Ok, I was wrong about the Supreme Court
Kevin Gowen
not a conservative body that made a purely political decision in Bush v.
Gore. Now I must stand corrected. On Monday, the Court upheld affirmative
action and today it struck down a law banning gay sex.
It is clear to me that someone must stop these right wing ideologues.
--
Kevin Gowen
John W.
> action and today it struck down a law banning gay sex.
>
And the problem is....
JOhn W.
Michael Cash
the alphabet and kept on going with:
>"Kevin Gowen" <kgowen...@myfastmail.com> wrote in message news:<bdf175$shppc$1...@ID-105084.news.dfncis.de>...
>
>> action and today it struck down a law banning gay sex.
>>
>And the problem is....
Not "problem". "Point".
--
Michael Cash
"There was a time, Mr. Cash, when I believed you must be the most useless
thing in the world. But that was before I read a Microsoft help file."
Prof. Ernest T. Bass
Mount Pilot College
John W.
> On 26 Jun 2003 12:09:10 -0700, worth...@yahoo.com (John W.) belched
> the alphabet and kept on going with:
>
> >"Kevin Gowen" <kgowen...@myfastmail.com> wrote in message news:<bdf175$shppc$1...@ID-105084.news.dfncis.de>...
> >
> >> action and today it struck down a law banning gay sex.
> >>
> >And the problem is....
>
> Not "problem". "Point".
>
John W.
Brett Robson
>
>For over two year I have told apoplectic leftists that the Supreme Court was
>not a conservative body that made a purely political decision in Bush v.
>Gore. Now I must stand corrected. On Monday,
30 years after the South Australian parliament did the same thing,
> the Court ... struck down a law banning gay sex.
>
>It is clear to me that someone must stop these right wing ideologues.
>
The first intelligent thing you've ever said.
---
"he [John Ashcroft] deliberately left Jesus out of office prayers to avoid
offending non-Christians." - Ben Shapiro 27/2/2003
Darrien
So, uh... you wanna come back to my place?
Kevin Gowen
Do you have an Xbox?
--
Kevin Gowen
"When I'm president, we'll do executive orders to overcome any wrong
thing the Supreme Court does tomorrow or any other day." Dick Gephardt
(D-MO), presidential candidate
Darrien
> >> For over two year I have told apoplectic leftists that the Supreme
> >> Court was not a conservative body that made a purely political
> >> decision in Bush v. Gore. Now I must stand corrected. On Monday, the
> >> Court upheld affirmative action and today it struck down a law
> >> banning gay sex.
> >>
> >> It is clear to me that someone must stop these right wing ideologues.
> >>
> >
> > So, uh... you wanna come back to my place?
>
> Do you have an Xbox?
>
No, I'm wating for the prices to come down a bit more.
I'm still trying to decide between an Xbox or GC.
The PS2 has RPGs and Metal Gear, so I'm going to get a PS2 for sure.
The Xbox seems to have alot of FPSs, but I'm not very fond of those.
The GC has Zelda... I miss Zelda.
I have a Playstation and a Dreamcast though.
Michael Cash
the alphabet and kept on going with:
>Michael Cash <mike...@sunfield.ne.jp> wrote in message news:<bfjmfvst2d6gcsfjc...@4ax.com>...
>> On 26 Jun 2003 12:09:10 -0700, worth...@yahoo.com (John W.) belched
>> the alphabet and kept on going with:
>>
>> >"Kevin Gowen" <kgowen...@myfastmail.com> wrote in message news:<bdf175$shppc$1...@ID-105084.news.dfncis.de>...
>> >
>> >> action and today it struck down a law banning gay sex.
>> >>
>> >And the problem is....
>>
>> Not "problem". "Point".
>>
>It's not polite to point.
Good thing. I'm not polite.
Kevin Gowen
>>>> For over two year I have told apoplectic leftists that the Supreme
>>>> Court was not a conservative body that made a purely political
>>>> decision in Bush v. Gore. Now I must stand corrected. On Monday,
>>>> the Court upheld affirmative action and today it struck down a law
>>>> banning gay sex.
>>>>
>>>> It is clear to me that someone must stop these right wing
>>>> ideologues.
>>>>
>>>
>>> So, uh... you wanna come back to my place?
>>
>> Do you have an Xbox?
>>
>
> No, I'm wating for the prices to come down a bit more.
How low do you want them to get? New ones run $180 and the refurbished ones
go for $150. I have one of the refurbished ones.
> I'm still trying to decide between an Xbox or GC.
Get the Xbox.
> The PS2 has RPGs and Metal Gear, so I'm going to get a PS2 for sure.
> The Xbox seems to have alot of FPSs, but I'm not very fond of those.
I think it has good variety.
> The GC has Zelda... I miss Zelda.
>
> I have a Playstation and a Dreamcast though.
I don't suppose you're going to play Star Wars Galaxies? Last night's launch
was such a clusterfuck. The servers still aren't up. I made a real funny
about it in one of the forums.
Rodney Webster
"Kevin Gowen" <kgowen...@myfastmail.com> wrote:
> I don't suppose you're going to play Star Wars Galaxies? Last night's launch
> was such a clusterfuck. The servers still aren't up. I made a real funny
> about it in one of the forums.
Does that mean you have bought a copy? Comments would be appreciate as
I am tempted to buy it, though the idea of having to pay a monthly fee
to play a game dampens my enthusiasm.
--
Rodney Webster
http://knot.mine.nu/
Kevin Gowen
> On 26 Jun 2003 19:07:12 -0700, worth...@yahoo.com (John W.) belched
> the alphabet and kept on going with:
>
>> Michael Cash <mike...@sunfield.ne.jp> wrote in message
>> news:<bfjmfvst2d6gcsfjc...@4ax.com>...
>>> On 26 Jun 2003 12:09:10 -0700, worth...@yahoo.com (John W.)
>>> belched
>>> the alphabet and kept on going with:
>>>
>>>> "Kevin Gowen" <kgowen...@myfastmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:<bdf175$shppc$1...@ID-105084.news.dfncis.de>...
>>>>
>>>>> action and today it struck down a law banning gay sex.
>>>>>
>>>> And the problem is....
>>>
>>> Not "problem". "Point".
>>>
>> It's not polite to point.
>
> Good thing. I'm not polite.
Neither am I.
To answer John's question, there are problems with this decision,
although that was not the point I was making with my original post. I'm
still reading and digesting it but some things have stuck out so far. First,
I don't think certiorari should have even been granted. I think that this
case did not raise a federal question and that the two men involved should
have used the legislative process of Texas to right what they felt was an
unjust law. I hasten to add that this issue is one that has been dying on
the vine for years. Before 1961, all states and D.C. had sodomy statutes. By
_Bowers_ in 1986, they were only in 24 states and D.C., and only 13 states
at the time this case was filed. This was all accomplished through state
legislatures and courts.
First, I think it should be noted that O'Connor, while concurring, does
not join the majority in overturning _Bowers_, thus _Bowers_ was overturned
by 5-4 rather than 6-3 as been reported.
As far as Scalia's dissenting opinion is concerned, it rightly points out
that the overturning of _Bowers_ is ludicrous. I quote:
"Though there is discussion of “fundamental proposition[s],” ante, at 4,
and “fundamental decisions,” ibid. nowhere does the Court’s opinion
declare that homosexual sodomy is a “fundamental right” under the Due
Process Clause; nor does it subject the Texas law to the standard of review
that would be appropriate (strict scrutiny) if homosexual sodomy were a
“fundamental right.” Thus, while overruling the outcome of _Bowers_, the
Court leaves strangely untouched its central legal conclusion:
“[R]espondent would have us announce . . . a fundamental right to en-gage
in homosexual sodomy. This we are quite unwilling to do.” 478 U. S., at
191. Instead the Court simply describes petitioners’ conduct as “an
exercise of their liberty”?which it undoubtedly is?and proceeds to apply an
unheard-of form of rational-basis review that will have far-reaching
implications beyond this case."
Since the majority cannot overturn _Bowers_ on legal grounds, it has to
turn to public opinion. The majority makes an appeal to the widespread
public criticism of _Bowers_ as a reason for overruling it, yet in the
abortion case of _Planned Parenthood v. Casey_, the widespread public
criticism of _Roe v. Wade_ is cited as a reason for upholding that case. A
results-oriented approach to stare decisis has been set forth.
I'm with Scalia on this one. The majority talks about liberty, but there
is no right to liberty, and even the majority agrees that no fundamental
right was violated in this case i.e. a right to commit sodomy. I think this
excerpt from the dissent sums up my thoughts rather well:
"Let me be clear that I have nothing against homosexuals, or any other
group, promoting their agenda through normal democratic means. Social
perceptions of sexual and other morality change over time, and every group
has the right to persuade its fellow citizens that its view of such matters
is the best. That homosexuals have achieved some success in that enterprise
is attested to by the fact that Texas is one of the few remaining States
that criminalize private, consensual homosexual acts. But persuading one’s
fellow citizens is one thing, and imposing one’s views in absence of
democratic majority will is something else. I would no more require a State
to criminalize homosexual acts?or, for that matter, display any moral
disapprobation of them?than I would forbid it to do so. What Texas has
chosen to do is well within the range of traditional democratic action, and
its hand should not be stayed through the invention of a brand-new
“constitutional right” by a Court that is impatient of democratic change.
It is indeed true that “later generations can see that laws once thought
necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress,” ante, at 18; and when
that happens, later generations can repeal those laws. But it is the premise
of our system that those judgments are to be made by the people, and not
imposed by a governing caste that knows best.
The opinions can be viewed in PDF format at
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/02slipopinion.html
The sodomy case is _Lawrence v. Texas_, and the two affirmative action
cases are _Gratz_ and _Grutter_.
Kevin Gowen
> In article <bdhgei$sqt09$1...@ID-105084.news.dfncis.de>,
> "Kevin Gowen" <kgowen...@myfastmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I don't suppose you're going to play Star Wars Galaxies? Last
>> night's launch was such a clusterfuck. The servers still aren't up.
>> I made a real funny about it in one of the forums.
>
> Does that mean you have bought a copy?
Indeed I have. Picked up my reserved copy yesterday.
> Comments would be appreciated
> as
> I am tempted to buy it, though the idea of having to pay a monthly fee
> to play a game dampens my enthusiasm.
I'll be glad to give you reviews and updates once things get off the ground
and I start getting into gameplay. While all the clusterfucks have been
frustrating so far, the situation is SOP for the release of such an online
game. My understanding is that EverQuest took 4 days to get of the ground
after initial release.
Your statement about monthly fees leads me to believe that you've never been
a subscriber to such a game before. The price isn't that bad considering the
hours you're likely to spend playing it. This will be my third one after
Ultima Online and EverQuest. I'm looking forward to this one not only
because it is Star Wars but also because of the game system. It's not
level-based, which should hopefully eliminate the kill-loot-sell-level
up-repeat monotony of so many online RPGs. The other thing I like is that
the economy of the game is player-based rather than NPC-based.
The game is extremely graphics-intensive and the screenshots and trailers
look great. Hopefully the servers will be up when I get home from work and
then I can give more helpful comments then.
Eric Takabayashi
> Michael Cash wrote:
> > On 26 Jun 2003 19:07:12 -0700, worth...@yahoo.com (John W.) belched
> > the alphabet and kept on going with:
> >
> >> Michael Cash <mike...@sunfield.ne.jp> wrote in message
> >> news:<bfjmfvst2d6gcsfjc...@4ax.com>...
> >>> On 26 Jun 2003 12:09:10 -0700, worth...@yahoo.com (John W.)
