
>
> I also invite you to call me a whore to my
> > face.
>
> No problem
> Like most lawyers you are a liar and whore trying to convince the
populis
> that only a member of the bar can determin what is legal or
constitutional.
OK. I'm located in Pensacola, FL, but I travel frequently. Where are
you? I've had it with your type of ignorant, psychotic ranting. I'm
ready for a little mutually voluntary physical training, so put up or
shut up.
Jeff
Ray Keller
"Jeff McCann" <NoS...@noThanks.Com> wrote in message
jump if you feel froggy
Jeff McCann
are
> > you? I've had it with your type of ignorant, psychotic ranting.
I'm
> > ready for a little mutually voluntary physical training, so put up
or
> > shut up.
> >
> > Jeff
> >
> >
> Young Az
> jump if you feel froggy
Excellent. Can you meet me in or near Reno, NV in early March?
Jeff McCann
dinner out, a movie, or a shopping trip, does that make me a bad person?
All I want is for my mother to have a decent life and enjoy the things
she is still able to do. Is it unreasonable to expect businesses to
comply
with the law?
> Unconstitutional BS
Would it be wrong if I then sued on my mother's behalf after being
unable to obtain reasonable compliance through lesser means?
> Untill(sic) you accept and fight for the constitution as it was
written
> your(sic) just another whore.
Sorry, Ray. I missed your appointment to the Supreme Court. YOU
are not the arbiter of the Constitution, what is constitutional, or what
the Constitution means "as written." See Article I, Section VIII. The
law is, in fact constitutional.
> Every citizen is "arbiter" of what is constitutional
> Liar
I also invite you to call me a whore to my face.
> No problem
> Like most lawyers you are a liar and whore trying to convince the
> populis(sic) that only a member of the bar can determin(sic) what is
legal or
> constitutional.
OK. I'm located in Pensacola, FL, but I travel frequently. Where are
you? I've had it with your type of ignorant, psychotic ranting. I'm
ready for a little mutually voluntary physical training, so put up or
shut up.
Jeff
Ok, Ray. My theory is that you are like many ignorant, half-wit
blowhards on this NG, i.e., talking tough, and being generally rude,
arrogant and insolent to your betters by typing away with one hand while
your other hand describes an endless loop between bag of Doritos, your
mouth, and your crotch. So I'm willing to bet that you haven't got the
guts to say to my face what you write so easily from the safety of your
mother's basement.
What I propose is that we pick us out a nice piece of remote desert, and
see if its really "no problem" for you to gratuitously insult me to my
face, by means of a wholly voluntary and mutual exercise.
Specifically, I propose that we mutually agree to the following:
We meet freely and voluntarily for the sole and exclusive purpose of
practicing, demonstrating and learning the art of unarmed self-defense,
which is certainly a skill of interest within our mutual interests as
survivalists.
No weapons or objects of any kind whatsoever, and no protective
equipment.
All parts of the body are legitimate strike zones, and all parts of the
body may be used to strike with.
The match continues until one party signals a halt, or becomes
incapacitated.
No complaints, no regrets, no cops, no lawsuits. Each party is solely
responsible for any and all consequences and agrees to hold the other
party blameless.
No gratuitous infliction of injury.
The match, being strictly for training purposes, gets videotaped and
posted to MS or any other use by either party with no further consent or
compensation required.
How about it? Sound fair to you? The Nevada desert can be quite lovely
in early March
Jeff
Ray Keller
"Jeff McCann" <NoS...@noThanks.Com> wrote in message
You want a piece of me you come to me
Ray Keller
"Jeff McCann" <NoS...@noThanks.Com> wrote in message
I have only one "rule" for combat
I win by whatever means necessary
Ray Keller
"Jeff McCann" <NoS...@noThanks.Com> wrote in message
Then why is the abuse largley by lawyers????
> > >
> > > Jeff
> > >
LAW OF THE LAND
The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators
bearing bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The
U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be
valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for a law which violates the
Constitution to be valid. This is succinctly stated as follows:
"All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and
void." Marbury vs. Madison, 5 US (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 176, (1803)
"When rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there
can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them."
Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 US 436 p. 491.
"An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it
imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it
is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never
been passed." Norton vs. Shelby County 118 US 425 p. 442
"The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though
having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is
wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since
unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not
merely from the date of the decision so branding it.
"No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts
are bound to enforce it." 16 Am Jur 2nd, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256
Jeff McCann
> > Jeff
Yep. That's what I thought. A loudmouthed coward who thinks he sounds
tough by being rude and insulting to strangers while remaining out of
reach.
Jeff
Jeff McCann
You really are a twinkie, Ray, aren't you? This is about an
old-fashioned lesson in good manners, not criminal assault. Nice pose,
though. Nonetheless, we have now established that you were completely
full of BS when you wrote that you would have "no problem" insulting me
to my face in the same manner you did from the safety of your mama's
basement, hiding behind the anonymity of the internet. Having declined
essentially the only voluntary and lawful available means to demonstrate
that you actually possess the courage you attempt to portray, you have
thereby proved that you are a coward. Take a good look in the mirror,
Ray. Do you disgust yourself as much as you disgust me? You should.
Jeff
Russ
wrote:
>
>"Jeff McCann" <NoS...@noThanks.Com> wrote in message
>news:8JjY9.2035$rq4.1...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>> "Jeff McCann" <NoS...@noThanks.Com> wrote in message news:...
>> > "Ray Keller" <rayk...@theriver.com> wrote in message
>> > news:b0s3ag$1na$0...@206.25.50.83...
>> [snip] Because I want to allow my mother the opportunity to enjoy a
>> dinner out, a movie, or a shopping trip, does that make me a bad person?
*** SNIP ***
>> The match, being strictly for training purposes, gets videotaped and
>> posted to MS or any other use by either party with no further consent or
>> compensation required.
>>
>> How about it? Sound fair to you? The Nevada desert can be quite lovely
>> in early March
>>
>>
>> Jeff
>>
>>
>>
>>
>Bullshit
>I have only one "rule" for combat
>I win by whatever means necessary
>
Sounds like the latest installment of "Bumfights"!
Russ
Bob Peterson
"Ike" <laz...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3E314D72...@earthlink.net...
What if a store owner decides he rather spend his own money on something
other than ADA required thingys? What business is it of government to
decide who you are required to serve? Just a thought.
>
> Now if a business has complyed as much as reasonaly possible then any suit
> is frivolis.
>
The key is just what is reasonable. In many of these cases the things that
have been determined as reasonable cost so much it can make it uneconomic.
I recall a few years ago when the city of Rockford was repairing some
streets. they spent an extra $500,000 along the way to tear out existing
curbs and put ramps in so they would be handicapped accessable. the paper
reported there was not a single wheel chair user on any of the street this
was done on.
> Ike
Jeff McCann
> On Fri, 24 Jan 2003 17:45:51 GMT, "Jeff McCann" <NoS...@noThanks.Com>
> wrote:
[snip]
> A difference of opinion. You apparently wish to use the government to
> force other people to do business on your terms. I favor the
> marketplace. You're winning. Congratulations. But don't expect me
> to ever agree with how things are going now [I don't], or to agree
that you are
> right. You aren't.
I'll agree with that, and respect your right to disagree. We are thus
contending in the free market of ideas. In some sense, Government is a
monopoly of force, damn crude in application, and subject to manifold
faults and abuses. However, I agree with those who see wholly
unfettered capitalism as an evil greater than even the worst of
governments. In a Republic, there are limits to government, but there
are likewise limits to individual (and corporate) autonomy resulting
from participation in that Republic. Or as you might express it in
market terms, there are costs, benefits and opportunity costs.
Jeff
Bob Peterson
"Jeff McCann" <NoS...@noThanks.Com> wrote in message
"Section 7. All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of
Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on
other Bills.
Every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the
Senate, shall, before it become a law, be presented to the President of the
United States; if he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return
it, with his objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who
shall enter the objections at large on their journal, and proceed to
reconsider it. If after such reconsideration two thirds of that House shall
agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent, together with the objections, to
the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved
by two thirds of that House, it shall become a law. But in all such cases
the votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and nays, and the names
of the persons voting for and against the bill shall be entered on the
journal of each House respectively. If any bill shall not be returned by the
President within ten days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been
presented to him, the same shall be a law, in like manner as if he had
signed it, unless the Congress by their adjournment prevent its return, in
which case it shall not be a law.
Every order, resolution, or vote to which the concurrence of the Senate and
House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of
adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and
before the same shall take effect, shall be approved by him, or being
disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House
of Representatives, according to the rules and limitations prescribed in the
case of a bill. "
I must have missed the part in this section where government can force you
to spend your money in some way you do not choose.
Jeff McCann
news:OYlY9.27325$AV4.2222@sccrnsc01...
[snip]
>
> What if a store owner decides he rather spend his own money on
something
> other than ADA required thingys? What business is it of government to
> decide who you are required to serve? Just a thought.
>
> >
> > Now if a business has complyed as much as reasonaly possible then
any suit
> > is frivolis.
> >
> The key is just what is reasonable. In many of these cases the things
that
> have been determined as reasonable cost so much it can make it
uneconomic.
> I recall a few years ago when the city of Rockford was repairing some
> streets. they spent an extra $500,000 along the way to tear out
existing
> curbs and put ramps in so they would be handicapped accessable. the
paper
> reported there was not a single wheel chair user on any of the street
this
> was done on.
>
>
> > Ike
Experience proves its a heck of a lot easier to write a bad law, even
with "the best of intentions" than it is to write a good law, in the
sense that it serves a legitimate public purpose, balances relevant
interests, is reasonable, and actually accomplishes the intended
purpose.
It does nothing to aid the handicapped to spend a half-mil of taxpayer
money to put in curb cuts where none are wanted, needed or used. But
how do you determine that? Does every entrance to the mall need to have
a wheelchair ramp, or is just one sufficient? Why is there Braille on
the ATMs at the drive-up window?
The ADA is a massive piece of legislation, with many faults. I guess
the answer is that you try, evaluate, critique, modify, adapt, and try
again. This is one legitimate use for our much despised legal system.
Jeff
Jeff McCann
"Bob Peterson" <peter...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:p6mY9.27434$AV4.2012@sccrnsc01...
[snip]
> "Section 7. All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House
of
> Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments
as on
> other Bills.
[snip]
> I must have missed the part in this section where government can force
you
> to spend your money in some way you do not choose.
Thanks for pointing out my error, Mr. Peterson. It was another of my,
ahem, oh so rare typos. I meant Article I, Section 8:
"Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes,
duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common
defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties,
imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; To
borrow money on the credit of the United States; To regulate commerce
with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian
tribes; To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws
on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States; To coin
money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the
standard of weights and measures; To provide for the punishment of
counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States; To
establish post offices and post roads; To promote the progress of
science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and
inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and
discoveries; To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court; To
define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and
offenses against the law of nations; To declare war, grant letters of
marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and
water; To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to
that use shall be for a longer term than two years; To provide and
maintain a navy; To make rules for the government and regulation of the
land and naval forces; To provide for calling forth the militia to
execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel
invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the
militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the
service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the
appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia
according to the discipline prescribed by Congress; To exercise
exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not
exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and
the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the
United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased
by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall
be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other
needful buildings;--And To make all laws which shall be necessary and
proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other
powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United
States, or in any department or officer thereof."
Specifically, I am referring to, but not personally endorsing, that area
of Constitutional Jurisprudence known as the "commerce clause cases."
These are the bases for the incredibly expanded power of our good
friends in Congress to regulate business that in any way touches on
interstate commerce, i.e., any business at all.
Jeff
Ray Keller
"Jeff McCann" <NoS...@noThanks.Com> wrote in message
You made the challenge
I dictate the terms
You dont like the terms?