> >>> belched
> >>> the alphabet and kept on going with:
> >>>
> >>>> "Kevin Gowen" <kgowen...@myfastmail.com> wrote in message
> >>>> news:<bdf175$shppc$1...@ID-105084.news.dfncis.de>...
> >>>>
> >>>>> action and today it struck down a law banning gay sex.
> >>>>>
> >>>> And the problem is....
> >>>
> >>> Not "problem". "Point".
> >>>
> >> It's not polite to point.
> >
> > Good thing. I'm not polite.
>
> Neither am I.
>
> To answer John's question, there are problems with this decision,
Never mind your arguments below. The decision was the decision. Do you accept
it as law or not?
Kevin Gowen
> Kevin Gowen wrote:
>
>> Michael Cash wrote:
>>> On 26 Jun 2003 19:07:12 -0700, worth...@yahoo.com (John W.)
>>> belched
>>> the alphabet and kept on going with:
>>>
>>>> Michael Cash <mike...@sunfield.ne.jp> wrote in message
>>>> news:<bfjmfvst2d6gcsfjc...@4ax.com>...
>>>>> On 26 Jun 2003 12:09:10 -0700, worth...@yahoo.com (John W.)
>>>>> belched
>>>>> the alphabet and kept on going with:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Kevin Gowen" <kgowen...@myfastmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:<bdf175$shppc$1...@ID-105084.news.dfncis.de>...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> action and today it struck down a law banning gay sex.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> And the problem is....
>>>>>
>>>>> Not "problem". "Point".
>>>>>
>>>> It's not polite to point.
>>>
>>> Good thing. I'm not polite.
>>
>> Neither am I.
>>
>> To answer John's question, there are problems with this decision,
>
> Never mind your arguments below. The decision was the decision. Do
> you accept it as law or not?
Of course I do. What's the purpose of that question?
Eric Takabayashi
> Eric Takabayashi wrote:
> > Kevin Gowen wrote:
> >
> >> Michael Cash wrote:
> >>> On 26 Jun 2003 19:07:12 -0700, worth...@yahoo.com (John W.)
> >>> belched
> >>> the alphabet and kept on going with:
> >>>
> >>>> Michael Cash <mike...@sunfield.ne.jp> wrote in message
> >>>> news:<bfjmfvst2d6gcsfjc...@4ax.com>...
> >>>>> On 26 Jun 2003 12:09:10 -0700, worth...@yahoo.com (John W.)
> >>>>> belched
> >>>>> the alphabet and kept on going with:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> "Kevin Gowen" <kgowen...@myfastmail.com> wrote in message
> >>>>>> news:<bdf175$shppc$1...@ID-105084.news.dfncis.de>...
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> action and today it struck down a law banning gay sex.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> And the problem is....
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Not "problem". "Point".
> >>>>>
> >>>> It's not polite to point.
> >>>
> >>> Good thing. I'm not polite.
> >>
> >> Neither am I.
> >>
> >> To answer John's question, there are problems with this decision,
> >
> > Never mind your arguments below. The decision was the decision. Do
> > you accept it as law or not?
>
> Of course I do.
Why, if you think there are problems with the decision? Should that decision
have been made or not?
> What's the purpose of that question?
I'd like to see you reconcile your view of the validity of the law and the
Supreme Court with your arguments against them.
Kevin Gowen
Because Article III of the Constitution makes the Supreme Court of the
United States, not Kevin Gowen, the final court of appeal. See _Marbury v.
Madison_ for more information on this.
> Should that
> decision have been made or not?
If you would have read what I wrote below, you would know the answer to that
question.
>> What's the purpose of that question?
>
> I'd like to see you reconcile your view of the validity of the law
> and the Supreme Court with your arguments against them.
What's to reconcile? The decisions of the Supreme Court are the law of the
land. The fact that I disagree with the decision doesn't change that fact.
Eric Takabayashi
So how or why can you disagree?
Kevin Gowen
I don't understand the question. The fact that a person disagrees with a law
does not make it not be law. The main drag adjacent to my street has a speed
limit of 35 mph. I disagree with that limit; I think it should be higher.
However, my disagreement does not change the fact that the speed limit on
that particular segment of road is 35 mph. While my intellect is indeed
powerful, I am still unable to alter reality solely through the use of my
brainwaves.
>>> Should that
>>> decision have been made or not?
>>
>> If you would have read what I wrote below, you would know the answer
>> to that question.
>>
>>>> What's the purpose of that question?
>>>
>>> I'd like to see you reconcile your view of the validity of the law
>>> and the Supreme Court with your arguments against them.
>>
>> What's to reconcile? The decisions of the Supreme Court are the law
>> of the land. The fact that I disagree with the decision doesn't
>> change that fact.
--
Eric Takabayashi
> >>>>>> To answer John's question, there are problems with this
> >>>>>> decision,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Never mind your arguments below. The decision was the decision. Do
> >>>>> you accept it as law or not?
> >>>>
> >>>> Of course I do.
> >>>
> >>> Why, if you think there are problems with the decision?
> >>
> >> Because Article III of the Constitution makes the Supreme Court of
> >> the United States, not Kevin Gowen, the final court of appeal. See
> >> _Marbury v. Madison_ for more information on this.
> >
> > So how or why can you disagree?
>
> I don't understand the question. The fact that a person disagrees with a law
> does not make it not be law.
Even if as you seem to argue, there are problems? You accept problematic or
flawed decisions as law?
Can you kindly elaborate on this, please?
"But it is the premise of our system that those judgments are to be made by the
people, and not imposed by a governing caste that knows best."
> The main drag adjacent to my street has a speed
> limit of 35 mph. I disagree with that limit; I think it should be higher.
> However, my disagreement does not change the fact that the speed limit on
> that particular segment of road is 35 mph. While my intellect is indeed
> powerful, I am still unable to alter reality solely through the use of my
> brainwaves.
No, you do not affect reality, which is also precisely why the law dictating
that 35 mph is the proper limit has nothing to do with reality of what the
proper speed for safety or any other concerns, actually is. The proper driving
speed simply is, though it may depend on variable factors such as weather and
visibility.
Darrien
> >>>> Court was not a conservative body that made a purely political
> >>>> decision in Bush v. Gore. Now I must stand corrected. On Monday,
> >>>> the Court upheld affirmative action and today it struck down a law
> >>>> banning gay sex.
> >>>>
> >>>> It is clear to me that someone must stop these right wing
> >>>> ideologues.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> So, uh... you wanna come back to my place?
> >>
> >> Do you have an Xbox?
> >>
> >
> > No, I'm wating for the prices to come down a bit more.
>
> How low do you want them to get? New ones run $180 and the refurbished ones
> go for $150. I have one of the refurbished ones.
>
OK, it's now on my list. Right after new HDD and before new underwear.
> ...
> I don't suppose you're going to play Star Wars Galaxies? Last night's launch
> was such a clusterfuck. The servers still aren't up. I made a real funny
> about it in one of the forums.
>
No, the only game I play online is Diablo II.
I'm not a big console gamer, even if I wanted to be, NT 4.0 has almost no
support for games.
Kevin Gowen
> Kevin Gowen wrote:
>
>>>>>>>> To answer John's question, there are problems with this
>>>>>>>> decision,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Never mind your arguments below. The decision was the decision.
>>>>>>> Do
>>>>>>> you accept it as law or not?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Of course I do.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why, if you think there are problems with the decision?
>>>>
>>>> Because Article III of the Constitution makes the Supreme Court of
>>>> the United States, not Kevin Gowen, the final court of appeal. See
>>>> _Marbury v. Madison_ for more information on this.
>>>
>>> So how or why can you disagree?
>>
>> I don't understand the question. The fact that a person disagrees
>> with a law does not make it not be law.
>
> Even if as you seem to argue, there are problems?
Yes. The decisions of the Supreme Court are the law even if Kevin Gowen
finds them to contain problems.
> You accept
> problematic or flawed decisions as law?
Yes. What other choice is there?
> Can you kindly elaborate on this, please?
>
> "But it is the premise of our system that those judgments are to be
> made by the people, and not imposed by a governing caste that knows
> best."
What sort of elaboration would you like?
>> The main drag adjacent to my street has a speed
>> limit of 35 mph. I disagree with that limit; I think it should be
>> higher. However, my disagreement does not change the fact that the
>> speed limit on that particular segment of road is 35 mph. While my
>> intellect is indeed powerful, I am still unable to alter reality
>> solely through the use of my brainwaves.
>
> No, you do not affect reality, which is also precisely why the law
> dictating that 35 mph is the proper limit has nothing to do with
> reality of what the proper speed for safety or any other concerns,
> actually is. The proper driving speed simply is, though it may depend
> on variable factors such as weather and visibility.
Likewise, this decision of the court simply is.
Kevin Gowen
>>>>>> For over two year I have told apoplectic leftists that the
>>>>>> Supreme Court was not a conservative body that made a purely
>>>>>> political decision in Bush v. Gore. Now I must stand corrected.
>>>>>> On Monday,
>>>>>> the Court upheld affirmative action and today it struck down a
>>>>>> law banning gay sex.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is clear to me that someone must stop these right wing
>>>>>> ideologues.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So, uh... you wanna come back to my place?
>>>>
>>>> Do you have an Xbox?
>>>>
>>>
>>> No, I'm wating for the prices to come down a bit more.
>>
>> How low do you want them to get? New ones run $180 and the
>> refurbished ones go for $150. I have one of the refurbished ones.
>>
>
> OK, it's now on my list. Right after new HDD and before new underwear.
How big will the new HDD be?
>> ...
>> I don't suppose you're going to play Star Wars Galaxies? Last
>> night's launch was such a clusterfuck. The servers still aren't up.
>> I made a real funny about it in one of the forums.
>>
>
> No, the only game I play online is Diablo II.
>
> I'm not a big console gamer, even if I wanted to be,
I'm not much of one either, actually. All I can say is: Dead or Alive Xtreme
Beach Volleyball.
> NT 4.0 has
> almost no support for games.
Then the answer is clear.
Eric Takabayashi
> Eric Takabayashi wrote:
> > Kevin Gowen wrote:
> >
> >>>>>>>> To answer John's question, there are problems with this
> >>>>>>>> decision,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Never mind your arguments below. The decision was the decision.
> >>>>>>> Do
> >>>>>>> you accept it as law or not?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Of course I do.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Why, if you think there are problems with the decision?
> >>>>
> >>>> Because Article III of the Constitution makes the Supreme Court of
> >>>> the United States, not Kevin Gowen, the final court of appeal. See
> >>>> _Marbury v. Madison_ for more information on this.
> >>>
> >>> So how or why can you disagree?
> >>
> >> I don't understand the question. The fact that a person disagrees
> >> with a law does not make it not be law.
> >
> > Even if as you seem to argue, there are problems?
>
> Yes. The decisions of the Supreme Court are the law even if Kevin Gowen
> finds them to contain problems.
But it is not merely you saying so. You have cites. Are they valid or not?
> > You accept
> > problematic or flawed decisions as law?
>
> Yes. What other choice is there?
Obeying or doing what is actually right.
> > Can you kindly elaborate on this, please?
> >
> > "But it is the premise of our system that those judgments are to be
> > made by the people, and not imposed by a governing caste that knows
> > best."
>
> What sort of elaboration would you like?
Is the Supreme Court the law or not?
> >> The main drag adjacent to my street has a speed
> >> limit of 35 mph. I disagree with that limit; I think it should be
> >> higher. However, my disagreement does not change the fact that the
> >> speed limit on that particular segment of road is 35 mph. While my
> >> intellect is indeed powerful, I am still unable to alter reality
> >> solely through the use of my brainwaves.
> >
> > No, you do not affect reality, which is also precisely why the law
> > dictating that 35 mph is the proper limit has nothing to do with
> > reality of what the proper speed for safety or any other concerns,
> > actually is. The proper driving speed simply is, though it may depend
> > on variable factors such as weather and visibility.
>
> Likewise, this decision of the court simply is.
But the decision of the court and what is written in the Constitution do
not determine reality.
Kevin Gowen
I see. So private citizens or public servants who disagree with a court
decision should disregard it in order to do what is actually right. Got it.
>>> Can you kindly elaborate on this, please?
>>>
>>> "But it is the premise of our system that those judgments are to be
>>> made by the people, and not imposed by a governing caste that knows
>>> best."
>>
>> What sort of elaboration would you like?
>
> Is the Supreme Court the law or not?
Asked and answered.
> But the decision of the court and what is written in the Constitution
> do not determine reality.
They most certainly determine the reality of what the law is.
Eric Takabayashi
> Eric Takabayashi wrote:
> > Kevin Gowen wrote:
> >
> >> Eric Takabayashi wrote:
> >>> Kevin Gowen wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>>>>>>> To answer John's question, there are problems with this
> >>>>>>>>>> decision,
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Never mind your arguments below. The decision was the
> >>>>>>>>> decision. Do
> >>>>>>>>> you accept it as law or not?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Of course I do.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Why, if you think there are problems with the decision?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Because Article III of the Constitution makes the Supreme Court
> >>>>>> of the United States, not Kevin Gowen, the final court of
> >>>>>> appeal. See _Marbury v. Madison_ for more information on this.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> So how or why can you disagree?
> >>>>
> >>>> I don't understand the question. The fact that a person disagrees
> >>>> with a law does not make it not be law.
> >>>
> >>> Even if as you seem to argue, there are problems?
> >>
> >> Yes. The decisions of the Supreme Court are the law even if Kevin
> >> Gowen finds them to contain problems.
> >
> > But it is not merely you saying so. You have cites. Are they valid or
> > not?
>
> I don't understand the question.
It is not Kevin's "findings" that there are problems. There either are
problems, or there are not.
> >>> You accept
> >>> problematic or flawed decisions as law?
> >>
> >> Yes. What other choice is there?
> >
> > Obeying or doing what is actually right.
>
> I see. So private citizens or public servants who disagree with a court
> decision should disregard it in order to do what is actually right.
If a law is wrong, as laws have been in the past, or as seen in other nations
or forms of government.
> Got it.
Why would that be a problem? It was you who posted "It is indeed true that
'later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact
serve only to oppress.'"
> >>> Can you kindly elaborate on this, please?
> >>>
> >>> "But it is the premise of our system that those judgments are to be
> >>> made by the people, and not imposed by a governing caste that knows
> >>> best."
> >>
> >> What sort of elaboration would you like?
> >
> > Is the Supreme Court the law or not?
>
> Asked and answered.
So what does "But it is the premise of our system that those judgments are to
be made by the people, and not imposed by a governing caste that knows best."
mean?
> > But the decision of the court and what is written in the Constitution
> > do not determine reality.
>
> They most certainly determine the reality of what the law is.
The law does not determine reality of a single proper speed limit on your
street, any more than it determines whether anything else is proper.
Kevin Gowen
I still don't understand the point you are trying to make.
>>>>> You accept
>>>>> problematic or flawed decisions as law?
>>>>
>>>> Yes. What other choice is there?
>>>
>>> Obeying or doing what is actually right.
>>
>> I see. So private citizens or public servants who disagree with a
>> court decision should disregard it in order to do what is actually
>> right.
>
> If a law is wrong, as laws have been in the past, or as seen in other
> nations or forms of government.
Whoa. What a bizarre statement, especially the part about other nations.
>> Got it.
>
> Why would that be a problem?
It's only a problem if you don't want the National Guard showing up at your
doorstep. Just ask George Wallace.
> It was you who posted "It is indeed true
> that 'later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and
> proper in fact serve only to oppress.'"
Yes, I did, a statement that refers to the legislative process, not obeying
and disregarding law as one damn well pleases.
>>>>> Can you kindly elaborate on this, please?
>>>>>
>>>>> "But it is the premise of our system that those judgments are to
>>>>> be made by the people, and not imposed by a governing caste that
>>>>> knows best."
>>>>
>>>> What sort of elaboration would you like?
>>>
>>> Is the Supreme Court the law or not?
>>
>> Asked and answered.
>
> So what does "But it is the premise of our system that those
> judgments are to be made by the people, and not imposed by a
> governing caste that knows best." mean?
Is that the judgments he was referring to are to be made by the people
through their legislature, not judical decision.
>>> But the decision of the court and what is written in the
>>> Constitution
>>> do not determine reality.
>>
>> They most certainly determine the reality of what the law is.
>
> The law does not determine reality of a single proper speed limit on
> your street, any more than it determines whether anything else is
> proper.
I never said anything about proper. I only talked about what the legal speed
limit is.
Eric Takabayashi
> >>>>> You accept
> >>>>> problematic or flawed decisions as law?
> >>>>
> >>>> Yes. What other choice is there?
> >>>
> >>> Obeying or doing what is actually right.
> >>
> >> I see. So private citizens or public servants who disagree with a
> >> court decision should disregard it in order to do what is actually
> >> right.
> >
> > If a law is wrong, as laws have been in the past, or as seen in other
> > nations or forms of government.
>
> Whoa. What a bizarre statement, especially the part about other nations.
Why? Should we obey "oppressive" laws instead?
> >> Got it.
> >
> > Why would that be a problem?
>
> It's only a problem if you don't want the National Guard showing up at your
> doorstep. Just ask George Wallace.
Depends on the seriousness of the improper law disregarded, and the will to do
what is right in face of any penalty.
> > It was you who posted "It is indeed true
> > that 'later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and
> > proper in fact serve only to oppress.'"
>
> Yes, I did, a statement that refers to the legislative process, not obeying
> and disregarding law as one damn well pleases.
It is not disregarding law as "one damn well pleases", it is doing what is
actually right, in spite of what one would actually like to do.
Why are you not mentioning Kant of late?
> >>> But the decision of the court and what is written in the
> >>> Constitution
> >>> do not determine reality.
> >>
> >> They most certainly determine the reality of what the law is.
> >
> > The law does not determine reality of a single proper speed limit on
> > your street, any more than it determines whether anything else is
> > proper.
>
> I never said anything about proper. I only talked about what the legal speed
> limit is.
Would you care to talk about what the proper speed limit on your street is,
under any given conditions, for you and your car?
Kevin Gowen
> Kevin Gowen wrote:
>
>>>>>>> You accept
>>>>>>> problematic or flawed decisions as law?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes. What other choice is there?
>>>>>
>>>>> Obeying or doing what is actually right.
>>>>
>>>> I see. So private citizens or public servants who disagree with a
>>>> court decision should disregard it in order to do what is actually
>>>> right.
>>>
>>> If a law is wrong, as laws have been in the past, or as seen in
>>> other nations or forms of government.
>>
>> Whoa. What a bizarre statement, especially the part about other
>> nations.
>
> Why? Should we obey "oppressive" laws instead?
Why not? How do you decide whether or not to obey a law. For example, how
did you decide to disobey the Japanese laws regarding the carrying of a
concealed weapon.
>>>> Got it.
>>>
>>> Why would that be a problem?
>>
>> It's only a problem if you don't want the National Guard showing up
>> at your doorstep. Just ask George Wallace.
>
> Depends on the seriousness of the improper law disregarded, and the
> will to do what is right in face of any penalty.
How do you know if a law is improper? Is there an imperative to disobey
improper laws?
>>> It was you who posted "It is indeed true
>>> that 'later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and
>>> proper in fact serve only to oppress.'"
>>
>> Yes, I did, a statement that refers to the legislative process, not
>> obeying and disregarding law as one damn well pleases.
>
> It is not disregarding law as "one damn well pleases", it is doing
> what is actually right, in spite of what one would actually like to
> do.
I don't understand the distinction you are trying to make.
> Why are you not mentioning Kant of late?
What would you like me to mention about him?
>>>>> But the decision of the court and what is written in the
>>>>> Constitution
>>>>> do not determine reality.
>>>>
>>>> They most certainly determine the reality of what the law is.
>>>
>>> The law does not determine reality of a single proper speed limit on
>>> your street, any more than it determines whether anything else is
>>> proper.
>>
>> I never said anything about proper. I only talked about what the
>> legal speed limit is.
>
> Would you care to talk about what the proper speed limit on your
> street is, under any given conditions, for you and your car?
Not particularly.
Eric Takabayashi
> Eric Takabayashi wrote:
> > Kevin Gowen wrote:
> >
> >>>>>>> You accept
> >>>>>>> problematic or flawed decisions as law?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Yes. What other choice is there?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Obeying or doing what is actually right.
> >>>>
> >>>> I see. So private citizens or public servants who disagree with a
> >>>> court decision should disregard it in order to do what is actually
> >>>> right.
> >>>
> >>> If a law is wrong, as laws have been in the past, or as seen in
> >>> other nations or forms of government.
> >>
> >> Whoa. What a bizarre statement, especially the part about other
> >> nations.
> >
> > Why? Should we obey "oppressive" laws instead?
>
> Why not?
Because they are "oppressive", not proper or necessary, as the distinction
was given.
> How do you decide whether or not to obey a law.
By whether or not it is proper or necessary.
> For example, how
> did you decide to disobey the Japanese laws regarding the carrying of a
> concealed weapon.
By realizing that law is not proper or necessary, though I do not call it
"oppressive", nor do I even claim that carrying a "concealed weapon" is
right, thus this instance does not apply.
Why don't you use an example which would apply, where obeying a law would
actually prevent one from doing what is right? What is your view on the
Fugitive Slave Law, for example? Should it have been obeyed or disregarded?
Were the people of the Underground Railroad doing the right thing, or merely
disregarding the law as they damn well pleased?
> >>>> Got it.
> >>>
> >>> Why would that be a problem?
> >>
> >> It's only a problem if you don't want the National Guard showing up
> >> at your doorstep. Just ask George Wallace.
> >
> > Depends on the seriousness of the improper law disregarded, and the
> > will to do what is right in face of any penalty.
>
> How do you know if a law is improper? Is there an imperative to disobey
> improper laws?
If the improper law stands in the way of doing what is right, it would seem
so.
> >>> It was you who posted "It is indeed true
> >>> that 'later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and
> >>> proper in fact serve only to oppress.'"
> >>
> >> Yes, I did, a statement that refers to the legislative process, not
> >> obeying and disregarding law as one damn well pleases.
> >
> > It is not disregarding law as "one damn well pleases", it is doing
> > what is actually right, in spite of what one would actually like to
> > do.
>
> I don't understand the distinction you are trying to make.
Do you believe doing what is actually right is the same as disregarding the
law of the land "as one damn well pleases"?
> > Why are you not mentioning Kant of late?
>
> What would you like me to mention about him?
How does the CI apply to obeying problematic legal decisions made by humans?
Darrien
> >>>> Do you have an Xbox?
> >>>
> >>> No, I'm wating for the prices to come down a bit more.
> >>
> >> How low do you want them to get? New ones run $180 and the
> >> refurbished ones go for $150. I have one of the refurbished ones.
> >>
> >
> > OK, it's now on my list. Right after new HDD and before new underwear.
>
> How big will the new HDD be?
>
At least 200 GB, I can fill a HDD faster than I can plug a toilet.
I always hate buying new parts when the technology is about to change.
If I wasn't such a pack rat I might've lasted long enough to get a good SATA
drive.