Coward
Jeff McCann
> Specifically, I am referring to, but not personally endorsing, that
area
> of Constitutional Jurisprudence known as the "commerce clause cases."
> These are the bases for the incredibly expanded power of our good
> friends in Congress to regulate business that in any way touches on
> interstate commerce, i.e., any business at all.
"In 1990, the U.S. Congress passed a law forbidding possession of a
firearm within 1,000 feet of any school. The Gun-Free School Zones Act
was touted as a blow on behalf of education and against violence among
children. Two years later, Alfonso Lopez Jr., a 12th-grader at Edison
High School in San Antonio, Texas, carried a concealed .38-caliber
pistol to school. First he was charged under Texas law, which forbids
possession of guns on school grounds. But the next day, federal agents
charged Lopez under the Gun-Free School Zones Act, and the state charges
were dismissed.
Thus began one of the most important cases - and one of the most
important decisions - for the U.S. Supreme Court in the last 60 years.
It would turn out to be significant because the case bore directly on a
clause in the U.S. Constitution that almost from the beginning, and
particularly since the New Deal, has been used to justify a radical
expansion of the power of the central government in the United States:
the clause that delegates to Congress the power to "regulate . . .
commerce among the several states." The sensible person will ask, "What
does the commerce clause have to do with students bringing guns to
school?" The Court's majority said "nothing." It has been a long time
since the Supreme Court last refused to let the central government use
the commerce clause to expand its power. That is why Lopez is such an
important case.
Let's back up a bit. Before adoption of the Constitution, states, under
the Articles of Confederation, had erected protectionist barriers that
interfered with the free flow of trade in the new country. One of the
main reasons for the Constitutional Convention was to remedy that
problem. The framers' solution was the commerce clause, which was
intended to make a free-trade zone out of the United States. (The clause
also delegated to Congress the power to "regulate" trade with foreign
nations and the Indian tribes. We will hold until later the question of
whether this was a good way to solve the problem.)
At first, the clause was closely interpreted as referring to
interference by the states with the flow of commerce. In 1824, Chief
Justice John Marshall's Court, in the first big case involving the
commerce clause, Gibbons v. Ogden, struck down a New York law creating a
steamship monopoly for traffic between New York and New Jersey. Marshall
laid down the principle that for the national government to have
jurisdiction, the issue must involve interstate commerce; i.e., it must
involve the trafficking of goods (not manufacture) between two or more
states. He also recognized that the enumeration of the interstate
commerce power implied powers unenumerated (concerning intrastate
commerce) and thus undelegated.
Gibbons may have gotten things off to a good start, but it did not last.
Marshall sprinkled just enough bad seeds that, taken out of context,
would allow later justices, legal scholars, and political opportunists
to cultivate the commerce clause into a general power to do anything
that could conceivably affect interstate commerce.
For example, in 1870, the Court upheld federal inspection of steam
passenger vessels that remained within a single state but carrying goods
shipped from or destined for other states. The problems here were two:
the inspection law was not intended to prevent state interference with
free trade, and the subject of regulation was private enterprise. Thus,
we can glimpse the beginning of the modern view that the commerce clause
granted to Congress a plenary power to regulate anything that had the
potential to affect interstate commerce.
It was a short step to creation of the Interstate Commerce Commission in
1887, which cartelized the railroads and regulated their rates.
One last barrier had to be hurdled. Taking the lead from Marshall,
succeeding courts insisted on confining the commerce power to commerce,
the movement of goods; production was regarded as prior to commerce and
thus outside federal jurisdiction. In 1895, the Court would not let the
central government use the Sherman antitrust law to stop the merger of
sugar refiners. In 1903, the Court upheld a federal prohibition on the
interstate trafficking in lottery tickets. In 1918, it struck down a
prohibition on the interstate shipment of goods produced in plants using
child labor.
But as Richard Epstein has written, the barrier between production and
commerce was "not as well-defined" as the Court held. After all, a
market economy is an integrated web of activities in which everything
affects everything else, however remotely. Manufacturing arrangements
can influence commercial activities. It was only a matter of time before
the barrier would disappear and the national government would begin to
regulate production directly.
Looking back, the progression from the early cases to the New Deal, when
all inhibitions on federal regulation of the economy were dispelled,
appears inexorable. Too much had been conceded along the way. The
mooring of the commerce clause - the principle that state governments
could not erect trade barriers - was too long lost, the distinction
between government and private acts too long forgotten. (The Sherman Act
outlawed private combinations in restraint of trade.)
In 1937, the Court upheld the National Labor Relations Act, which
compelled employers to engage in collective bargaining, holding that the
commerce clause subsumed those things "affecting commerce." In the
particular case, the Court said that phrase meant "tending to lead to a
labor dispute burdening or obstructing commerce."
After President Roosevelt threatened to pack the Court to dilute the
influence of the uncooperative "nine old men," a majority of the
justices took to the most expansive definition of the commerce clause
like a drunk to drink. The Court blessed the secretary of agriculture's
power to set minimum prices for milk sold intrastate . "The marketing of
intrastate milk," wrote the Court in the 1942 Wrightwood Dairy case,
"which competes with that shipped interstate would tend seriously to
break down price regulation of the latter." Yes, so? What was the
Court's point? Only that nothing - especially not liberty - should be
permitted to get in the way of the national government's power to
regulate the economy.
As hard as it may be to notice, Wrightwood Dairy still preserved
something of a distinction: the intrastate sale of milk obviously
entailed an act of commerce. Did that mean the commerce clause barred
the national government from regulating noncommercial activities? Not
for long.
Enter Roscoe Filburn, an Ohio dairy and poultry farmer, who raised a
small quantity of winter wheat - some to sell, some to feed his
livestock, and some to consume. In 1940, under authority of the
Agricultural Adjustment Act, the central government told Mr. Filburn
that for the next year he would be limited to planting 11 acres of wheat
and harvesting 20 bushels per acre. He harvested 12 acres over his
allotment for consumption on his own property. When the government fined
him, Mr. Filburn refused to pay.
Wickard v. Filburn got to the Supreme Court, and in 1942, the justices
unanimously ruled against the farmer. The government claimed that if Mr.
Filburn grew wheat for his own use, he would not be buying it - and that
affected interstate commerce. It also argued that if the price of wheat
rose, which is what the government wanted, Mr. Filburn might be tempted
to sell his surplus wheat in the interstate market, thwarting the
government's objective. The Supreme Court bought it.
The Court's opinion must be quoted to be believed:
[The wheat] supplies a need of the man who grew it which would otherwise
be reflected by purchases in the open market. Home-grown wheat in this
sense competes with wheat in commerce.
As Epstein commented, "Could anyone say with a straight face that the
consumption of home-grown wheat is 'commerce among the several states?'"
For good measure, the Court justified the obvious sacrifice of Mr.
Filburn's freedom and interests to the unnamed farmers being protected:
It is of the essence of regulation that it lays a restraining hand on
the self-interest of the regulated and that advantages from the
regulation commonly fall to others.
After Wickard , everything is mere detail. The entire edifice of civil
rights legislation stands on the commerce power. Under this maximum
commerce power, the government has been free to regulate nearly
everything, including a restaurant owner's bigotry. The Court has held
that if Congress sees a connection to interstate commerce, it is not its
role to second guess.
What is refreshing about the recent Lopez case is that five justices
were able to say that something could exceed the scope of the commerce
clause. Despite the government's strained argument that guns in schools
degrade education and hence economic performance and interstate
commerce, the majority said a federal prohibition on such possession is
beyond Congress's enumerated powers.
In a concurring opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas struck at the very
foundation of the modern interpretation of the commerce clause and
hinted that future cases could bring big changes.
That's fine as far as it goes. But as Jefferson warned, the natural
tendency is for government to grow. Like a poisonous vine, it sprouts
through any gap. What is really needed is a repeal of the commerce
clause and an amendment to the Bill of Rights that says: "Congress and
the states shall make no law interfering with production and commerce,
foreign or domestic."
Mr. Richman is senior editor at the Cato Institute in Washington, D.C.,
and the author of Separating School & State: How to Liberate America's
Families , published by The Future of Freedom Foundation."
Ray Keller
"Jeff McCann" <NoS...@noThanks.Com> wrote in message
Az is closer than Nevada
Typical lawyer weasel
erniegalts
wrote:
Easy to remedy your problem: Go to
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article01/23.html
and read the legal decisions on the issue.
erniegalts
Ray Keller
On second thought....my apologies to whores
they'r a lot more honest than lawyers
rick...@yahoo.com
<NoS...@noThanks.Com> wrote:
>
>The ADA is a massive piece of legislation, with many faults. I guess
>the answer is that you try, evaluate, critique, modify, adapt, and try
>again. This is one legitimate use for our much despised legal system.
Couldn't you do that BEFORE you put it into law and cost people
their businesses?
I thought government was "here to help".
>Jeff
>
Rick Bowen
TSRA Life Member
NRA Member
Without the 2nd Amendment,
the rest are just suggestions.
strabo
Personal affronts are most unseemly and certainly get in the way
of the serious issues that we daily confront.
Sorry Jeff but we are the arbiters of the Constitution, as we
have always been. As citizens of the states which are the
signatories to the creation of the central government, we may
speak freely about the contravention of the agreement amongst the
states. We may do this through our respective state governments
or individually.
"A nation of laws" refers to those laws which adhere the supreme
law of the land, the Constitution, and not the myriad laws and
regulations that have appeared over the years. If a law does not
conform to the Constitution then it is no law and no man is
obligated to abide by it.
The SCOTUS does not and can not, make law, even through the
circumstance of its decisions. Its decisions are for procedural
courts to contemplate. No one of us is bound to accept or follow
what the SCOTUS may say.
Since Congress has abdicated its role and responsibility and
placed the states and their citizens in jeopardy through the
unlawful passage of the 'Patriot Act' and 'Homeland Security',
the legitimacy of government is in question.
In short, we hold that the Declaration and the Constitution with
its BOR and particularly the 9th and 10th A., are as much in
force today as in 1776 and 1789.
We the People are watching and retain our Right to step in when
necessary.
Jeff McCann
"strabo" <str...@flashmail.com> wrote in message
[snip]
> Sorry Jeff but we are the arbiters of the Constitution, as we
> have always been. As citizens of the states which are the
> signatories to the creation of the central government, we may
> speak freely about the contravention of the agreement amongst the
> states. We may do this through our respective state governments
> or individually.
Agreed. 1st Amendment, still in effect.
> "A nation of laws" refers to those laws which adhere the supreme
> law of the land, the Constitution, and not the myriad laws and
> regulations that have appeared over the years. If a law does not
> conform to the Constitution then it is no law and no man is
> obligated to abide by it.
Agreed. But who decides in a given context varies. Philosophy is one
thing, but Courts exercise the relevant authority in an awful lot of
contexts.
> The SCOTUS does not and can not, make law, even through the
> circumstance of its decisions. Its decisions are for procedural
> courts to contemplate. No one of us is bound to accept or follow
> what the SCOTUS may say.
Common Law, i.e., decisional law is the law nonetheless, with respect to
enforcement through civil/criminal means. Disobedience is an
alternative, but often laden with consequences.
> Since Congress has abdicated its role and responsibility and
> placed the states and their citizens in jeopardy through the
> unlawful passage of the 'Patriot Act' and 'Homeland Security',
> the legitimacy of government is in question.
>
> In short, we hold that the Declaration and the Constitution with
> its BOR and particularly the 9th and 10th A., are as much in
> force today as in 1776 and 1789.
>
> We the People are watching and retain our Right to step in when
> necessary.
Agreed. Very well stated. Gives you something to think about. Thanks.
Jeff
Jim Richardson
Hash: SHA1
You offered to go where he lived.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE+MmNKd90bcYOAWPYRAtEhAJ48euZeD1NJJwDL+p2/XeHzcnUO9ACfeqJY
L/QVxijJLjJC07x2hnbUJVo=
=hBFu
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
A bad day, is when aliens attack, the dog bites you, and your boss tells
you that the new client wants to make a few changes before delivery.
Linux, super computers, office computers, or home computers, it works.
easyrunner
>
>
> easyrunner wrote:
> >
> > "Jaxi" <ja...@optonline.net> wrote in message
> > news:3E2F0326...@optonline.net...
> > > Just make sure(please) that you don't lump all disabled in the same
> > > negative group as that disabled woman you wrote about. Not everyone
has
> > > a disability exactly like her's.<Personally I think she is nitpicking
> > > because she's getting off on the POWER she has to affect others.> Even
> > > though I'm disabled, I don't like what is happening. As a matter of
> > > fact, when I first heard of the ADA when it was signed into law, I had
> > > grave misgivings about it. Looks like it all came true and then some.
>
>
> Ok Runner What about those who CAN NOT get out of their wheelchair?
> Do they not have a right to eat or do business where they choose?
You know we already have laws and building codes providing for such things,
and no public space built in the last 20 years or so is without handicapped
access. This isn't about that though, it's about people filing frivilous
lawsuits against business owners who have fulfilled the requirements of law
and building codes. The scum lawyers just exploit our screwed up civil court
system for their own benefit because they know that the sympathy factor
makes it a no-lose proposition for them.
As far as the rights of the handicapped, like I said, the law is clear on
that point, and it's very hard to find a place that you can't go in a
wheelchair these days. There's even a park near me with a bluff overlook
that's at the end of a half mile trail, which was paved so that people in
whelechairs could go look over the bluff. I'm sure someone will sue the park
before it's over because the trail to the bluff is so long, and it's
assholes like you who would let it happen.
> Folks like you should spend a week as someone who is in a wheelchair
> 24/7. Lets see how YOU get around...
I was in a wheelchair for about a month after I got my back hurt on the job,
and other than in my own house, I got around just fine. Maybe you would
suggest I should sue myself, or maybe the people who built my house because
they didn't anticipate me getting hurt? You're a first class asshole, and if
you're not already in a wheelchair, I would be glad to help you getting
there.
> NOT having a lawyer as I found out will get you in deep shit. Tell ya
> what I'm sure there is a law school at a college near you. Go to it and
> prove that you are MORE competent in EVERY law that you can do better...
>
Having a lawyer to defend you in a case like this is next to useless,
because they almost always recommend a fast settlement, and you still owe
them their fee too. I think that if some shitbird schyster came in to my
place of business with a measuring tape, I would rather do six months for
assault and battery than let him win.
> Ike=dickhead
easyrunner
"Jeff McCann" <NoS...@noThanks.Com> wrote in message
> Well, I'm a lawyer, and I took in my mother to live with me now that she
> needs a wheelchair. I haven't sued anybody yet, but I have politely
> informed a few local businesses (actually, usually the local branches of
> major corporate businesses) that they are losing business and exposing
> themselves to liability for failing to comply with the law. Generally,
> when I explain the particular difficulty we experienced in patronizing
> their business in a friendly and non-threatening way, I've received a
> positive response.
>
> Because I want to allow my mother the opportunity to enjoy a dinner out,
> a movie, or a shopping trip, does that make me a bad person? All I want
> is for my mother to have a decent life and enjoy the things she is still
> able to do. Is it unreasonable to expect businesses to comply with the
> unable to obtain reasonable compliance through lesser means? Under
> every system, society or law, there seems to be a certain percentage of
> people who will abuse it in some way or another, and that's a function
> of human nature, not the system, society or law.
>
> Jeff
The way I see it is this, if a business is not customer friendly, then go to
one that is. I have asthma and can't stand cigarette smoke, so I don't go
into places that allow smoking. If someone wants to allow smoking on their
property, that's their business, and I don't have to go there. There are
plenty of laws and building codes to provide for people who can't make such
a choice, and I applaud you for not taking legal action without giving
someone a chance to rectify the situations you mentioned, but the Florida
advocacy group is just out for money, pure and simple.
>
>
Ray Keller
From: Jeff McCann (j.mc...@worldnet.att.net)
Subject: Re: Patients with guns
View: Complete Thread (61 articles)
Original Format
Newsgroups: misc.emerg-services
Date: 1997/06/03
First, I strongly urge you to consult a Texas attorney for specific
legal advice. That being said, I have some general thoughts for you.
1) Its your ambulance. I don't suppose the citizen permit allows them
to introduce a firearm into a conveyance without consent.
2) An injured or ill and armed person is a danger to crew and
bystanders. You have a responsibility to provide a secure scene. Does
Texas have a law against something like "interfering with an emergency
response"?
3) Every medic should know enough about firearms to safely unload
pistols, revolvers, rifles and shotguns. Don't mess up a crime scene,
but feel free to unload stray weapons laying around. If you find it on
a patient, turn it over to a LEO for safe-keeping. If you find it on
the patient enroute, empty it and lock it up with your narcs until you
can turn it over to a LEO.
4) If the pt is being an a**hole about it, insist he unload it and give
you the cartridges "for now". Let him keep his precious phallus
extender, er, gun. Be aware of extra ammo and do a search during your
secondary survey.
snip
Search Result 79
From: Jeff McCann (McCa...@att.net)
Subject: Re: KILLING IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD--WHAT ARE LEGAL WAY TO PROTECT
YOURSELF
View: Complete Thread (21 articles)
Original Format
Newsgroups: misc.survivalism
Date: 2002-11-02 20:36:09 PST
Of course not, and I see your point. But one of the better ways to insulate
yourself from crime is to move from a higher crime area to a community or
neighborhood where crime rates are low. You can't do that if you lose your
job, your ability to obtain any similar job, and spend a substantial amount
of your savings to fight criminal charges. I don't know whether NYC has any
felony charges for first offenders in weapons cases, but even a misdemeanor
can cost you a law license, teachers certificate, security clearance,
bonding or similar. It's a risk/benefit assessment every person needs to
make for themselves, along with a host of other considerations in deciding
whether to carry a weapon. I'm fortunate to be able to lawfully carry a
concealed weapon in a large number of states.
snip
Draw your own conclusions.
--
Ray Keller
rayk...@theriver.com
http://personal.riverusers.com/~raykeller/
"You don't expect governments to obey the law because of some
higher moral development. You expect them to obey the law because
they know that if they don't, those who aren't shot will be hanged."
-Michael Shirley
Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other
terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American ...the
unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or
state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the
hands of the people.
-Tench Coxe, 20 Feb 1788
Gun Control: The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and
strangled with her panty hose, is somehow morally superior to a
woman explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound
I would prefer to live in a free society than
a drug free society - even if the latter could
actually be achieved.
Every man, woman, and responsible child has a natural,
fundamental, and inalienable human, individual, civil, and
Constitutional right (within the limits of the Non-Aggression
Principle) to obtain, own, and carry, openly or concealed, any
weapon -- handgun, shotgun, rifle, machinegun, anything
-- anytime, anywhere, without asking anyone's permission.
,
The Atlanta Declaration
-- L. Neil Smith
http://www.lneilsmith.com/
In truth, one who believes it wrong to arm himself against criminal
violence shows contempt of God's gift of life (or, in modern parlance,
does not properly value himself), does not live up to his responsibilities
to his family and community, and proclaims himself mentally and morally
deficient, because he does not trust himself to behave responsibly. In
truth, a state that deprives its law-abiding citizens of the means
to effectively defend themselves is not civilized but barbarous,
becoming an accomplice of murderers, rapists, and thugs and revealing
its totalitarian nature by its tacit admission that the disorganized,
random havoc created by criminals is far less a threat than are men and
women who believe themselves free and independent, and act accordingly.
- Jeffrey Snyder, "Nation of Cowards"
rick...@yahoo.com
<easyr...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>"Ike" <laz...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>news:3E314F16...@earthlink.net...
>>
>>
>> easyrunner wrote:
>> >
>> > "Jaxi" <ja...@optonline.net> wrote in message
>> > news:3E2F0326...@optonline.net...
>> > > Just make sure(please) that you don't lump all disabled in the same
>> > > negative group as that disabled woman you wrote about. Not everyone
>has
>> > > a disability exactly like her's.<Personally I think she is nitpicking
>> > > because she's getting off on the POWER she has to affect others.> Even
>> > > though I'm disabled, I don't like what is happening. As a matter of
>> > > fact, when I first heard of the ADA when it was signed into law, I had
>> > > grave misgivings about it. Looks like it all came true and then some.
>>
>>
>> Ok Runner What about those who CAN NOT get out of their wheelchair?
>> Do they not have a right to eat or do business where they choose?
Sorry to piggyback. No, they don't. As a patron, you have 3
rights. This is not about YOUR rights. It's about the rights of
an owner to do what he sees fit with his personal property.
1. Tear your ass down the road and do business with someone who
WILL accomodate you.
2. Politely discuss it with the owner and let him know that it
would be in his financial best intterests to accomodate you and
all of your friends.
3. Start your own business.
Jeff McCann
news:t_icnZFuYqE...@comcast.com...
An entirely reasonable point of view. I'm committed to obeying the law,
seeing that people are treated fairly within the law, and fixing what I
see as bad laws, of which there are plenty, or at least plenty that I
personally disagree with. It did sound like that group falls squarely
within that percentage found everywhere who abuse the system for their
own gain.
Jeff
Joe Kultgen
NoS...@noThanks.Com says...
>
> Experience proves its a heck of a lot easier to write a bad law, even
> with "the best of intentions" than it is to write a good law, in the
> sense that it serves a legitimate public purpose, balances relevant
> interests, is reasonable, and actually accomplishes the intended
> purpose.
>
> It does nothing to aid the handicapped to spend a half-mil of taxpayer
> money to put in curb cuts where none are wanted, needed or used. But
> how do you determine that? Does every entrance to the mall need to have
> a wheelchair ramp, or is just one sufficient? Why is there Braille on
> the ATMs at the drive-up window?
>
> The ADA is a massive piece of legislation, with many faults. I guess
> the answer is that you try, evaluate, critique, modify, adapt, and try
> again. This is one legitimate use for our much despised legal system.
>
> Jeff
>
>
>
This sounds good until you realize that our body of laws is more
accretive than evolutionary. We seldom *repeal* what didn't work, we
just slap on another layer in an attempt to hide the prior mistakes.
Presently we've reached a point where an average person, acting in good
faith, cannot possibly be in strict compliance with every rule and
regulation. This is good news for those who get their rocks off trying
to control others, and a guaranteed income for the lawyers available to
argue either side of any issue. Is it any wonder your profession is
hated?
Personally I wouldn't go so far as to call you a whore, but to a lot of
people a "hired mouth" is a "hired mouth", whether you're paying for what
comes out of it or what you put in. I'm not ready to yield the moral
high ground to every opportunistic shit heel with a law degree and a case
of the "gimmee's". Finding a way to make something legal doesn't make it
right.
Later,
Joe
Jeff McCann
"Joe Kultgen" <jkul...@tds.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.189ddd9df...@news.mil.sbcglobal.net...
Generally true. Sunsetting provisions should be used much more often.
Furthermore, try to understand that legislation comes from the
legislature, which is totally in the thrall of special interests that
provide the money legislators need to campaign for office. Also, keep
in mind the constant spinning of the truth by those same big-money
special interests, who can manipulate you into happily helping them slit
your own throat.
> Presently we've reached a point where an average person, acting in
good
> faith, cannot possibly be in strict compliance with every rule and
> regulation. This is good news for those who get their rocks off
trying
> to control others, and a guaranteed income for the lawyers available
to
> argue either side of any issue. Is it any wonder your profession is
> hated?