> >> ...
> >> I don't suppose you're going to play Star Wars Galaxies? Last
> >> night's launch was such a clusterfuck. The servers still aren't up.
> >> I made a real funny about it in one of the forums.
> >>
> >
> > No, the only game I play online is Diablo II.
> >
> > I'm not a big console gamer, even if I wanted to be,
>
My bad, I'm a BIG console gamer. I meant to write COMPUTER gamer.
> I'm not much of one either, actually. All I can say is: Dead or Alive Xtreme
> Beach Volleyball.
>
Yeah, if they want to sell more consoles, they should package it with the
system.
Have you played BMX XXX?
Was it any good?
> > NT 4.0 has
> > almost no support for games.
>
> Then the answer is clear.
>
I can't tell if I've been WHOOSHed or not...
Michael Cash
<rgw_n...@knot.mine.nu> belched the alphabet and kept on going
with:
>In article <bdhgei$sqt09$1...@ID-105084.news.dfncis.de>,
Didn't stop ya from getting married, though, did it?
Kevin Gowen
>>>> ...
>>>> I don't suppose you're going to play Star Wars Galaxies? Last
>>>> night's launch was such a clusterfuck. The servers still aren't up.
>>>> I made a real funny about it in one of the forums.
>>>>
>>>
>>> No, the only game I play online is Diablo II.
>>>
>>> I'm not a big console gamer, even if I wanted to be,
>>
>
> My bad, I'm a BIG console gamer. I meant to write COMPUTER gamer.
>
>> I'm not much of one either, actually. All I can say is: Dead or
>> Alive Xtreme Beach Volleyball.
>>
>
> Yeah, if they want to sell more consoles, they should package it with
> the system.
>
> Have you played BMX XXX?
> Was it any good?
I rented it once. It wasn't my cup of tea, but I could see how people would
enjoy it. Figuring out all the special trick moves was hard.
>>> NT 4.0 has
>>> almost no support for games.
>>
>> Then the answer is clear.
>>
>
> I can't tell if I've been WHOOSHed or not...
Stop running NT.
Kevin Gowen
> Kevin Gowen wrote:
>
>> Eric Takabayashi wrote:
>>> Kevin Gowen wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>>> You accept
>>>>>>>>> problematic or flawed decisions as law?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes. What other choice is there?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Obeying or doing what is actually right.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I see. So private citizens or public servants who disagree with a
>>>>>> court decision should disregard it in order to do what is
>>>>>> actually right.
>>>>>
>>>>> If a law is wrong, as laws have been in the past, or as seen in
>>>>> other nations or forms of government.
>>>>
>>>> Whoa. What a bizarre statement, especially the part about other
>>>> nations.
>>>
>>> Why? Should we obey "oppressive" laws instead?
>>
>> Why not?
>
> Because they are "oppressive", not proper or necessary, as the
> distinction was given.
>
>> How do you decide whether or not to obey a law.
>
> By whether or not it is proper or necessary.
How do you decide what is proper or necessary?
>> For example, how
>> did you decide to disobey the Japanese laws regarding the carrying
>> of a concealed weapon.
>
> By realizing that law is not proper or necessary, though I do not
> call it "oppressive", nor do I even claim that carrying a "concealed
> weapon" is right, thus this instance does not apply.
How do you decide what is proper or necessary?
> Why don't you use an example which would apply, where obeying a law
> would actually prevent one from doing what is right? What is your
> view on the Fugitive Slave Law, for example? Should it have been
> obeyed or disregarded? Were the people of the Underground Railroad
> doing the right thing, or merely disregarding the law as they damn
> well pleased?
They were doing both.
>>>>>> Got it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why would that be a problem?
>>>>
>>>> It's only a problem if you don't want the National Guard showing up
>>>> at your doorstep. Just ask George Wallace.
>>>
>>> Depends on the seriousness of the improper law disregarded, and the
>>> will to do what is right in face of any penalty.
>>
>> How do you know if a law is improper? Is there an imperative to
>> disobey improper laws?
>
> If the improper law stands in the way of doing what is right, it
> would seem so.
How do you know what is right?
>>>>> It was you who posted "It is indeed true
>>>>> that 'later generations can see that laws once thought necessary
>>>>> and proper in fact serve only to oppress.'"
>>>>
>>>> Yes, I did, a statement that refers to the legislative process, not
>>>> obeying and disregarding law as one damn well pleases.
>>>
>>> It is not disregarding law as "one damn well pleases", it is doing
>>> what is actually right, in spite of what one would actually like to
>>> do.
>>
>> I don't understand the distinction you are trying to make.
>
> Do you believe doing what is actually right is the same as
> disregarding the law of the land "as one damn well pleases"?
Sometimes it can be.
>>> Why are you not mentioning Kant of late?
>>
>> What would you like me to mention about him?
>
> How does the CI apply to obeying problematic legal decisions made by
> humans?
The law *is* a CI, according to Kant.
Declan Murphy
> Eric Takabayashi wrote:
<snippity snip>
>>Should that
>>decision have been made or not?
>
> If you *could read* what I wrote below, you would know the answer to that
> question.
A slight rewording of your reply might have helped Eric a bit there.
P'raps.
--
"All FDR undid was the value of the dollar"
Kevin Gowen (really)
John Yamamoto-Wilson
> > humans?
>
> The law *is* a CI, according to Kant.
So [sigh] there isn't a universal morality after all. If the law says we
have to sacrifice new-born babies to propitiate the gods then it is morally
right to do so, and if the law says we may by no means sacrifice new-born
babies to propitiate the gods then it is morally wrong.
Sad, really. I'd been hoping for a more positive conclusion than that.
Rodney Webster
Michael Cash <mike...@sunfield.ne.jp> wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Jun 2003 23:21:42 +0900, Rodney Webster
> <rgw_n...@knot.mine.nu> belched the alphabet and kept on going
> with:
>
> >In article <bdhgei$sqt09$1...@ID-105084.news.dfncis.de>,
> > "Kevin Gowen" <kgowen...@myfastmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> I don't suppose you're going to play Star Wars Galaxies? Last night's
> >> launch
> >> was such a clusterfuck. The servers still aren't up. I made a real funny
> >> about it in one of the forums.
> >
> >Does that mean you have bought a copy? Comments would be appreciate as
> >I am tempted to buy it, though the idea of having to pay a monthly fee
> >to play a game dampens my enthusiasm.
>
> Didn't stop ya from getting married, though, did it?
Yeah, but I was young and naive at the time. With a decade of married
life under my belt I expect that I will have connectivity problems ever
night, and that despite crashing every month, the server will never go
down.
--
Rodney Webster
http://knot.mine.nu/
Kevin Gowen
>>> How does the CI apply to obeying problematic legal decisions made by
>>> humans?
>>
>> The law *is* a CI, according to Kant.
>
> So [sigh] there isn't a universal morality after all. If the law says
> we have to sacrifice new-born babies to propitiate the gods then it
> is morally right to do so, and if the law says we may by no means
> sacrifice new-born babies to propitiate the gods then it is morally
> wrong.
That wouldn't be a law under a Kantian regime. Sheesh.
> Sad, really. I'd been hoping for a more positive conclusion than that.
Then simply make up another one. You had no problem making up that first
one.
Eric Takabayashi
> John Yamamoto-Wilson wrote:
> >>> How does the CI apply to obeying problematic legal decisions made by
> >>> humans?
> >>
> >> The law *is* a CI, according to Kant.
> >
> > So [sigh] there isn't a universal morality after all. If the law says
> > we have to sacrifice new-born babies to propitiate the gods then it
> > is morally right to do so, and if the law says we may by no means
> > sacrifice new-born babies to propitiate the gods then it is morally
> > wrong.
>
> That wouldn't be a law under a Kantian regime. Sheesh.
So could you give us even one example of a current US law, if any, that
would not be a law under said Kantian regime?
Would Kant support Roe vs Wade?
John Yamamoto-Wilson
> >> The law *is* a CI, according to Kant.
Me:
> > So [sigh] there isn't a universal morality after all. If the law says
> > we have to sacrifice new-born babies to propitiate the gods then it
> > is morally right to do so, and if the law says we may by no means
> > sacrifice new-born babies to propitiate the gods then it is morally
> > wrong.
Kevin:
> That wouldn't be a law under a Kantian regime. Sheesh.
So only the laws Kant endorses are categorical imperatives?
Kevin also wrote, in another posting:
> How do you know if a law is improper? Is there an imperative to disobey
> improper laws?
How would *you* answer those questions, Kevin?
Me:
> > Sad, really. I'd been hoping for a more positive conclusion than that.
Kevin:
> Then simply make up another one. You had no problem making up that
> first one.
I wish I was Kant, then I could just make up what I like, and then when
people disagreed I'd say, "Oh, but under my regime that couldn't happen!"
BTW, I take it "Kantian regime" and "Kevinworld" are synonymous?
Michael Cash
easily enough:
>> For example, how
>> did you decide to disobey the Japanese laws regarding the carrying of a
>> concealed weapon.
>
>By realizing that law is not proper or necessary, though I do not call it
>"oppressive", nor do I even claim that carrying a "concealed weapon" is
>right, thus this instance does not apply.
Cool!
So when your ass gets arrested, convicted, and sentenced to prison all
you have to do is refuse to go. You will have been convicted of
breaking a law which neither proper nor necessary, so there should be
reason for you to comply with being remanded to prison.
Michael Cash
<jo...@rarebooksinjapan.com> belched the alphabet and kept on going
with:
>
>I wish I was Kant, then I could just make up what I like, and then when
>people disagreed I'd say, "Oh, but under my regime that couldn't happen!"
>
>BTW, I take it "Kantian regime" and "Kevinworld" are synonymous?
Being woefully undereducated as I am, I wouldn't know Kant from my
aunt's elbow....but I would say that your description fits the old
favorite fjlij "E" ride, Ericworld.
Eric Takabayashi
> Attributions clipped, regulars will be able to recognize who said what
> easily enough:
>
> >> For example, how
> >> did you decide to disobey the Japanese laws regarding the carrying of a
> >> concealed weapon.
> >
> >By realizing that law is not proper or necessary, though I do not call it
> >"oppressive", nor do I even claim that carrying a "concealed weapon" is
> >right, thus this instance does not apply.
>
> Cool!
>
> So when your ass gets arrested, convicted, and sentenced to prison
For what?
> all you have to do is refuse to go.
Why would I refuse?
> You will have been convicted of breaking a law
What law am I accused of breaking?
John W.
> On Sat, 28 Jun 2003 21:32:48 +0900, "John Yamamoto-Wilson"
> <jo...@rarebooksinjapan.com> belched the alphabet and kept on going
> with:
>
>
> >
> >I wish I was Kant, then I could just make up what I like, and then when
> >people disagreed I'd say, "Oh, but under my regime that couldn't happen!"
> >
> >BTW, I take it "Kantian regime" and "Kevinworld" are synonymous?
>
> Being woefully undereducated as I am, I wouldn't know Kant from my
> aunt's elbow
Ignorant ass. Kant is just another way of saying Can Not. Sheesh.
John W.
Kevin Gowen
There would be no plea bargains. All intentional homicides would be capitial
crimes. Thus, any laws that allow plea bargins or any laws banning capital
punishment would not be law under a Kantian regime.
> Would Kant support Roe vs Wade?
I don't know that he ever wrote on the subject, but application of the CI
suggests that he would not.
Kevin Gowen
> Kevin:
>
>>>> The law is a CI, according to Kant.