Lawyers may profit from the problem, but they didn't create it. Its
like blaming doctors for disease, or your local mechanic for design or
manufacturing flaws in your car. Think the country would be better off
without lawyers? Pray you never have to find out. Hate us all you
want, but its out of ignorance and propaganda more than anything else.
People hate lawyers because they have been repeatedly told to hate
lawyers by those who don't want to be held accountable by lawyers, who
are the same special interests who get the laws passed in the first
place. The legal profession has plenty of faults, to be sure, but you
are being spun by those who want to exploit you, hurt you, use you,
steal from you and lie to you, while preventing anyone, especially
lawyers, from holding them accountable for it.
> Personally I wouldn't go so far as to call you a whore, but to a lot
of
> people a "hired mouth" is a "hired mouth", whether you're paying for
what
> comes out of it or what you put in.
Gee, thanks. Personally I wouldn't go so far as to call you a moron,
but to a lot of people a "propagandized sucker" is a "propagandized
sucker," whether you're truly stupid or just misinformed.
>I'm not ready to yield the moral
> high ground to every opportunistic shit heel with a law degree and a
case
> of the "gimmee's". Finding a way to make something legal doesn't make
it
> right.
I'm not ready to yield the moral high ground to every ignorant asshole
with a case of "profound lack of insight." Working within the legal
system that the legislators you elected gave us doesn't make it wrong.
Much of the time, the "right" side actually wins, believe it or not!
> Later,
> Joe
Jeff
rick...@yahoo.com
Majority of legislators ARE laywers.
Jeff McCann
news:o9b93v4849o8mljvb...@4ax.com...
> Majority of legislators ARE laywers(sic).
Factually incorrect.
http://www.janda.org/b20/Lectures%202001/occupation.htm
Jeff
Jeff McCann
rick...@yahoo.com
I stand corrected. Thank you for the link. Very interesting.
Jeff McCann
news:dud93v4dajpvheivc...@4ax.com...
No problem. The sad fact is, in my opinion, is that the average person
has neither the time nor the inclination to investigate the facts in any
depth. We all get much of our information by randomly sampling from the
overwhelming continuous flow emanating from variety of sources that tend
to be either anticdotal or slanted in some way. Those with an axe to
grind or a self-serving spin to put out naturally tend to rise to the
surface of that flow. I have learned from bitter experience that lots
of things I "know" are flat-out wrong. Sometimes I found this out
myself; other times I had to be shown the hard way, kicking and
screaming that I was right, until I was proven wrong.
Because this happens to be a front-burner issue for me, I've made a
point to do the work to get the facts that others don't often get
exposed to. Some people cannot handle the cognitive dissonance created
when the facts come crashing in on their previous views so thoughtfully
provided by those who intentionally seek to mislead. Others can.
Jeff
Jason Sheppard
Exactly. Bravo!!
Regards,
Jason
rick...@yahoo.com
<NoS...@noThanks.Com> wrote:
>
>
>No problem. The sad fact is, in my opinion, is that the average person
>has neither the time nor the inclination to investigate the facts in any
>depth. We all get much of our information by randomly sampling from the
>overwhelming continuous flow emanating from variety of sources that tend
>to be either anticdotal or slanted in some way. Those with an axe to
>grind or a self-serving spin to put out naturally tend to rise to the
>surface of that flow. I have learned from bitter experience that lots
>of things I "know" are flat-out wrong. Sometimes I found this out
>myself; other times I had to be shown the hard way, kicking and
>screaming that I was right, until I was proven wrong.
BTDT, too many times. :-(
>Because this happens to be a front-burner issue for me, I've made a
>point to do the work to get the facts that others don't often get
>exposed to. Some people cannot handle the cognitive dissonance created
>when the facts come crashing in on their previous views so thoughtfully
>provided by those who intentionally seek to mislead. Others can.
I'm getting better. :-)
I don't make as many glaring ass/u/mptions as I used to. :-)
>Jeff
>
Rick Bowen
TSRA Life Member
NRA Member
Charter Memeber of
B.A.S.T.A.R.D.S.
Long Guns Vs. Handguns:
"If you carry a gun, people will call
you paranoid. That's ridiculous. If I
have a gun, what in the hell do I
have to be paranoid about?"
-- Clint Smith
Director of Thunder Ranch
Joe Kultgen
NoS...@noThanks.Com says...
snip
> >
> > This sounds good until you realize that our body of laws is more
> > accretive than evolutionary. We seldom *repeal* what didn't work, we
> > just slap on another layer in an attempt to hide the prior mistakes.
>
> Generally true. Sunsetting provisions should be used much more often.
> Furthermore, try to understand that legislation comes from the
> legislature, which is totally in the thrall of special interests that
> provide the money legislators need to campaign for office. Also, keep
> in mind the constant spinning of the truth by those same big-money
> special interests, who can manipulate you into happily helping them slit
> your own throat.
You're not exactly lying but still missing the mark. If the only
legislation we had to deal with came from congress we might still be able
to get a handle on the situation. Any politician is by definition the
winner of a popularity contest. There is a limit on the number of voters
he can afford to offend.
What's sinking us is congress delegating, (abdicating?), responsibility
to endless regulatory agencies. We're being inundated with rules or
regulations having the full force and effect of law, that never had to
face the public scrutiny of a bill passing through congress. The volume
of regulation is far beyond what congress could generate even if they
stayed in constant session. The people generating the regulations don't
stand for election and are practically immune to public pressure.
When Slick Willie wanted to stop the importation of surplus firearms and
ammo he didn't get one of his buddies to introduce a bill in congress.
He directed the Customs Service to take no action on firearms import
permits. If the permit wasn't approved they obviously couldn't import
the goods. If the permit wasn't denied they couldn't take the Customs
Service to court and make them show cause.
>
> > Presently we've reached a point where an average person, acting in
> good
> > faith, cannot possibly be in strict compliance with every rule and
> > regulation. This is good news for those who get their rocks off
> trying
> > to control others, and a guaranteed income for the lawyers available
> to
> > argue either side of any issue. Is it any wonder your profession is
> > hated?
>
> Lawyers may profit from the problem, but they didn't create it. Its
> like blaming doctors for disease, or your local mechanic for design or
> manufacturing flaws in your car. Think the country would be better off
> without lawyers? Pray you never have to find out. Hate us all you
> want, but its out of ignorance and propaganda more than anything else.
> People hate lawyers because they have been repeatedly told to hate
> lawyers by those who don't want to be held accountable by lawyers, who
> are the same special interests who get the laws passed in the first
> place. The legal profession has plenty of faults, to be sure, but you
> are being spun by those who want to exploit you, hurt you, use you,
> steal from you and lie to you, while preventing anyone, especially
> lawyers, from holding them accountable for it.
>
http://www.cspan.org/resources/fyi/108_profile.asp?cat=current_event&code
=108TH_CONG
Over half of the Senate holds a law degree and 176 of the 434 members of
the House. That's just the tip of the iceberg. You don't think these
people actually *draft* the legislation, do you? Hell, they don't even
have the time to *read* the full text of everything they vote on. Often
there isn't more than one or two printed copies marked up in final form
at the time the vote is taken, and it can be amended right down to the
wire. They base their vote on abstracts prepared by their staff and
bargain their support of one piece of legislation against other congress
critters support for their pet projects. For every warm body casting a
vote on the floors of congress there are *at least* three people with law
degrees working in a support role. That doesn't even touch the issue of
lobbyists.
Only a fool steals with a gun. A smart thief hires a lawyer.
> Gee, thanks. Personally I wouldn't go so far as to call you a moron,
> but to a lot of people a "propagandized sucker" is a "propagandized
> sucker," whether you're truly stupid or just misinformed.
>
Anyone who claims that he has *not* been "propagandized" to some degree
on some issues is either lying or deluding himself. Could your own blind
spot be the usefulness of your chosen profession?
>
> I'm not ready to yield the moral high ground to every ignorant asshole
> with a case of "profound lack of insight." Working within the legal
> system that the legislators you elected gave us doesn't make it wrong.
> Much of the time, the "right" side actually wins, believe it or not!
>
Perhaps its just my "profound lack of insight" but doesn't every lawyer
go into court believing he represents the "right" side? If that's the
case, aren't at least half of them mistaken? More likely the term "legal
ethics" has as much connection to the normal definition of "ethical
behavior", as "military intelligence" has to an IQ test.
Later,
Joe
Jeff McCann
But there is no limit on the number of voters he can afford to try to
keep in the dark, mislead, or lie to. Example: the blanket immunity
for vaccine manufacturers slipped into law as a last minute amendment to
the HS bill. Heck, they managed to fool some of their fellow
legislators. This was a pure special interest giveaway, snuck into law
in the figurative dead of night, without any public knowledge or debate
until it was a fait accompli. Also, if you lie about the purpose or
effect of a proposed law, you can get many people to think its really a
good thing.
> What's sinking us is congress delegating, (abdicating?),
responsibility
> to endless regulatory agencies. We're being inundated with rules or
> regulations having the full force and effect of law, that never had to
> face the public scrutiny of a bill passing through congress. The
volume
> of regulation is far beyond what congress could generate even if they
> stayed in constant session. The people generating the regulations
don't
> stand for election and are practically immune to public pressure.
Generally true, except that the Administrative Procedures Act requires
the taking of public commentary on the record for ALL proposed
regulations
Point of fact: Only about half of people with a law degree are actually
practicing law. Having a law degree doesn't make you a lawyer.
Basically, a law degree is just an advanced liberal arts degree. Most
of the other half work in business or government, and that's where their
interests and loyalties are found, not with the legal profession.
Otherwise, you are correct.
[snip]
> Anyone who claims that he has *not* been "propagandized" to some
degree
> on some issues is either lying or deluding himself. Could your own
blind
> spot be the usefulness of your chosen profession?
Not likely. I see the results of my own work. But then, I choose my
cases carefully.
[snip]
> Perhaps its just my "profound lack of insight" but doesn't every
lawyer
> go into court believing he represents the "right" side? If that's the
> case, aren't at least half of them mistaken? More likely the term
"legal
> ethics" has as much connection to the normal definition of "ethical
> behavior", as "military intelligence" has to an IQ test.
Often, the truth lies somewhere in the middle. Hence about 90% of all
cases are settled out of court, through negotiation.
You've raised some good points, though.
Jeff
Ike
Robert Sturgeon wrote:
>
> On Fri, 24 Jan 2003 14:35:55 GMT, Ike <laz...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >easyrunner wrote:
> >>
> >> "Jaxi" <ja...@optonline.net> wrote in message
> >> news:3E2F0326...@optonline.net...
> >> > Just make sure(please) that you don't lump all disabled in the same
> >> > negative group as that disabled woman you wrote about. Not everyone has
> >> > a disability exactly like her's.<Personally I think she is nitpicking
> >> > because she's getting off on the POWER she has to affect others.> Even
> >> > though I'm disabled, I don't like what is happening. As a matter of
> >> > fact, when I first heard of the ADA when it was signed into law, I had
> >> > grave misgivings about it. Looks like it all came true and then some.
> >
> >Ok Runner What about those who CAN NOT get out of their wheelchair?
> >Do they not have a right to eat or do business where they choose?
>
> No, they don't. They have the right to eat or do business with
> whomever wishes to cater to their desires and requirements, if they
> can pay the charges. No one has the right to force another to do
> business with anyone.
Not true yet again... but I'll let you find that one...
Clue: Southern Lunch Counters
>
> >Folks like you should spend a week as someone who is in a wheelchair
> >24/7. Lets see how YOU get around...
>
> I'm sure it's difficult. That doesn't give the disabled person the
> right to impose costs on another.
Idiot...
rick...@yahoo.com
wrote:
>
>
>Robert Sturgeon wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 24 Jan 2003 14:35:55 GMT, Ike <laz...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >easyrunner wrote:
>> >>
>> >> "Jaxi" <ja...@optonline.net> wrote in message
>> >> news:3E2F0326...@optonline.net...
>> >> > Just make sure(please) that you don't lump all disabled in the same
>> >> > negative group as that disabled woman you wrote about. Not everyone has
>> >> > a disability exactly like her's.<Personally I think she is nitpicking
>> >> > because she's getting off on the POWER she has to affect others.> Even
>> >> > though I'm disabled, I don't like what is happening. As a matter of
>> >> > fact, when I first heard of the ADA when it was signed into law, I had
>> >> > grave misgivings about it. Looks like it all came true and then some.
>> >
>> >Ok Runner What about those who CAN NOT get out of their wheelchair?
>> >Do they not have a right to eat or do business where they choose?
>>
>> No, they don't. They have the right to eat or do business with
>> whomever wishes to cater to their desires and requirements, if they
>> can pay the charges. No one has the right to force another to do
>> business with anyone.
>
>Not true yet again... but I'll let you find that one...
>Clue: Southern Lunch Counters
For the clueless, (hint: Ike), doesn't make it right.
That is not the governments' baliwick. Unless, of course, you
don't believe in personal property rights.
As a patron, you have 3
rights. This is not about YOUR rights. It's about the rights of
an owner to do what he sees fit with his personal property.
1. Tear your ass down the road and do business with someone who
WILL accomodate you.
2. Politely discuss it with the owner and let him know that it
would be in his financial best interests to accomodate you and
all of your friends.
3. Start your own business.
>Idiot...
Pot, meet kettle.
Rick Bowen
TSRA Life Member
NRA Member
Without the 2nd Amendment,
Ike
easyrunner wrote:
>
> "Ike" <laz...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:3E314F16...@earthlink.net...
> >
> >
> > easyrunner wrote:
> > >
> > > "Jaxi" <ja...@optonline.net> wrote in message
> > > news:3E2F0326...@optonline.net...
> > > > Just make sure(please) that you don't lump all disabled in the same
> > > > negative group as that disabled woman you wrote about. Not everyone
> has
> > > > a disability exactly like her's.<Personally I think she is nitpicking
> > > > because she's getting off on the POWER she has to affect others.> Even
> > > > though I'm disabled, I don't like what is happening. As a matter of
> > > > fact, when I first heard of the ADA when it was signed into law, I had
> > > > grave misgivings about it. Looks like it all came true and then some.
> >
> >
> > Ok Runner What about those who CAN NOT get out of their wheelchair?
> > Do they not have a right to eat or do business where they choose?
>
> You know we already have laws and building codes providing for such things,
> and no public space built in the last 20 years or so is without handicapped
> access. This isn't about that though, it's about people filing frivilous
> lawsuits against business owners who have fulfilled the requirements of law
> and building codes. The scum lawyers just exploit our screwed up civil court
> system for their own benefit because they know that the sympathy factor
> makes it a no-lose proposition for them.
IOW your problem is with the Ambulance Chasers eh? If so I hear ya and
agree 110%. It's those SOBs that use Laws that are meant to open doors for
those who need the help to get rich... Screw em...
Ya know I don't see why some of these folks that get sued don't turn
around and file slander/ Libel suits against the assholes.
> As far as the rights of the handicapped, like I said, the law is clear on
> that point, and it's very hard to find a place that you can't go in a
> wheelchair these days. There's even a park near me with a bluff overlook
> that's at the end of a half mile trail, which was paved so that people in
> whelechairs could go look over the bluff. I'm sure someone will sue the park
> before it's over because the trail to the bluff is so long, and it's
> assholes like you who would let it happen.
No actually it's not... Thing is there are a few that say "Fuck ADA I don't
want cripples here anyways." These folks deserve a lawsuit...
Kinda like the idiot who parks in a handicapped parking space & is too damned
lazy to walk.
>
> > Folks like you should spend a week as someone who is in a wheelchair
> > 24/7. Lets see how YOU get around...
>
> I was in a wheelchair for about a month after I got my back hurt on the job,
> and other than in my own house, I got around just fine. Maybe you would
> suggest I should sue myself, or maybe the people who built my house because
> they didn't anticipate me getting hurt? You're a first class asshole, and if
> you're not already in a wheelchair, I would be glad to help you getting
> there.
LOL... Down dude... I misunderstood where you was coming from... but for future
reference call the scum for what they are Ambulance Chasers... After all you may
find you need to haul some asshole incompetent in to court & will need a lawyer.
Ike
Ike
Bob Peterson wrote:
>
> "Ike" <laz...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:3E314D72...@earthlink.net...
> >
> >
> > easyrunner wrote:
> > >
> > > I was reading a local free newspaper yesterday, and there's an article
> in it
> > > about the current trend in lawsuits. It seems that a Florida advocacy
> group
> > > called ADA Act Now is suing businesses left and right for violations of
> the
> >
> > runner,
> > There have and always will be those who exploit for personal gain.
> > Hell look at the Music industry... They sell $18 CDs of that CD
> > a group will only see 5 cents the Label will get $10 The rest is divided
> > up with the rest of the industry.
> >
> > I support the ADA Act but no matter what laws you pass there will be those
> > who decide that they want to exploit it. Are there busunesses who deserve
> > to get sued Hell yea. BUT those are a dying breed far less than those
> > getting sued.
> >
> > What the ADA Act is suposed to be fore is to allow a person in a
> wheelchair
> > access to a business they wish to use. For example, if there is a Pizza
> Hut
> > with a Lunch buffet but you have to go up a step to get in, then that
> store
> > deserves to get sued for not puting a ramp in. If the local 4 star does
> not
> > have a toilet that a persopn in a wheelchar can not use they deserve to
> get
> > sued.
>
> What if a store owner decides he rather spend his own money on something
> other than ADA required thingys? What business is it of government to
> decide who you are required to serve? Just a thought.
True... You have as much right to be non compliant as your city or Town
has a right NOT to sell you a business License. Think about that one...
Ike
Joe Kultgen
NoS...@noThanks.Com says...
> > to get a handle on the situation. Any politician is by definition the
> > winner of a popularity contest. There is a limit on the number of
> voters
> > he can afford to offend.
>
> But there is no limit on the number of voters he can afford to try to
> keep in the dark, mislead, or lie to. Example: the blanket immunity
> for vaccine manufacturers slipped into law as a last minute amendment to
> the HS bill. Heck, they managed to fool some of their fellow
> legislators. This was a pure special interest giveaway, snuck into law
> in the figurative dead of night, without any public knowledge or debate
> until it was a fait accompli. Also, if you lie about the purpose or
> effect of a proposed law, you can get many people to think its really a
> good thing.
True as far as it goes, but the more people he offends the bigger the
club his opponent in the next election has to beat him with.
Ready to get paranoid? Think about this.
The people voting on legislation don't actually read the full text.
The people preparing the abstracts for the legislators are not only
working under tight time constraints, they aren't looking for the long
range consequences of every provision. They're skimming the document
searching for immediate conflicts with their bosses known policies, or
the policies of his financial supporters. (Not always the same thing!)
Most legislators have a schedule that doesn't allow them to attend the
early debates even on legislation they sponsored. The only time the
houses of congress actually fill up is right before the final vote on
high profile legislation.
Who actually produces the final marked up copy that gets brought up for
vote? Some under paid clerk who made it through law school but couldn't
quite pass the bar exam? Does this clerk have an agenda? How much would
I have to supplement his income to get him to see things my way?
> stayed in constant session. The people generating the regulations
> don't
> > stand for election and are practically immune to public pressure.
>
> Generally true, except that the Administrative Procedures Act requires
> the taking of public commentary on the record for ALL proposed
> regulations
Yep, the NPR, (Notice of Proposed Rule making?), gets published in the
Federal Register just like the final regulation. I notice you neglect to
mention that the APA only requires the taking of public commentary, AFAIK
it doesn't require any agency to act in accordance with the commentary
received. BTW, only certain federally designated libraries are required
to have a copy of the Federal Register available to the public. Note
also that the recently passed "Patriot Act" greatly reduces the
publication requirements for certain federal agencies.
>
> Point of fact: Only about half of people with a law degree are actually
> practicing law. Having a law degree doesn't make you a lawyer.
> Basically, a law degree is just an advanced liberal arts degree. Most
> of the other half work in business or government, and that's where their
> interests and loyalties are found, not with the legal profession.
> Otherwise, you are correct.
>
I was wondering when you'd get around to this. While it's silly to
insist that anyone who popped out of college with a law degree in hand is
a lawyer, it's equally misleading to insist that anyone who hasn't passed
the bar and practiced in front of a judge isn't one.
Are you now going to say that a law clerk drafting the bill some senator
plans to introduce isn't practicing law? Do you hold the local shyster
trying to make a case on my behalf, to a higher standard than the guy who
wrote the piece of legislation he's trying to use in my favor?
One thing is certain. Nobody would spend the time and money pursuing a
law degree unless he thought it could give him an edge he couldn't
acquire easier in some other major.
> [snip]
> > Anyone who claims that he has *not* been "propagandized" to some
> degree
> > on some issues is either lying or deluding himself. Could your own
> blind
> > spot be the usefulness of your chosen profession?
>
> Not likely. I see the results of my own work. But then, I choose my
> cases carefully.
>
Commendable, but if the high profile members of your profession persist
in chasing ambulances and using the law to strong arm people, you'll
still be tarred with the same brush until you prove yourself on a case by
case basis. Sad.
>
> Often, the truth lies somewhere in the middle. Hence about 90% of all
> cases are settled out of court, through negotiation.
>
> You've raised some good points, though.
>
> Jeff
Government isn't mysterious and difficult to understand. All it wants to
do is stop you from doing something you enjoy, force you to do something
you don't enjoy, or take your money. Sometimes it hits the trifecta. :-)
Lawyers are the interface where the government meets the governed,
usually under circumstances where the governed are attempting non-
compliance. Their other major role is negotiating a settlement where the
interested parties probably shouldn't get within shotgun range of each
other.
Ya wanna be loved? Get a dog!
Later,
Joe
Jeff McCann
news:MPG.18a091b69...@news.tds.net...
That's why we have elections. We voters need to keep ourselves
informed. That's is what I'm doing here.
> Ready to get paranoid? Think about this.
>
> The people voting on legislation don't actually read the full text.
>
> The people preparing the abstracts for the legislators are not only
> working under tight time constraints, they aren't looking for the long
> range consequences of every provision. They're skimming the document
> searching for immediate conflicts with their bosses known policies, or
> the policies of his financial supporters. (Not always the same thing!)
>
> Most legislators have a schedule that doesn't allow them to attend the
> early debates even on legislation they sponsored. The only time the
> houses of congress actually fill up is right before the final vote on
> high profile legislation.
Please don't be an apologist for bad legislators. They have the
responsibility, and we have the right to hold them personally
accountable.
> Who actually produces the final marked up copy that gets brought up
for
> vote? Some under paid clerk who made it through law school but
couldn't
> quite pass the bar exam? Does this clerk have an agenda? How much
would
> I have to supplement his income to get him to see things my way?
Legislative aides with law degrees tend to have been better than average
law students, and often forego higher paying jobs as real lawyers.
Everyone has an agenda.
> > stayed in constant session. The people generating the regulations
> > don't
> > > stand for election and are practically immune to public pressure.
> >
> > Generally true, except that the Administrative Procedures Act
requires
> > the taking of public commentary on the record for ALL proposed
> > regulations
>
> Yep, the NPR, (Notice of Proposed Rule making?), gets published in the
> Federal Register just like the final regulation. I notice you neglect
to
> mention that the APA only requires the taking of public commentary,
AFAIK
> it doesn't require any agency to act in accordance with the commentary
> received. BTW, only certain federally designated libraries are
required
> to have a copy of the Federal Register available to the public. Note
> also that the recently passed "Patriot Act" greatly reduces the
> publication requirements for certain federal agencies.