>
> Me:
>
>>> So [sigh] there isn't a universal morality after all. If the law
>>> says we have to sacrifice new-born babies to propitiate the gods
>>> then it is morally right to do so, and if the law says we may by no
>>> means sacrifice new-born babies to propitiate the gods then it is
>>> morally wrong.
>
>
>> That wouldn't be a law under a Kantian regime. Sheesh.
>
I don't understand the question.
> Kevin also wrote, in another posting:
>
>> How do you know if a law is improper? Is there an imperative to
>> disobey improper laws?
>
> How would you answer those questions, Kevin?
I don't know the answers. That is why I asked.
> Me:
>
>>> Sad, really. I'd been hoping for a more positive conclusion than
>>> that.
>
> Kevin:
>
>> Then simply make up another one. You had no problem making up that
>> first one.
>
> I wish I was Kant, then I could just make up what I like, and then
> when people disagreed I'd say, "Oh, but under my regime that couldn't
> happen!"
I'm sure he would have a more creative way of ridiculing your straw man
arguments.
> BTW, I take it "Kantian regime" and "Kevinworld" are synonymous?
Why would you take that?
Michael Cash
the alphabet and kept on going with:
>Michael Cash <mike...@sunfield.ne.jp> wrote in message news:<rg5rfvgohilsgt5cs...@4ax.com>...
>> On Sat, 28 Jun 2003 21:32:48 +0900, "John Yamamoto-Wilson"
>> <jo...@rarebooksinjapan.com> belched the alphabet and kept on going
>> with:
>>
>>
>> >
>> >I wish I was Kant, then I could just make up what I like, and then when
>> >people disagreed I'd say, "Oh, but under my regime that couldn't happen!"
>> >
>> >BTW, I take it "Kantian regime" and "Kevinworld" are synonymous?
>>
>> Being woefully undereducated as I am, I wouldn't know Kant from my
>> aunt's elbow
>
>Ignorant ass. Kant is just another way of saying Can Not. Sheesh.
Oh!.....Him!
That's the guy that my mother always said never could.
Kevin Gowen
the alphabet and kept on going with:
>> Michael Cash <mike...@sunfield.ne.jp> wrote in message
>> news:<rg5rfvgohilsgt5cs...@4ax.com>...
>>> On Sat, 28 Jun 2003 21:32:48 +0900, "John Yamamoto-Wilson"
>>> <jo...@rarebooksinjapan.com> belched the alphabet and kept on going
>>> with:
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I wish I was Kant, then I could just make up what I like, and then
>>>> when
>>>> people disagreed I'd say, "Oh, but under my regime that couldn't
>>>> happen!"
>>>>
>>>> BTW, I take it "Kantian regime" and "Kevinworld" are synonymous?
>>>
>>> Being woefully undereducated as I am, I wouldn't know Kant from my
>>> aunt's elbow
>>
>> Ignorant ass. Kant is just another way of saying Can Not. Sheesh.
It's "cannot", ignorant ass.
mtfe...@netscape.net
> For over two year I have told apoplectic leftists that the Supreme Court was
> not a conservative body that made a purely political decision in Bush v.
> Gore. Now I must stand corrected. On Monday, the Court upheld affirmative
> action and today it struck down a law banning gay sex.
> It is clear to me that someone must stop these right wing ideologues.
Damn fascists, upholdin' the Constitutional rights those undesireables.
Get rid of 'em, I say.
Mike
Jason Cormier
"mtfe...@netscape.net" <mtfe...@netscape.net> wrote:
Pretty soon they'll be granting them the right to marry 'n stuff like those
friggin pantywaists in Canader.
Kevin Gowen
I don't know about Canada, but in the US neither the SCOTUS nor any other
organ of government grants rights. That having been said, first the Court
would have to find that there is a right to marry.
John Yamamoto-Wilson
> >>>> The law is a CI, according to Kant.
[I give an example of a bad law.]
Kevin responds:
> >> That wouldn't be a law under a Kantian regime. Sheesh.
Me:
> > So only the laws Kant endorses are categorical imperatives?
Kevin:
> I don't understand the question.
OK, let's dumb down. You say "the law is a CI", I give an example of a law
and you say, basically, "Oh, no, not *that* law." So *which* law is a CI?
Kevin (replying to Eric):
> >> How do you know if a law is improper? Is there an imperative to
> >> disobey improper laws?
Me:
> > How would you answer those questions, Kevin?
Kevin:
> I don't know the answers. That is why I asked.
Heck, Kevin, you're the guy who has all the answers round here. if *you*
don't know who does?
Me:
> > I wish I was Kant, then I could just make up what I like, and then
> > when people disagreed I'd say, "Oh, but under my regime that couldn't
> > happen!"
Kevin:
> I'm sure he would have a more creative way of ridiculing your straw man
> arguments.
Well, that would depend on whether he was actually interested in
communicating ideas or just trying to score points.
Me:
> > BTW, I take it "Kantian regime" and "Kevinworld" are synonymous?
Kevin:
> Why would you take that?
Well, *are* they?
Ken Yasumoto-Nicolson
<mike...@sunfield.ne.jp> wrote:
>On Sat, 28 Jun 2003 21:32:48 +0900, "John Yamamoto-Wilson"
><jo...@rarebooksinjapan.com> belched the alphabet and kept on going
>with:
>
>
>>
>>I wish I was Kant, then I could just make up what I like, and then when
>>people disagreed I'd say, "Oh, but under my regime that couldn't happen!"
>>
>>BTW, I take it "Kantian regime" and "Kevinworld" are synonymous?
>
>Being woefully undereducated as I am, I wouldn't know Kant from my
>aunt's elbow....but I would say that your description fits the old
>favorite fjlij "E" ride, Ericworld.
For your educkashun, learn all about him here:
http://www.angelfire.com/ego/philosophyradio/philosophersdrinkingsong.au
or here:
http://www.angelfire.com/ego/philosophyradio/Germany_vs_Greece.mp3
Ken
Michael Cash
>In article <9h4pfv0p6fssu7da2...@4ax.com>,
> Michael Cash <mike...@sunfield.ne.jp> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 27 Jun 2003 23:21:42 +0900, Rodney Webster
>> <rgw_n...@knot.mine.nu> belched the alphabet and kept on going
>> with:
>>
>> >In article <bdhgei$sqt09$1...@ID-105084.news.dfncis.de>,
>> > "Kevin Gowen" <kgowen...@myfastmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> I don't suppose you're going to play Star Wars Galaxies? Last night's
>> >> launch
>> >> was such a clusterfuck. The servers still aren't up. I made a real funny
>> >> about it in one of the forums.
>> >
>> >Does that mean you have bought a copy? Comments would be appreciate as
>> >I am tempted to buy it, though the idea of having to pay a monthly fee
>> >to play a game dampens my enthusiasm.
>>
>> Didn't stop ya from getting married, though, did it?
>
>Yeah, but I was young and naive at the time. With a decade of married
>life under my belt I expect that I will have connectivity problems ever
>night, and that despite crashing every month, the server will never go
>down.
It's very devious how they market stability as a feature and it is
only after we have selected "I agree" on the EULA that we find out
what a swindle it all is.
Michael Cash
the alphabet and kept on going with:
>On Thu, 26 Jun 2003 10:50:10 -0400, "Kevin ...
>>
>>For over two year I have told apoplectic leftists that the Supreme Court was
>>not a conservative body that made a purely political decision in Bush v.
>>Gore. Now I must stand corrected. On Monday,
>
>30 years after the South Australian parliament did the same thing,
The date isn't the important distinction there. It is the branch of
government.
mtfe...@netscape.net
What? Yer one of them damn libruls?
Hell, MAKE 'em get married, I say! Let THEM pay the "married" penalty on
taxes, see how they like it. Let THEM hire divorce lawyers and go through
THAT!
I'm tired of these fairy-loving religious leaders protectin' 'em from that.
Oughtta be a law, there oughtta.
Mike
Jason Cormier
"mtfe...@netscape.net" <mtfe...@netscape.net> wrote:
>>> Kevin Gowen <kgowen...@myfastmail.com> wrote:
>>>> For over two year I have told apoplectic leftists that the Supreme Court
>>>> was
>>>> not a conservative body that made a purely political decision in Bush v.
>>>> Gore. Now I must stand corrected. On Monday, the Court upheld affirmative
>>>> action and today it struck down a law banning gay sex.
>>>
>>>> It is clear to me that someone must stop these right wing ideologues.
>>>
>>> Damn fascists, upholdin' the Constitutional rights those undesireables.
>>>
>>> Get rid of 'em, I say.
>
>> Pretty soon they'll be granting them the right to marry 'n stuff like those
>> friggin pantywaists in Canader.
>
> What? Yer one of them damn libruls?
Yup, gotta purty card 'n evrythin' The capital "L" is important.
> Hell, MAKE 'em get married, I say! Let THEM pay the "married" penalty on
> taxes, see how they like it. Let THEM hire divorce lawyers and go through
> THAT!
>
> I'm tired of these fairy-loving religious leaders protectin' 'em from that.
>
> Oughtta be a law, there oughtta.
I agree. The only drawback is a less interesting nightlife.
Jason Cormier
Gowen" <kgowen...@myfastmail.com> wrote:
>>> Damn fascists, upholdin' the Constitutional rights those
>>> undesireables.
>>>
>>> Get rid of 'em, I say.
>>
>> Pretty soon they'll be granting them the right to marry 'n stuff like
>> those friggin pantywaists in Canader.
>
> I don't know about Canada, but in the US neither the SCOTUS nor any other
> organ of government grants rights. That having been said, first the Court
> would have to find that there is a right to marry.
I betcha some of the guys I know would think yer kinda cute when you
lecture, Kevin. Wanna meet one at Toronto City Hall? Wear a suit, bring your
birth certificate, and cash or credit card. I'll show you the new Canada.
(The little woman shouldn't be a problem....according to the neo-con
whining, legalised bigamy is only days away.)
Kevin Gowen
> On 6/28/03 19:56, in article bdla0b$u4b2f$1...@ID-105084.news.dfncis.de,
> "Kevin Gowen" <kgowen...@myfastmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>> Damn fascists, upholdin' the Constitutional rights those
>>>> undesireables.
>>>>
>>>> Get rid of 'em, I say.
>>>
>>> Pretty soon they'll be granting them the right to marry 'n stuff
>>> like those friggin pantywaists in Canader.
>>
>> I don't know about Canada, but in the US neither the SCOTUS nor any
>> other organ of government grants rights. That having been said,
>> first the Court would have to find that there is a right to marry.
>
> I betcha some of the guys I know would think yer kinda cute when you
> lecture, Kevin.
Hell, I'm cute in fluorescent lighting on the first day of my period.
> Wanna meet one at Toronto City Hall? Wear a suit,
> bring your birth certificate, and cash or credit card. I'll show you
> the new Canada.
Of that I have no doubt.
> (The little woman shouldn't be a
> problem....according to the neo-con whining, legalised bigamy is only
> days away.)
I don't know what a neo-con is, so I am afraid I am unfamiliar with their
whining.
Jason Cormier
Gowen" <kgowen...@myfastmail.com> wrote:
>>> I don't know about Canada, but in the US neither the SCOTUS nor any
>>> other organ of government grants rights. That having been said,
>>> first the Court would have to find that there is a right to marry.
>>
>> I betcha some of the guys I know would think yer kinda cute when you
>> lecture, Kevin.
>
> Hell, I'm cute in fluorescent lighting on the first day of my period.
>
>> Wanna meet one at Toronto City Hall? Wear a suit,
>> bring your birth certificate, and cash or credit card. I'll show you
>> the new Canada.
>
> Of that I have no doubt.
So tell me, Kevin: How do you feel about gay marriage? Forget the issue of
the courts and their intrusion upon the areas of legislative authority and
other such constitutional/procedural issues. How do you fell about marriage
no longer being prohibited for homosexuals in most of Canada? How about the
same across the US?
>> (The little woman shouldn't be a
>> problem....according to the neo-con whining, legalised bigamy is only
>> days away.)
>
> I don't know what a neo-con is, so I am afraid I am unfamiliar with their
> whining.
It's a term that's become popular in describing the new generation of
Canada's conservative politicians, political parties, and those that support
them.
Kevin Gowen
> On 6/29/03 19:24, in article bdnsfk$ue7fp$1...@ID-105084.news.dfncis.de,
> "Kevin Gowen" <kgowen...@myfastmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>> I don't know about Canada, but in the US neither the SCOTUS nor any
>>>> other organ of government grants rights. That having been said,
>>>> first the Court would have to find that there is a right to marry.
>>>
>>> I betcha some of the guys I know would think yer kinda cute when you
>>> lecture, Kevin.
>>
>> Hell, I'm cute in fluorescent lighting on the first day of my period.
>>
>>> Wanna meet one at Toronto City Hall? Wear a suit,
>>> bring your birth certificate, and cash or credit card. I'll show you
>>> the new Canada.
>>
>> Of that I have no doubt.
>
> So tell me, Kevin: How do you feel about gay marriage? Forget the
> issue of the courts and their intrusion upon the areas of legislative
> authority and other such constitutional/procedural issues. How do you
> fell about marriage no longer being prohibited for homosexuals in
> most of Canada?
I have no feelings about the decisions of Canadian courts. I don't even have
thoughts about them. For the same reason, I couldn't comment about the issue
of courts/legislatures in Canada even if I wanted to because I haven't the
slightest idea about the workings of the various levels of Canadian
government. They are of no consequence to me.
> How about the same across the US?
It's a state issue, so I doubt it would be the same across the US. Marriage
is a privilege in that a license is granted by the state, and as such the
several states have differing laws as to who may marry whom. The most
obvious example would be state laws regarding legal age of marriage.
For this reason I think that the Defense of Marriage Act was inappropriate.
I see absolutely nothing about marriage that falls under Congress's Article
I powers or the federal judiciary's Article III powers. The same goes for
sexual activity, which is why I felt the SCOTUS was wrong to even hear
_Lawrence_. If I were a member of the Texas legislature, I would have voted
to abolish that law, but I'm not. Neither are any of the nine justices in
D.C. Too bad that only three of them realize this fact.
>>> (The little woman shouldn't be a
>>> problem....according to the neo-con whining, legalised bigamy is
>>> only days away.)
>>
>> I don't know what a neo-con is, so I am afraid I am unfamiliar with
>> their whining.
>
> It's a term that's become popular in describing the new generation of
> Canada's conservative politicians, political parties, and those that
> support them.
Ok. In the US it's become a favorite term of the left, almost always as a
pejorative, but there is no clear definition. I've read a number of article
about so-called neoconservatism, but they have all been incongruous, even
those written by those on the right.
Brett Robson
>
>On Sat, 28 Jun 2003 21:32:48 +0900, "John Yamamoto-Wilson"
><jo...@rarebooksinjapan.com> belched the alphabet and kept on going
>with:
>
>
>>
>>I wish I was Kant, then I could just make up what I like, and then when
>>people disagreed I'd say, "Oh, but under my regime that couldn't happen!"
>>
>>BTW, I take it "Kantian regime" and "Kevinworld" are synonymous?
>
>Being woefully undereducated as I am, I wouldn't know Kant from my
>aunt's elbow....but I would say that your description fits the old
>favorite fjlij "E" ride, Ericworld.
>
The only thing you need to know about Kant is "Immanuel Kant was a real piss-ant
who was very rarely stable."
---
"he [John Ashcroft] deliberately left Jesus out of office prayers to avoid
offending non-Christians." - Ben Shapiro 27/2/2003
Brett Robson
>
>On 26 Jun 2003 19:22:26 -0700, Brett Robson <jet...@deja.com> belched
>the alphabet and kept on going with:
>
>>On Thu, 26 Jun 2003 10:50:10 -0400, "Kevin ...
>>>
>>>For over two year I have told apoplectic leftists that the Supreme Court was
>>>not a conservative body that made a purely political decision in Bush v.
>>>Gore. Now I must stand corrected. On Monday,
>>
>>30 years after the South Australian parliament did the same thing,
>
>The date isn't the important distinction there. It is the branch of
>government.
>
I understand your point but disagree. This is being toted as a liberal move when
in fact most countries have got passed these ridiculous arguments three decades
ago. I read on the weekend that this law was actually passed 30 years ago when
sodomy was legalized for hetrosexuals.
Ignoring the moral or legal grounds this is a massive waste of time, it is
absolutely amazing the the Sumpreme Court had to even considering the legality
of someone buggering his friend in the private. About on par with investigating
whether the president was getting his knob sucked.
mtfe...@netscape.net
> On Sun, 29 Jun 2003 15:32:11 +0900, Michael ...
> I understand your point but disagree. This is being toted as a liberal move when
> in fact most countries have got passed these ridiculous arguments three decades
> ago.
You mean "most developed countries", of course.
However, this is a more traditional "conservative" ruling, in actuality,
in that it is more in line with the intent of the Constitution; ie, to
give only those powers to the government which are necessary to run the
country well, and to reserve to other entities anything that the government
cannot claim a legitimate interest.
BTW, in the less-discussed affirmative action ruling, several justices
noted the strong input of "65 of Fortune's 500" companies in helping to
persuade them to uphold the U Michigan policy. They apparently sent friends
of the court briefs pointing out the necissity for maintaining a diverse
group of candidates for their companies in increasingly diverse international
business.
*THAT* would be a more traditional liberal view, but it is somewhat surprisin
to see it supported by "big business".
Mike
Brett Robson
Why are you using Japanese characters in English text? Don't you have a book by
Lunde that explains this stuff?
> the two men involved should have used the legislative process
> of Texas to right what they felt was an unjust law.
That option was not available to them. Although I haven't followed this case,
weren't they arrested and found guilty? If you want to be are lawyer you will
need to understand stuff like this.
>I hasten to add that this issue is one that has been dying on
>the vine for years. Before 1961, all states and D.C. had sodomy statutes.
>By _Bowers_ in 1986, they were only in 24 states and D.C.,
Your use of the word "only" is interesting.
>As far as Scalia's dissenting opinion is concerned, it rightly points out
>that the overturning of _Bowers_ is ludicrous. I quote:
>"Though there is discussion of “fundamental proposition[s],”�
嘗�瘤���癆�巻�瘤�“fundamental decisions,” ibid. nowhere
>does the Court’s opinion declare that homosexual sodomy is a
>“fundamental right” under the Due Process Clause; nor
>does it subject the Texas law to the standard of review that would be
>appropriate (strict scrutiny) if homosexual sodomy were a “fund
>amental right.” Thus, while overruling the outcome of _Bowers_, the
>Court leaves strangely untouched its central legal conclusion:
It seems you and Scalia have an obession with buggery. The other judges have
rightly taken a more abstract view and hopefully stopped intrusion into private
behavour.
>“[R]espondent would have us announce . . . a fundamental right to en-gage
>in homosexual sodomy. This we are quite unwilling to do.” 478 U. S., at
>191. Instead the Court simply describes petitioners’ conduct as
>“an exercise of their liberty”?which it undoubtedly is?and
>proceeds to apply an unheard-of form of rational-basis review that will
>have far-reaching implications beyond this case."
> Since the majority cannot overturn _Bowers_ on legal grounds
They did "... discloses the Court �s failure to appreciate the extent of the
liberty at stake."
and "Bowers � deficiencies became even more apparent in the years
following its announcement." and "Bowers �rationale does not withstand careful
analysis."
and "Bowers was not correct when it was decided,is not correct today,"
I've edited the below.
> I'm with Scalia on this one. The majority talks about liberty, but
> [in my opinion] there is no right to liberty, and even the majority
> agrees that no fundamental right was violated in this case i.e. a
> right to commit sodomy.
The right is not specifically to engage in sodomy but liberty in general.
"Petitioners � right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full
right to engage in private
conduct without government intervention."
> I think this excerpt from the dissent sums up my thoughts rather well:
> "Let me be clear that I have nothing against homosexuals, or any other
> group, promoting their agenda through normal democratic means. Social
>perceptions of sexual and other morality change over time, and every group
>has the right to persuade its fellow citizens that its view of such matters
>is the best. That homosexuals have achieved some success in that enterprise
>is attested to by the fact that Texas is one of the few remaining States
>that criminalize private, consensual homosexual acts. But persuading
>one’s fellow citizens is one thing, and imposing one’
����纓�蜴�痰黼釿�閹�粤迴竰癆蜒�轣褊鱸���跛�蜩�齒辣�蜴�繻黼��
症����鈿�迴鱚�鱚髟蜥��囈癆���竰蜊蜴瘡蝴�蓖迴黼�瘡�痺�随鬪�
丈闥��癆�轣�纈��粡齔赱�瘤�迴鱇�粡黶韶鳫矚�闔�閹��纃数葹�����
丈闥砠�蜚���粹�齒�
怦蜒�迚齠纉���竟蜴�緕�鱚踟��部�蜩�鈿�碯皷鈬齠�閹�瘤尞鈬��癆�鞳關跂�粹�蜴
頏�笙�
�纉闌�蜿�閹��蜩�竅黼�粤鞳鈔�闔��續蒹�鞳��闔纈��鱚�胙繞
癈�痲�����緕艨艱�蜴�頏蝟癆�竢鈔��蜴���纔纈竕黼�閹��繪�跚矼鶯��粤���汀�會閭纉�柱癜黼�
�怦癆�壹��葹�竏闢緕���粹�蜩��跛���蜴���鱇鈑�閹��痲蜚蜿釶�
鞘纃閭鱇��痺�闔��瘤�蜚�葹鈔�鼈阨趙�鈿�矼�齡癨繖��鳫����
冗鉚緕�闔�閹��碣瘤筬鈬��“constitutional right
Seems he hasn't read the majority decision.
Sorry about the shit characters but I can't fix everything Gowan gets wrong and
my kernel update has just finish, time to reboot.
Brett Robson
>
>For over two year I have told apoplectic leftists that the Supreme Court was
>not a conservative body that made a purely political decision in Bush v.
>action and today it struck down a law banning gay sex.
>
Bryan and Michael have invited me to a party to celebrate. Should I go?
Kevin Wayne Williams
> Which misses the point entirely. It is no business of anyone what people do in
> prvacy.
I agree completely with that part, but KGII isn't wrong in one sense ...
the reasoning of the decision was strained, at best. The 14th amendment
is getting stretched to fit around this one. The consequences of this
decision, if faithfully applied as precedent, are far-reaching, and, in
general, wonderful. I doubt that the majority of the court really wants
to apply this decision across the board. It does set a precedent that
things like adult incest are legal. Drug possession would be difficult
to uphold as criminal under the logic of the decision. It basically sets
a precedent that the government can't tell you what to do.
In general, the US has been governed on a system that affords very few
absolute rights, and allows the states free rein to regulate pretty much
everything else, regardless of motive. There is a "rational basis" test,
but that gets abused to the point of worthlessness. A fairly hilarious
example of this is the legality of blue laws. Blue laws are still
considered constitutional here: the government has the right to jail you
for selling goods and services on a Sunday. Why? Because you have no
guaranteed right to sell things on a Sunday. The state can not be found
to be infringing on a right you don't have. The rational basis is "The
state can ensure it's workers take a day off, and Sunday is as good a
day as any." In McGowan vs. Maryland, only Douglas had the courage to
state that such laws violate the First Amendmentment, and even he
discarded the Fourteenth as not guaranteeing this liberty. If this court
can stretch the Fourteenth to cover sodomy, it covered blue laws, drug
possession, adult incest, bigamy, and all kinds of unwarranted
intrusions by the state.