Yes. A vile piece of legislation.
> > Point of fact: Only about half of people with a law degree are
actually
> > practicing law. Having a law degree doesn't make you a lawyer.
> > Basically, a law degree is just an advanced liberal arts degree.
Most
> > of the other half work in business or government, and that's where
their
> > interests and loyalties are found, not with the legal profession.
> > Otherwise, you are correct.
> >
>
> I was wondering when you'd get around to this. While it's silly to
> insist that anyone who popped out of college with a law degree in hand
is
> a lawyer, it's equally misleading to insist that anyone who hasn't
passed
> the bar and practiced in front of a judge isn't one.
I disagree. Lots of law school grads learn that they really don't want
to be lawyers.
> Are you now going to say that a law clerk drafting the bill some
senator
> plans to introduce isn't practicing law?
Yes. He's a bureaucrat, probably a politician wanna-be, or will wind up
working as a lobbyist or employee for the special interests he developed
a working relationship with.
>Do you hold the local shyster
> trying to make a case on my behalf, to a higher standard than the guy
who
> wrote the piece of legislation he's trying to use in my favor?
Let's just say I hold them both to a high standard
> One thing is certain. Nobody would spend the time and money pursuing
a
> law degree unless he thought it could give him an edge he couldn't
> acquire easier in some other major.
When did everyone suddenly become rational actors? People go to law
school for a lot of different reasons, some having nothing to do with
wanting to practice law.
> > [snip]
> > > Anyone who claims that he has *not* been "propagandized" to some
> > degree
> > > on some issues is either lying or deluding himself. Could your
own
> > blind
> > > spot be the usefulness of your chosen profession?
> >
> > Not likely. I see the results of my own work. But then, I choose
my
> > cases carefully.
> >
>
> Commendable, but if the high profile members of your profession
persist
> in chasing ambulances and using the law to strong arm people, you'll
> still be tarred with the same brush until you prove yourself on a case
by
> case basis. Sad.
For starters, I'm not interested in proving myself to anybody. I'm
aware that our profession has its share of scum, but that's just human
nature. I'm just putting out the facts about the rest of us, and those
who would use the popular lawyer-bashing sentiment they helped create to
screw over people.
> > Often, the truth lies somewhere in the middle. Hence about 90% of
all
> > cases are settled out of court, through negotiation.
> >
> > You've raised some good points, though.
> >
> > Jeff
>
> Government isn't mysterious and difficult to understand. All it wants
to
> do is stop you from doing something you enjoy, force you to do
something
> you don't enjoy, or take your money. Sometimes it hits the trifecta.
:-)
>
> Lawyers are the interface where the government meets the governed,
> usually under circumstances where the governed are attempting non-
> compliance. Their other major role is negotiating a settlement where
the
> interested parties probably shouldn't get within shotgun range of each
> other.
Except that the vast majority of civil cases don't involve the
government, they are disputes between private parties. Furthermore,
championing the rights of the little guy as against the government is,
frankly, pretty cool. I do quite a bit of that kind of work.
Ya wanna be loved? Get a dog!
8-) Funny you should mention that. I'm planning to, but I haven't
settled on a breed yet.
Jeff
Gunner
wrote:
>
>Except that the vast majority of civil cases don't involve the
>government, they are disputes between private parties. Furthermore,
>championing the rights of the little guy as against the government is,
>frankly, pretty cool. I do quite a bit of that kind of work.
>
>Ya wanna be loved? Get a dog!
>
>8-) Funny you should mention that. I'm planning to, but I haven't
>settled on a breed yet.
>
>Jeff
>
1. Golden Retriever
2. Australian shepherd
2. Queensland Heeler
4, German shepard (with a hip guarentee)
5. Rottwieler
6. Hienze 57 from the pound. Anything that tickles your fancy, warms
your heart and simply likes you.
Hummmm...I wonder if #6 shoulnt be on the top.....
This Message is guaranteed environmentally friendly
Manufactured with 10% post consumer ASCII
Meets all EPA regulations for clean air
Using only naturally occuring fibers
Use the Message with confidance.
(Some settling may occure in transit.)
(Best if Used before May 13, 2009)
erniegalts
wrote:
>On Tue, 28 Jan 2003 22:20:02 GMT, "Jeff McCann" <NoS...@noThanks.Com>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>Except that the vast majority of civil cases don't involve the
>>government, they are disputes between private parties. Furthermore,
>>championing the rights of the little guy as against the government is,
>>frankly, pretty cool. I do quite a bit of that kind of work.
>>
>>Ya wanna be loved? Get a dog!
>>
>>8-) Funny you should mention that. I'm planning to, but I haven't
>>settled on a breed yet.
>>
>>Jeff
>>
>1. Golden Retriever
>2. Australian shepherd
>2. Queensland Heeler
>4, German shepard (with a hip guarentee)
>5. Rottwieler
>6. Hienze 57 from the pound. Anything that tickles your fancy, warms
>your heart and simply likes you.
>
>Hummmm...I wonder if #6 shoulnt be on the top.....
No #3, or cannot you decide between the Aussie dogs? :-)
Big on "loyalty" but wouldn't consider either as "loving".
...And why a "Golden Retriever" as #1?
If looking for love and play, perhaps Jeff should get a cocker spaniel
or something similar.
Although he comes across as a fairly nice bloke [as much as any lawyer
can do so] am not sure that any dog is the best choice of pet.
Too "fawning". A cat might be better, especially a Siamese cat.:-)
Guaranteed to at least try to put other cats, dogs, and humans in
"their place".
I cannot think of any finer pet for a lawyer...or for certain other
selected members of this group who shall remain nameless.:-)
Gunner
wrote:
>On Wed, 29 Jan 2003 03:04:04 GMT, Gunner <gun...@lightspeed.net>
>wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 28 Jan 2003 22:20:02 GMT, "Jeff McCann" <NoS...@noThanks.Com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>Except that the vast majority of civil cases don't involve the
>>>government, they are disputes between private parties. Furthermore,
>>>championing the rights of the little guy as against the government is,
>>>frankly, pretty cool. I do quite a bit of that kind of work.
>>>
>>>Ya wanna be loved? Get a dog!
>>>
>>>8-) Funny you should mention that. I'm planning to, but I haven't
>>>settled on a breed yet.
>>>
>>>Jeff
>>>
>>1. Golden Retriever
>>2. Australian shepherd
>>2. Queensland Heeler
>>4, German shepard (with a hip guarentee)
>>5. Rottwieler
>>6. Hienze 57 from the pound. Anything that tickles your fancy, warms
>>your heart and simply likes you.
>>
>>Hummmm...I wonder if #6 shoulnt be on the top.....
>
>No #3, or cannot you decide between the Aussie dogs? :-)
Blush...
>
>Big on "loyalty" but wouldn't consider either as "loving".
Who could love a lawyer? Sorry!! Just kidding. Perhaps our varieties of
the Aussies are mixed with something else. Loving they are. Fawning?
Hardly. And they have a sense of humor.
>
>...And why a "Golden Retriever" as #1?
Smart as hell, almost self training, big enough and tough enough to act
as some protection, great family dogs, get along well with most other
breeds and cats, a pretty good generic breed history of long life in
good health (one breed the puppy mills havent fucked up) and truely
loving and loyal not just to the direct owner, but to the family as
well. And but for the occasional brushing out, pretty low mainainence
and adapt well to apartments or farms. Plus they dont pig out and eat
everything in sight like many breeds. Also, they have a sense of humor
and a delight in life.
>
>If looking for love and play, perhaps Jeff should get a cocker spaniel
>or something similar.
>
A cocker spanial is a retarded version of a real dog. Helpless, feeble
minded as a rule, can be tempramental in some specimens, hair tends to
knot up and need grooming.
>Although he comes across as a fairly nice bloke [as much as any lawyer
>can do so] am not sure that any dog is the best choice of pet.
>
>Too "fawning". A cat might be better, especially a Siamese cat.:-)
>
>Guaranteed to at least try to put other cats, dogs, and humans in
>"their place".
>
>I cannot think of any finer pet for a lawyer...or for certain other
>selected members of this group who shall remain nameless.:-)
Interesting choice of cat breed..one whom constantly reminds the
owner..Remember Cesaer, thou art mortal.....
Another one would be the Maine Coon Cat, or a cross between a Coon and a
Siamese.. 35lb cat with an attitude....
Gunner
Jason Sheppard
> On Wed, 29 Jan 2003 15:27:03 +1100, erniegalts <ernie...@bigpond.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Wed, 29 Jan 2003 03:04:04 GMT, Gunner <gun...@lightspeed.net>
> >wrote:
> >
> >>On Tue, 28 Jan 2003 22:20:02 GMT, "Jeff McCann" <NoS...@noThanks.Com>
> >>wrote:
> >>>Ya wanna be loved? Get a dog!
> >>>
> >>>8-) Funny you should mention that. I'm planning to, but I haven't
> >>>settled on a breed yet.
> >>>
> >>>Jeff
> >>>
> >>1. Golden Retriever
> >>2. Australian shepherd
> >>2. Queensland Heeler
> >>4, German shepard (with a hip guarentee)
> >>5. Rottwieler
> >>6. Hienze 57 from the pound. Anything that tickles your fancy, warms
> >>your heart and simply likes you.
> >>
> >>Hummmm...I wonder if #6 shoulnt be on the top.....
> >
> >No #3, or cannot you decide between the Aussie dogs? :-)
>
I held off a long time getting a dog. A lot more maintenance than a
cat, but I finally broke down and got a rottweiler runt 18 months ago.
In addition to being the runt, she was underfed her first 6 months.
27 Lbs when I got her and she's all of 60 lbs now and probably won't
get any bigger. Loving to a fault, so smart she knows what I want
without me ever formally training her. Friendly as can be but
menacing just from her very looks. I wasn't a big rotty fan before
getting Stormy but she's turned me around. She still has flashes of
"puppy" (can't resist chasing the cat occasionally, etc) but she's
turned out to be the perfect companion. She goes with me nearly
everywhere, especially when its cool enough for her to stay in the
truck while i run into the store or wherever.
FWIW, If I had to rank the breeds I would want, it would look
something like this:
1. Rottweiler
2. Kuvasz
3. Akita
4. German Shepherd
5. Known crosses that included any of the above
Regards,
Jason
strabo
<NoS...@noThanks.Com> wrote:
>"Jeff McCann" <NoS...@noThanks.Com> wrote in message news:...
>> "Ray Keller" <rayk...@theriver.com> wrote in message
>> news:b0s3ag$1na$0...@206.25.50.83...
>[snip] Because I want to allow my mother the opportunity to enjoy a
>dinner out, a movie, or a shopping trip, does that make me a bad person?
>All I want is for my mother to have a decent life and enjoy the things
>she is still able to do. Is it unreasonable to expect businesses to
>comply
> with the law?
>> Unconstitutional BS
>Would it be wrong if I then sued on my mother's behalf after being
> unable to obtain reasonable compliance through lesser means?
>
> > Untill(sic) you accept and fight for the constitution as it was
>written
> > your(sic) just another whore.
>
>Sorry, Ray. I missed your appointment to the Supreme Court. YOU
>are not the arbiter of the Constitution, what is constitutional, or what
>the Constitution means "as written." See Article I, Section VIII. The
> law is, in fact constitutional.
Sorry, Jeff. In his capacity as private citizen Ray can and will
read the Constitution and take from it that which suits his
interests.
Most Americans don't know, and most, having been conditioned to
the 'Kings' definition, that they may function as *outlaws*.
As a juror he can and will apply his knowledge and opinions to
the case as well as the law by which the accused was brought. And
no law or opinion may be brought to restrain or obstruct him.