It'll be a happy day if people consistently read the 14th to do that. I
don't think they will.
The blue law stuff is pretty funny. In Arkansas, up until 1982, you
couldn't sell the following stuff on a Sunday:
(1) clothing and wearing apparel; (2) clothing accessories; (3)
household utensils, glassware and china; (4) home, business or office
furniture; (5) mechanical or electrical household or office appliances;
(6) hardware, tools and paints; (7) building and lumber supply
materials; (8) jewelry, silverware, watches and clocks; (9) luggage and
leather goods; (10) musical instruments and recordings; (11) radios and
television sets, receivers, record players, recording devices and
components and parts therefor; (12) lawnmowers and other manual and
power driven outdoor gardening equipment; (13) cameras, projectors and
parts and equipment therefor (except film, flashbulbs and batteries);
and (14) linens, yard goods, trimmings and sewing supplies.
This was overturned, not because the government can't tell you to behave
differently on a Sunday than on other days of the week, but because the
court couldn't decide whether or not certain things were illegal or not,
rendering the law unconstitutionally vague:
"For example, are yard sprinklers and high pressure hoses within the
category "other manual and power driven outdoor gardening equipment"?
Can a merchant sell an electronic strobe light for a camera, which
performs the same function as a permitted flashbulb? Is a slide viewer
within the category of "cameras, projectors and parts and equipment
therefor"? Is a non-musical comedy phonograph record within the
classification of "musical instruments and recordings"? Is the sale of a
toy drum prohibited, even though sales of toys are not? Does "china"
include paper, plastic or crockery dishes, or only items (whatever their
purpose) made of highly fired translucent porcelain? Are artists'
paints, oils, acrylics, water colors, etc. prohibited under the category
*275 "paints"? Does "paints" include wood stains and fingernail polish?
Is a portable outdoor barbecue grill, with or without a motor-driven
rotisserie unit, within the category of "household appliances"? A
fertile mind, with seventy thousand articles to work with and only
fourteen categories in which to place them, could no doubt extend this
list of perplexities ad infinitum."
KWW
mtfe...@netscape.net
> Brett Robson wrote:
>> Which misses the point entirely. It is no business of anyone what people do in
>> prvacy.
> I agree completely with that part, but KGII isn't wrong in one sense ...
> the reasoning of the decision was strained, at best. The 14th amendment
> is getting stretched to fit around this one. The consequences of this
The 14th Amendment is more relevant to ruling on affirmative action.
> things like adult incest are legal. Drug possession would be difficult
> to uphold as criminal under the logic of the decision. It basically sets
> a precedent that the government can't tell you what to do.
Um, no, not any more than, say, the 21st Amendment.
> In general, the US has been governed on a system that affords very few
> absolute rights, and allows the states free rein to regulate pretty much
Um, not quite. It was the intent of the Constitution to allow the greatest
amount of personal freedoms in the first place. It was never the intent
that something was possibly illegal simply because it wasn't explicitly
legal.
> everything else, regardless of motive. There is a "rational basis" test,
This really is more in line with "traditional" (ie, the framers of the
Constitution) thinking.
Mike
Kevin Gowen
> Brett Robson wrote:
>
>> Which misses the point entirely. It is no business of anyone what
>> people do in prvacy.
>
> I agree completely with that part, but KGII isn't wrong in one sense
> ...
> the reasoning of the decision was strained, at best. The 14th
> amendment
> is getting stretched to fit around this one. The consequences of this
> decision, if faithfully applied as precedent, are far-reaching, and,
> in general, wonderful.
Not wonderful in the slightest. Rather inconsistent of you, BTW. I seem to
recall you writing something a while back about how people should not be
able to possess and distribute their wealth in any way they damn well
please.
> I doubt that the majority of the court really
> wants
> to apply this decision across the board.
The majority tried to say this in their rather strained opinion, but the
dissent called them on it, specifically saying, "Do not believe it".
> It does set a precedent that
> things like adult incest are legal.
I have never understood why people say "adult incest". Is "incest" on its
own understood to refer to children? But yes, it does set that precedent. I
seem to recall a shitstorm coming down on a certain Senator Santorum when he
stated this rather obvious fact.
It seems to me that folks who invoke the "consenting adults in private" flag
are very careful to draw the line of what should be legally permissible
right outside of their own behavior. This was evidenced rather excellently
when the gay activists were saying last month that a decision striking down
sodomy would not threathen incest laws. There was also much false moral
outrage about a comparison between sodomy and incest. Well, why the outrage?
Why were the same people who were rooting for the overturning of sodomy
statutes the same people who were assuring me that incest laws would stay on
the books?
> Drug possession would be difficult
> to uphold as criminal under the logic of the decision.
You think this decision had logic? It overturned the outcome of _Bowers_ but
affirmed its central legal conclusion i.e. there is no fundamental right to
homosexual sodomy. This is evidence by the fact that a rational-basis test
is used rather than the strict scrutiny test that a fundamental right would
call for.
> It basically
> sets
> a precedent that the government can't tell you what to do.
Indeed, possession of anything would be difficult to legislate. This is one
of the nice things about having such matters decided by the legislature
rather than the courts. A state might decide that it wants to permit sodomy
but criminalize bestiality. It gets to be inconsistent. The courts don't
have that luxury. However, I don't think that the precedent you describe has
been set in the slightest.
> In general, the US has been governed on a system that affords very few
> absolute rights, and allows the states free rein to regulate pretty
> much everything else, regardless of motive. There is a "rational
> basis" test,
> but that gets abused to the point of worthlessness. A fairly hilarious
> example of this is the legality of blue laws. Blue laws are still
> considered constitutional here: the government has the right to jail
> you
> for selling goods and services on a Sunday.
I don't know of any blue law jurisdiction where violation is a jailable
offense. Let's be honest, KWW. I also don't know of any blue law
jurisdiction where there is the flat ban on commerce that your statement
suggests. Such laws generally apply to the sale of alcohol in retail
outlets. This was the case in Atlanta when I lived there. In one county,
there was no sale of alcohol on Sunday. However, one could simply cross the
county line to where alcohol was sold on Sunday. (Atlanta covers the
intersection of several counties). Also, the blue laws in that county did
not apply to alcohol served for consumption on a business's presence e.g. a
restaurant that served alcohol.
I would be very curious to know if you could find for me an American
jurisdiction that prohibits commerce of any sort on Sundays upon pain of
imprisonment. You're dangerously close to pulling a Jed.
> Why? Because you have no
> guaranteed right to sell things on a Sunday. The state can not be
> found
> to be infringing on a right you don't have. The rational basis is "The
> state can ensure it's workers take a day off, and Sunday is as good a
> day as any." In McGowan vs. Maryland, only Douglas had the courage to
> state that such laws violate the First Amendmentment, and even he
> discarded the Fourteenth as not guaranteeing this liberty. If this
> court
> can stretch the Fourteenth to cover sodomy, it covered blue laws, drug
> possession, adult incest, bigamy, and all kinds of unwarranted
> intrusions by the state.
I'm sure Justice Williams will tell us when state intrusions are warranted.
He's already told us two: the transfer of wealth and private education.
> It'll be a happy day if people consistently read the 14th to do that.
BWAHAHA!
> I
> don't think they will.
That is because your reading is goofball. What are they teaching you at LLC?
Brett Robson
>
>Brett Robson <jet...@deja.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 29 Jun 2003 15:32:11 +0900, Michael ...
>
>>I understand your point but disagree. This is being toted as a liberal move when
>>in fact most countries have got passed these ridiculous arguments three decades
>> ago.
>
>You mean "most developed countries", of course.
Yes and no. Very few non-developed countries have similar laws.
>BTW, in the less-discussed affirmative action ruling, several justices
>noted the strong input of "65 of Fortune's 500" companies in helping to
>persuade them to uphold the U Michigan policy.
That's very interesting, I didn't know that.
Brett Robson
>The blue law stuff is pretty funny. In Arkansas, up until 1982, you
>couldn't sell the following stuff on a Sunday:
>
>(1) clothing and wearing apparel; (2) clothing accessories; (3)
>household utensils, glassware and china; (4) home, business or office
>furniture; (5) mechanical or electrical household or office appliances;
>(6) hardware, tools and paints; (7) building and lumber supply
>materials; (8) jewelry, silverware, watches and clocks; (9) luggage and
>leather goods; (10) musical instruments and recordings; (11) radios and
>television sets, receivers, record players, recording devices and
>components and parts therefor; (12) lawnmowers and other manual and
>power driven outdoor gardening equipment; (13) cameras, projectors and
>parts and equipment therefor (except film, flashbulbs and batteries);
>and (14) linens, yard goods, trimmings and sewing supplies.
>
and the children of Seventh Day Adventists (the scum of the earth) can't do any
of that on Saturdays either.
Kevin Wayne Williams
> Kevin Wayne Williams <nihongo> wrote:
>
>>Brett Robson wrote:
>
>
>>>Which misses the point entirely. It is no business of anyone what people do in
>>>prvacy.
>
>
>>I agree completely with that part, but KGII isn't wrong in one sense ...
>>the reasoning of the decision was strained, at best. The 14th amendment
>>is getting stretched to fit around this one. The consequences of this
>
>
> The 14th Amendment is more relevant to ruling on affirmative action.
>
>
>>things like adult incest are legal. Drug possession would be difficult
>>to uphold as criminal under the logic of the decision. It basically sets
>>a precedent that the government can't tell you what to do.
>
>
> Um, no, not any more than, say, the 21st Amendment.
I didn't say that the 14th Amendment said that. I said that the
precedent set by Lawrence vs. Texas says that.It specifically bases
itself on the 14th Amendment.
From the majority:
"Our prior cases make two propositions abundantly clear. First, the
fact that the governing majority in a State has traditionally viewed a
particular practice as immoral is not a sufficient reason for upholding
a law prohibiting the practice; neither history nor tradition could save
a law prohibiting miscegenation from constitutional attack. Second,
individual decisions by married persons, concerning the intimacies of
their physical relationship, even when not intended to produce
offspring, are a form of 'liberty' protected by the Due Process Clause
of the Fourteenth Amendment. Moreover, this protection extends to
intimate choices by unmarried as well as married persons."
From Connor's separate opinion:
"Rather than relying on the substantive component of the Fourteenth
Amendment's Due Process Clause, as the Court does, I base my conclusion
on the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause."
Do the words "strained" and "stretched" mean something different than I
thought? What words could I have used that would have better conveyed
that I thought the court was really, really reaching to make the
conclusion it did? I may like the consequences, but I think the logic
sucked.
KWW
obakesan
In article <bdoae...@drn.newsguy.com>, Brett Robson <jet...@deja.com>
wrote:
>On Thu, 26 Jun 2003 10:50:10 -0400, "Kevin ...
>>
>>For over two year I have told apoplectic leftists that the Supreme Court was
>>not a conservative body that made a purely political decision in Bush v.
>>Gore. Now I must stand corrected. On Monday, the Court upheld affirmative
>>action and today it struck down a law banning gay sex.
>>
>
>Bryan and Michael have invited me to a party to celebrate. Should I go?
sure
will there be web cam?