And, as a voter he can and will apply his knowledge and opinions
to the decision for government servants regardless of judicial
opinion or law.
The Declaration and the Constitution (with other documentaria)
make clear that the 'people' (the individuals) are sovereign and
should and will have their way.
The people are a separate 'branch' of government whose opinions
weigh more heavily than SCOTUS or the codified law. They are,
and are meant to be, *outlaws*.
Jeff McCann
news:86pe3vsh52uk8874k...@4ax.com...
[snip] Note
> >> also that the recently passed "Patriot Act" greatly reduces the
> >> publication requirements for certain federal agencies.
> >
> >Yes. A vile piece of legislation.
>
> some law or another)
>
> It's the law. Do you think you have the right to question the law?
> Are you prepared to go to prison after breaking a law that you don't
> like? Who the heck do you think you are to be setting yourself up as
> an authority on what the law should be? Who appointed you to the
> Supreme Court?
I never wrote that anyone can't question a law, and you know that. But
I have written that you cannot simply declare a law unconstitutional
yourself and ignore it without consequences. I would love to have a
chance to argue in court that the so-called USA PATRIOT Act is
unconstitutional, and pursuade the court to so rule. That is the only
and proper forum for that, if the legislators haven't done their job.
> (end of paraphrasing)
>
> The ADA is a vile piece of legislation too. But you seem to think
> it's just peachy. Therefore I don't put much reliance on your opinion
> as to the vileness of one law or another.
I think the ADA is, basically, a pretty good law, but, like much such
sweeping legislation, in need of revision. You know what they say,
opinions are like . . .
Have a nice day, Mr. Sturgeon.
Jeff
Jeff McCann
> On Tue, 28 Jan 2003 22:20:02 GMT, "Jeff McCann" <NoS...@noThanks.Com>
> >Ya wanna be loved? Get a dog!
> >
> >8-) Funny you should mention that. I'm planning to, but I haven't
> >settled on a breed yet.
> >
> >Jeff
> >
> 1. Golden Retriever
> 2. Australian shepherd
> 2. Queensland Heeler
> 4, German shepard (with a hip guarentee)
> 5. Rottwieler
> 6. Hienze 57 from the pound. Anything that tickles your fancy, warms
> your heart and simply likes you.
>
> Hummmm...I wonder if #6 shoulnt be on the top.....
Your list was exactly like mine to begin with. I've put off having a
dog because it would be alone too often. But now that my mother lives
with me and they can keep each other company, I think I can have one
again.
My mom doesn't like Rotts or Shepards, so I am currently considering a
Curly Coated Retriever. What do you think?
Jeff
Jeff McCann
news:dfle3vctab6d7l30d...@4ax.com...
> If looking for love and play, perhaps Jeff should get a cocker spaniel
> or something similar.
I knew some Cocker Spaniels as a kid, and I hated 'em. But thanks for
the suggestion.
> Although he comes across as a fairly nice bloke [as much as any lawyer
> can do so] am not sure that any dog is the best choice of pet.
>
> Too "fawning". A cat might be better, especially a Siamese cat.:-)
>
> Guaranteed to at least try to put other cats, dogs, and humans in
> "their place".
>
> I cannot think of any finer pet for a lawyer...or for certain other
> selected members of this group who shall remain nameless.:-)
I've got three cats. Well, actually, they just let me live in their
house. But they treat me very well, all things considered. I need a
dog just to even up the odds a little.
Jeff
Jeff McCann
news:do8g3vofnpcv6bhfr...@4ax.com...
An intersting choice of words, "take from it that which suits his
interests." I was under the impression that it should be taken in its
entirety as the prime authority and expression of the will of the people
in this Republic.
> Most Americans don't know, and most, having been conditioned to
> the 'Kings' definition, that they may function as *outlaws*.
True, of course.
> As a juror he can and will apply his knowledge and opinions to
> the case as well as the law by which the accused was brought. And
> no law or opinion may be brought to restrain or obstruct him.
I'm totally in favor of jury nullification of bad laws or bad
application of good laws.
[snip]
Jeff
rick...@yahoo.com
#4., #1. #6.
#7. Yellow/black Lab
That order.
Rick
Jim
>On Wed, 29 Jan 2003 19:13:09 GMT, "Jeff McCann"
><NoS...@noThanks.Com> wrote:
>
>>"Gunner" <gun...@lightspeed.net> wrote in message
>>news:luge3vs84mk5jro0o...@4ax.com...
>>> On Tue, 28 Jan 2003 22:20:02 GMT, "Jeff McCann" <NoS...@noThanks.Com>
>>[snip]
>>> >Ya wanna be loved? Get a dog!
>>> >
>>> >8-) Funny you should mention that. I'm planning to, but I haven't
>>> >settled on a breed yet.
>>> >
>>> >Jeff
>>> >
>>> 1. Golden Retriever
>>> 2. Australian shepherd
>>> 2. Queensland Heeler
>>> 4, German shepard (with a hip guarentee)
>>> 5. Rottwieler
>>> 6. Hienze 57 from the pound. Anything that tickles your fancy, warms
>>> your heart and simply likes you.
>>>
>>> Hummmm...I wonder if #6 shoulnt be on the top.....
Mutts can be wonderful, but with a pup you won't really know what
you'll get until much later. With an adult, you may have significant
abuse issues to overcome (been there, done that). You are also
unlikely to get any health certificates.
>>Your list was exactly like mine to begin with. I've put off having a
>>dog because it would be alone too often. But now that my mother lives
>>with me and they can keep each other company, I think I can have one
>>again.
>>
>>My mom doesn't like Rotts or Shepards, so I am currently considering a
>>Curly Coated Retriever. What do you think?
>>Jeff
>
>#4., #1. #6.
>#7. Yellow/black Lab
>That order.
>Rick
All dogs/breeds are potentially 'good' for you. I suggest you read
about any breed you are considering. The AKC web site has some
excellent information at: http://www.akc.org/index.cfm
Check out the temperment & physical requirements of any breed you are
considering. Dogs that were bred to work must be given work or they
will be frustrated & unhappy. I chose a Lab because I have 20 acres
with pond & river (labs love water), like to hunt (he will be my
hunting partner), enjoy having a full time companion, and prefer a
larger breed. I also bought the pup from a reputable breeder (my wife
has known them for a *very* long time) that included
hip/elbow/shoulder/eye certifications for parents & grandparents (very
important, especially for larger breeds). The purchase price of a dog
is insignificant compared to the dollars you will spend over the
lifetime of the dog. I paid $350 & it was a bargain.
It is one of the few opportunities to 'purchase' a friend.
Best of luck,
Jim
erniegalts
wrote:
Also pretty territorial and pretty fearless. Can be a bit of a hazard
to strangers, including kids.
>>
>>...And why a "Golden Retriever" as #1?
>Smart as hell, almost self training, big enough and tough enough to act
>as some protection, great family dogs, get along well with most other
>breeds and cats, a pretty good generic breed history of long life in
>good health (one breed the puppy mills havent fucked up) and truely
>loving and loyal not just to the direct owner, but to the family as
>well. And but for the occasional brushing out, pretty low mainainence
>and adapt well to apartments or farms. Plus they dont pig out and eat
>everything in sight like many breeds. Also, they have a sense of humor
>and a delight in life.
True, but not my idea of a useful watchdog or guard dog.
>
>>
>>If looking for love and play, perhaps Jeff should get a cocker spaniel
>>or something similar.
>>
>A cocker spanial is a retarded version of a real dog. Helpless, feeble
>minded as a rule, can be tempramental in some specimens, hair tends to
>knot up and need grooming.
>
>>Although he comes across as a fairly nice bloke [as much as any lawyer
>>can do so] am not sure that any dog is the best choice of pet.
>>
>>Too "fawning". A cat might be better, especially a Siamese cat.:-)
>>
>>Guaranteed to at least try to put other cats, dogs, and humans in
>>"their place".
>>
>>I cannot think of any finer pet for a lawyer...or for certain other
>>selected members of this group who shall remain nameless.:-)
>
>Interesting choice of cat breed..one whom constantly reminds the
>owner..Remember Cesaer, thou art mortal.....
They are a truly unique breed. Have a huge "vocabulary", extending to
"multitone meows" several seconds long. Tempted to try to claim that
when mine reached his first birthday he said "Today I am a cat!" What
could be called a "paw mitzvah" . . . :-)
>
>Another one would be the Maine Coon Cat, or a cross between a Coon and a
>Siamese.. 35lb cat with an attitude....
Have heard of the breed called a "coon cat" but find the claim of a
coon/cat hybrid very hard to swallow. Got proof of it?
Do know that cats and bobcats can interbreed, but they are much more
closely related.
strabo
<NoS...@noThanks.Com> wrote:
>"strabo" <str...@flashmail.com> wrote in message
>news:do8g3vofnpcv6bhfr...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 24 Jan 2003 23:09:56 GMT, "Jeff McCann"
>> <NoS...@noThanks.Com> wrote:
>>
<snipped>
>> Sorry, Jeff. In his capacity as private citizen Ray can and will
>> read the Constitution and take from it that which suits his
>> interests.
>
>An intersting choice of words, "take from it that which suits his
>interests." I was under the impression that it should be taken in its
>entirety as the prime authority and expression of the will of the people
>in this Republic.
Intellectually, yes. But since it is not possible to divorce the
emotional from the intellectual, when judging another it is well
to be aware that one's emotional response tends to color the
intellectual.
So, by "that which suits his interests" I mean that he should
internalize the principles underlying the Rights and Duties, and
not simply memorize them.
>> Most Americans don't know, and most, having been conditioned to
>> the 'Kings' definition, that they may function as *outlaws*.
>
>True, of course.
Glad you understand the concept.
>> As a juror he can and will apply his knowledge and opinions to
>> the case as well as the law by which the accused was brought. And
>> no law or opinion may be brought to restrain or obstruct him.
>
>I'm totally in favor of jury nullification of bad laws or bad
>application of good laws.
As you have said.
>[snip]
>
>Jeff
>
Bob Peterson
This is not about rights, but about sheer brute force wielded by the federal
government to enforce the idea that certain rights (such as the right to
refuse service) no longer existed, at least in some cases.
Bob Peterson
> wrote:
>
> >
> >Except that the vast majority of civil cases don't involve the
> >government, they are disputes between private parties. Furthermore,
> >championing the rights of the little guy as against the government is,
> >frankly, pretty cool. I do quite a bit of that kind of work.
> >
> >Ya wanna be loved? Get a dog!
> >
> >8-) Funny you should mention that. I'm planning to, but I haven't
> >settled on a breed yet.
> >
> >Jeff
> >
> 1. Golden Retriever
> 2. Australian shepherd
> 2. Queensland Heeler
> 4, German shepard (with a hip guarentee)
> 5. Rottwieler
> 6. Hienze 57 from the pound. Anything that tickles your fancy, warms
> your heart and simply likes you.
>
I vote for beagles.
seb...@thegrid.net
Bob Peterson wrote:
>
> "Gunner" <gun...@lightspeed.net> wrote in message
> news:luge3vs84mk5jro0o...@4ax.com...
> > On Tue, 28 Jan 2003 22:20:02 GMT, "Jeff McCann" <NoS...@noThanks.Com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >Except that the vast majority of civil cases don't involve the
> > >government, they are disputes between private parties. Furthermore,
> > >championing the rights of the little guy as against the government is,
> > >frankly, pretty cool. I do quite a bit of that kind of work.
> > >
> > >Ya wanna be loved? Get a dog!
> > >
> > >8-) Funny you should mention that. I'm planning to, but I haven't
> > >settled on a breed yet.
> > >
> > >Jeff
> > >
> > 1. Golden Retriever
> > 2. Australian shepherd
> > 2. Queensland Heeler
> > 4, German shepard (with a hip guarentee)
> > 5. Rottwieler
> > 6. Hienze 57 from the pound. Anything that tickles your fancy, warms
> > your heart and simply likes you.
> >
>
> I vote for beagles.
You may be joking but I'm not. I love Beagles. Had one when I was
growing up. Once he got over the chew everything stage he was a great
dog for companionship and love.
Sue
JohnM
seb...@thegrid.net wrote in message <3E388087...@thegrid.net>...
>
>You may be joking but I'm not. I love Beagles. Had one when I was
>growing up. Once he got over the chew everything stage he was a
great
>dog for companionship and love.
>Sue
I'm just gonna leave that one alone- ok? ;-D
Thank me..
John
Jeff McCann
"JohnM" <eao...@despamcbpu.com> wrote in message
news:3e3891e5$0$127$9a6e...@news.newshosting.com...
Thank you, John, thank you!
seb...@thegrid.net
Oh, I do, most definitely. Blush. How about puppy love. No, there's
no way I can get the image out of my mind. Shudder, blush.
Sue
>
> John
Bob Peterson
<seb...@thegrid.net> wrote in message news:3E388087...@thegrid.net...
I was serious. They are great dogs, and adapt well to indoor or outdoor
living. they are fun and love people and other dogs. they can be
mischievous but are great companion dogs.
I had two that died a year apart a few years back, it was like losing a
close friend each time. The current beagle is now ten. she has had surgery
on both of her ACLs so is now somewhat arthritic but still gets around
pretty good.
seb...@thegrid.net
Bob Peterson wrote:
> > > I vote for beagles.
> >
> > You may be joking but I'm not. I love Beagles. Had one when I was
> > growing up. Once he got over the chew everything stage he was a great
> > dog for companionship and love.
> > Sue
>
> I was serious. They are great dogs, and adapt well to indoor or outdoor
> living. they are fun and love people and other dogs. they can be
> mischievous but are great companion dogs.
>
> I had two that died a year apart a few years back, it was like losing a
> close friend each time. The current beagle is now ten. she has had surgery
> on both of her ACLs so is now somewhat arthritic but still gets around
> pretty good.
Right now I'm so glad to not have to answer to anyone or anything in my
home that I'm glad I don't have a pet. When I do get one it will
probably be a cat because they're so low maintenance. However, were I
to get a dog it would definitely be a Beagle. After raising 4 miserable
rotten kids it would be nice to have something good natured around. ;-)
Sue
Ed Harrison
> This is not about rights, but about sheer brute force wielded by the
> federal government to enforce the idea that certain rights (such as the
> right to refuse service) no longer existed, at least in some cases.
There is no "right" to refuse service in a public marketplace, Bob. It is
a legitimate role of the government to keep the marketplace free and open;
if I cannot offer my goods and services to others because a few want to
shut me out, then the government has a duty to intercede. If you, as a
businessman, what to restrict yourself only to _private_ transactions,
that's okay. But when you open a public place of business, you must be
willing to serve the public.
Joe Kultgen
ernie...@bigpond.com says...
> >Another one would be the Maine Coon Cat, or a cross between a Coon and a
> >Siamese.. 35lb cat with an attitude....
>
> Have heard of the breed called a "coon cat" but find the claim of a
> coon/cat hybrid very hard to swallow. Got proof of it?
>
> Do know that cats and bobcats can interbreed, but they are much more
> closely related.
>
>
Always wanted a Siamese/Bobcat cross, the feline equivalent of a Timber
Shepherd.
Later,
Joe
Jeffrey C. Dege
>
>Have heard of the breed called a "coon cat" but find the claim of a
>coon/cat hybrid very hard to swallow. Got proof of it?
Coon cats aren't 'coons, they are large cats that are colored something
like a 'coon.
--
Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within
limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add
'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's
will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.
- Thomas Jefferson
Joe Kultgen
What part of "free enterprise" don't you understand?
The govt. has no more business telling a merchant he *has* to do business
with a segment of the market he doesn't choose to service, than they
would have telling *you* that you must buy a product from a particular
merchant even if more attractive alternatives are available.
Why is it that boycotting a merchant is both legally and morally
acceptable, but a merchant refusing service is grounds for govt.
intervention?
Later,
Joe
Bob Peterson
"Ed Harrison" <dua...@aaahawk.com> wrote in message
news:b1g04t$lo3$1...@news.chatlink.com...
And just where does the constitution grant the federal government the
authority to determine just who a business wants to have as customers?
rick...@yahoo.com
Dege) wrote:
>On Thu, 30 Jan 2003 09:59:15 +1100, erniegalts <ernie...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>>
>>Have heard of the breed called a "coon cat" but find the claim of a
>>coon/cat hybrid very hard to swallow. Got proof of it?
>
>Coon cats aren't 'coons, they are large cats that are colored something
>like a 'coon.
FWIW.
One of the oldest natural breeds in North America, the Maine Coon
is generally regarded as a native of the state of Maine (in fact,
the Maine Coon is the official Maine State Cat). A number of
attractive legends surround its origin. A wide-spread (though
biologically impossible) belief is that it originated from
matings between semi-wild, domestic cats and raccoons. This myth,
bolstered by the bushy tail and the most common coloring (a
raccoon-like brown tabby) led to the adoption of the name 'Maine
Coon.'
http://www.fanciers.com/breed-faqs/maine-coon-faq.html#History
Rick Bowen
TSRA Life Member
NRA Member
Without the 2nd Amendment,
the rest are just suggestions.
Gunner
>On Thu, 30 Jan 2003 09:59:15 +1100, erniegalts <ernie...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>>
>>Have heard of the breed called a "coon cat" but find the claim of a
>>coon/cat hybrid very hard to swallow. Got proof of it?
>
>Coon cats aren't 'coons, they are large cats that are colored something
>like a 'coon.
I had assumed that Ernie would have checked the link I gave, or run a
websearch.
Gunner
"The only purpose for a gun is to kill something.
If it has no other purpose,it is useless.
There is no other purpose to having a gun,
other than inflicting lethal force on something."
Milt <mi...@law.com) on misc.survivalism 1-19-03
strabo
Good question. Obviously it doesn't.
strabo
The Right to trade is inherent as is the Right to choose with
whom one will trade.
Take the logical end. Is it the legitimate role of the state to
create or force open a market in which no one wants to trade?
Shall the state arrest and hold at gunpoint manufacturers,
distributors, sellers and buyers?
The state has imposed itself in the interest of its corporate
counterparts and not in the interests of the individuals who must
live with their actions. For the individual there is good reason
not to sell to one who is diametrically opposed in principle or
ethics.
This unconstitutional action by the state is another way by which
a moral consensus of the people is thwarted leading to further
social pathos.
dan
Dan
--
"Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak;
courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen."
- Unknown -
Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level then beat you
with experience.
- Unknown -
"Rudeness is a weak person's imitation of strength."
- Unknown -
"Bob Peterson" <peter...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:zvS_9.116677$Ve4.7629@sccrnsc03...
erniegalts
wrote:
>jd...@jdege.visi.com (Jeffrey C. Dege) wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 30 Jan 2003 09:59:15 +1100, erniegalts <ernie...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>Have heard of the breed called a "coon cat" but find the claim of a
>>>coon/cat hybrid very hard to swallow. Got proof of it?
>>
>>Coon cats aren't 'coons, they are large cats that are colored something
>>like a 'coon.
>
>I had assumed that Ernie would have checked the link I gave, or run a
>websearch.
>
>Gunner
At the time I wrote the answer was probably either offline or couldn't
get through to server. Can be very busy at certain times.
In any case would automatically challenge an interbreeding claim
between such diverse species.:-)
erniegalts
erniegalts
<rst...@inreach.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 01 Feb 2003 18:03:37 GMT, Gunner <gun...@lightspeed.net>
>wrote:
>
>>jd...@jdege.visi.com (Jeffrey C. Dege) wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 30 Jan 2003 09:59:15 +1100, erniegalts <ernie...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>Have heard of the breed called a "coon cat" but find the claim of a
>>>>coon/cat hybrid very hard to swallow. Got proof of it?
>>>
>>>Coon cats aren't 'coons, they are large cats that are colored something
>>>like a 'coon.
>>
>>I had assumed that Ernie would have checked the link I gave, or run a
>>websearch.
>
>... complete with the number of hits and the elapsed time... who
>cares???
I do that in case someone wants to check other references under same
search I ran. Highlighting the top line of the Google results then
pasting it in the post is simply the quickest and easiest way to
convey the info.
erniegalts
>
>>Gunner
>>
>>"The only purpose for a gun is to kill something.
>> If it has no other purpose,it is useless.
>> There is no other purpose to having a gun,
>> other than inflicting lethal force on something."
>
>I'm going to inflict lethal force on some clay pigeons this weekend.
>
>> Milt <mi...@law.com) on misc.survivalism 1-19-03
>
>Milt is an idiot.
erniegalts
wrote:
Must admit have thought about this as well. Wonder if anyone has ever
done it?
Siamese can be hard enough on dogs. A bobcat/siamese cross would
probably make most dogs give up on the pursuit of cats. :-)
erniegalts
erniegalts
Thanks for info and URL, Rick, just had a look at it. Sounds like an
interesting breed.
erniegalts
Joe Kultgen
ernie...@bigpond.com says...
Definitely low maintenance though. It don't need no steenkin' humans
just to get the cat food out of the bag. :-)
Later,
Joe
strabo
Yep. Sitting here and looking at one now. He's about 14 years old
and doesn't take to the house. He has fur tuffs at the ends of
his ears and has a thick ruff. As the seasons change his coat
changes dramatically in color and thickness.
Wordblind
I rate lawyers right up there with politicians, televangelists,
> child molesters,
But some people who have sex with children do not harm or exploit
them, so you might be making a mistake here.
Ed Harrison
>
> But some people who have sex with children do not harm or exploit
> them, so you might be making a mistake here.
True, but irrelevant. Those who DO do harm are more than enough to taint
the whole. And few persons who have sex with minors have both the knowledge
AND the objectivity to honestly weigh the risks.
El Stupeedo
Those who DO do harm are more than enough to taint
> the whole.
Only if the mistake in perception is not corrected by the press and
government and general public.
And few persons who have sex with minors have both the knowledge
> AND the objectivity to honestly weigh the risks.
They majority may indeed have both but we do not know about them
because their cases are not publicized.
el stupeedo
Ed Harrison
> Ed Harrison <dua...@aaahawk.com> wrote in message
> news:<b1n94k$jq4$2...@news.chatlink.com>...
>
> Those who DO do harm are more than enough to taint
>> the whole.
>
> Only if the mistake in perception is not corrected by the press and
> government and general public.
I'm not convinced it IS a mistake in perceptions, El. Those persons whom I
personally have spoken with who were sexually initiated by an adult while a
minor have uniformly reported the experience as harmful. I am the only
person I know who had a good experience.
> And few persons who have sex with minors have both the knowledge
>> AND the objectivity to honestly weigh the risks.
>
> They majority may indeed have both but we do not know about them
> because their cases are not publicized.
Sorry, but I have to disagree. I know _very_ few people who are objective
about their sex lives! Most of us rely on our partners to weigh the risks
for themselves, which just isn't reliable in the case of minors. Nor do
most of us have either the experience or the formal training to estimate
such harm.
Now, if our society as a whole didn't have such a taboo about sex with
minors, more of us might have such experience. Certainly there have been
cultures in which adolescents were introduced to sex by their elders as
part of a rite of passage. But that han't been the case in the West for
hundreds of years, so we've lost that wisdom. It pretty much died out when
fatherhood became important in terms of inheritance.
So it seems unlikely in the extreme that there is a secret vast subculture
of adults successfully initiating children into the mysteries of sex.