See Ya
(when bandwidth gets better ;-)
Chris Eastwood
we tend to blame others for our problems
I think this is something we inherit from our parents
please remove undies for reply
Kevin Wayne Williams
> I don't know of any blue law jurisdiction where violation is a jailable
> offense. Let's be honest, KWW. I also don't know of any blue law
> jurisdiction where there is the flat ban on commerce that your statement
> suggests. Such laws generally apply to the sale of alcohol in retail
> outlets. This was the case in Atlanta when I lived there. In one county,
> there was no sale of alcohol on Sunday. However, one could simply cross the
> county line to where alcohol was sold on Sunday. (Atlanta covers the
> intersection of several counties). Also, the blue laws in that county did
> not apply to alcohol served for consumption on a business's presence e.g. a
> restaurant that served alcohol.
Read McGowan v Maryland, and come back when you can deny the statement
that "the government has the right to jail you for selling goods and
services on a Sunday." . I didn't say that I was aware of a case where
they still did. I said that they had the right to do so. In Virginia, in
the 80's, they had blue aisles in the stores. In the blue aisles, you
could buy light bulbs, automotive batteries (but not motor oil),
weedkiller (but not fertilizer), food (but not candy). The rest of the
store was roped off. Why? Because selling motor oil, fertilizer, and
candy, along with hundreds of other items, was illegal on Sunday. The
laws were overturned by popular vote, but were never held to be
unconstitutional. The only case I could find where they were overturned
on constitutionality was at the state level, in the Arkansas case you so
conveniently trimmed, where it was overturned because the list of
proscribed items was vague, not because proscribing items for Sunday
sale was unconstitutional.I cannot find any traces of McGowan v.
Maryland ever being overturned.
KWW
Brett Robson
>
>
>Indeed, possession of anything would be difficult to legislate. This is one
>of the nice things about having such matters decided by the legislature
>rather than the courts. A state might decide that it wants to permit sodomy
>but criminalize bestiality. It gets to be inconsistent. The courts don't
>have that luxury. However, I don't think that the precedent you describe has
>been set in the slightest.
You can thank Texas, and a couple of police officers in particular for that.
Michael Cash
the alphabet and kept on going with:
>On Sat, 28 Jun 2003 22:22:39 +0900, Michael ...
>>
>>On Sat, 28 Jun 2003 21:32:48 +0900, "John Yamamoto-Wilson"
>><jo...@rarebooksinjapan.com> belched the alphabet and kept on going
>>with:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>I wish I was Kant, then I could just make up what I like, and then when
>>>people disagreed I'd say, "Oh, but under my regime that couldn't happen!"
>>>
>>>BTW, I take it "Kantian regime" and "Kevinworld" are synonymous?
>>
>>Being woefully undereducated as I am, I wouldn't know Kant from my
>>aunt's elbow....but I would say that your description fits the old
>>favorite fjlij "E" ride, Ericworld.
>>
>
>The only thing you need to know about Kant is "Immanuel Kant was a real piss-ant
>who was very rarely stable."
Is he still alive? I'd like to invite him to join fjlij. Based on your
description, he would fit in perfectly.
Michael Cash
(obakesan) belched the alphabet and kept on going with:
>HiYa
>
>In article <bdoae...@drn.newsguy.com>, Brett Robson <jet...@deja.com>
>wrote:
>>On Thu, 26 Jun 2003 10:50:10 -0400, "Kevin ...
>>>
>>>For over two year I have told apoplectic leftists that the Supreme Court was
>>>not a conservative body that made a purely political decision in Bush v.
>>>Gore. Now I must stand corrected. On Monday, the Court upheld affirmative
>>>action and today it struck down a law banning gay sex.
>>>
>>
>>Bryan and Michael have invited me to a party to celebrate. Should I go?
>
>sure
>
>will there be web cam?
We're doing it up right. Gonna be pay-per-view on satellite.
Brett Robson
>>
>>The only thing you need to know about Kant is "Immanuel Kant was a real piss-ant
>>who was very rarely stable."
>
>Is he still alive? I'd like to invite him to join fjlij. Based on your
>description, he would fit in perfectly.
>
Unfortunately not, Descartes as well. Which calls into question Rene's assertion
"I drink, therefore I am", the drunken old fart wouldn't have known if he was
drunk. I wouldn't be embrassed about not knowing much about philosophy but if
you do want to learn more I refer you to Monty Pythons Flying Circus.
footnote: I was trying to pay for milk and bread at around 1:30am at my local
convini Friday night so strunk I could hardly dand. The pretty young thing had
nearly knocked me on my arse a few minutes earlier and was being very patient
while I tried to extract 1000 yen from my wallet. Her eyes nearly popped out of
their sockets when I said I was so drunk I couldn't scratch my balls.
Michael Cash
<nih...@paxonet.kom> belched the alphabet and kept on going with:
>Brett Robson wrote:
>
>> Which misses the point entirely. It is no business of anyone what people do in
>> prvacy.
Pardon me for piggybacking, but I need to tell Brent that there is
something about his message that causes Agent to crash on my chat
machine. Done it twice in a row.
I don't mind you fucking up the internet, it *does* belong to your
company after all. But me and Bill Gates own my machine.
mtfe...@netscape.net
> I didn't say that the 14th Amendment said that. I said that the
> precedent set by Lawrence vs. Texas says that.It specifically bases
> itself on the 14th Amendment.
> Do the words "strained" and "stretched" mean something different than I
> thought? What words could I have used that would have better conveyed
> that I thought the court was really, really reaching to make the
You are confused, it seems. Nobody questioned your statements.
It is your reasoning that is questioned.
Mike
mtfe...@netscape.net
> On Mon, 30 Jun 2003 03:12:55 +0000 (UTC), mtfe...@netscape.net ...
>>> On Sun, 29 Jun 2003 15:32:11 +0900, Michael ...
>>
>>>I understand your point but disagree. This is being toted as a liberal move when
>>>in fact most countries have got passed these ridiculous arguments three decades
>>> ago.
>>
>>You mean "most developed countries", of course.
> Yes and no. Very few non-developed countries have similar laws.
Quite a number of them, however, will simply kill you for getting caught in
that sort of behavior.
>>BTW, in the less-discussed affirmative action ruling, several justices
>>noted the strong input of "65 of Fortune's 500" companies in helping to
>>persuade them to uphold the U Michigan policy.
> That's very interesting, I didn't know that.
Odd, isn't it? Still, a keen grasp of the obvious is in everyone's best
interests.
Mike
Jason Cormier
Gowen" <kgowen...@myfastmail.com> wrote:
>> So tell me, Kevin: How do you feel about gay marriage? Forget the
>> issue of the courts and their intrusion upon the areas of legislative
>> authority and other such constitutional/procedural issues. How do you
>> fell about marriage no longer being prohibited for homosexuals in
>> most of Canada?
>
> I have no feelings about the decisions of Canadian courts. I don't even have
> thoughts about them. For the same reason, I couldn't comment about the issue
> of courts/legislatures in Canada even if I wanted to because I haven't the
> slightest idea about the workings of the various levels of Canadian
> government. They are of no consequence to me.
Perhaps not you, personally but marriages in Canada have been recognised in
the US, when the issue arose. Should this, in your view, remain the same now
that homosexual marriage is a reality in most of Canada? I do not mean is it
likely for the relevant government bodies to recognise these marriages but
do you personally think they should?
(I keep writing "most" because of issues in Alberta regarding use of the
notwithstanding clause. http://tinyurl.com/fmsl <== It should be noted that,
since this article was written, the federal Government has announced that it
will not appeal the ruling.)
>> How about the same across the US?
>
> It's a state issue, so I doubt it would be the same across the US. Marriage
> is a privilege in that a license is granted by the state, and as such the
> several states have differing laws as to who may marry whom. The most
> obvious example would be state laws regarding legal age of marriage.
>
> For this reason I think that the Defense of Marriage Act was inappropriate.
> I see absolutely nothing about marriage that falls under Congress's Article
> I powers or the federal judiciary's Article III powers. The same goes for
> sexual activity, which is why I felt the SCOTUS was wrong to even hear
> _Lawrence_. If I were a member of the Texas legislature, I would have voted
> to abolish that law, but I'm not. Neither are any of the nine justices in
> D.C. Too bad that only three of them realize this fact.
I thought I was fairly clear. I was asking your view on homosexual marriage,
not on the the legal issues (constitutional, procedural, jurisdictional,
etc.) Does the fact that you are against the Defence of Marriage Act and
would have voted to abolish the Texas law mean that your have no problem
with homosexuals marrying? If not, I am simply interested in hearing your
opinion on that issue, separate of legislative/judicial authority.
>>>> (The little woman shouldn't be a
>>>> problem....according to the neo-con whining, legalised bigamy is
>>>> only days away.)
>>>
>>> I don't know what a neo-con is, so I am afraid I am unfamiliar with
>>> their whining.
>>
>> It's a term that's become popular in describing the new generation of
>> Canada's conservative politicians, political parties, and those that
>> support them.
>
> Ok. In the US it's become a favorite term of the left, almost always as a
> pejorative, but there is no clear definition. I've read a number of article
> about so-called neoconservatism, but they have all been incongruous, even
> those written by those on the right.
In Canada, the most common groups to whom the label has been attached are
the Reform Party (right wing party that is currently the official opposition
and whose support is primarily found in Western Canada), the Fraser
Institute (conservative think tank based in Vancouver), the national Post
(newspaper), and the current Provincial Governments in Ontario (Progressive
Conservatives) and BC (Liberal...though in party name only, not in policy or
philosophy).
Kevin Gowen
> On 6/29/03 20:21, in article bdnvqr$udqff$1...@ID-105084.news.dfncis.de,
> "Kevin Gowen" <kgowen...@myfastmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I have no feelings about the decisions of Canadian courts. I don't
>> even have thoughts about them. For the same reason, I couldn't
>> comment about the issue of courts/legislatures in Canada even if I
>> wanted to because I haven't the slightest idea about the workings of
>> the various levels of Canadian government. They are of no
>> consequence to me.
>
> Perhaps not you, personally but marriages in Canada have been
> recognised in the US, when the issue arose. Should this, in your
> view, remain the same now that homosexual marriage is a reality in
> most of Canada? I do not mean is it likely for the relevant
> government bodies to recognise these marriages but
> do you personally think they should?
No. I do not think that foreign marriages that do not conform with American
marriage laws should be recognized here.
Canadian marriages, like other foreign marriages, are recognized by the US
only as far as they are compatible with domestic marriage laws. For example,
a polygamous marriage from Saudi Arabia would not be recognized here. The
issue most often comes up in immigration issues when a person with more than
one spouse tries to sponsor all of them to immigrate to the US on a
family-based visa petition. This issue has come up in same-sex marriage
cases, BTW. The outcome is always the same. AFAIK, there is no US-Canada
agreement that says that whatever passes for a marriage in one country must
be recognized in the other. The US already deals with this issue with the
Netherlands and Belgium i.e. it does not recognize their same-sex marriages.
I see no reason why we should deal with Canada any differently.
Does Canada recognize foreign marriages that do not conform with Canadian
law e.g. a polygamous marriage? (assuming that polygamy is not legal in
Canada)
> (I keep writing "most" because of issues in Alberta regarding use of
> the notwithstanding clause. http://tinyurl.com/fmsl <== It should be
> noted that, since this article was written, the federal Government
> has announced that it will not appeal the ruling.)
Yes, I saw that. The dissent in _Lawrence_ notes this fact.
> I thought I was fairly clear. I was asking your view on homosexual
> marriage, not on the the legal issues (constitutional, procedural,
> jurisdictional, etc.)
Well, the legal issues do form part of my views, as marriage is a legality.
> Does the fact that you are against the Defence
> of Marriage Act and would have voted to abolish the Texas law mean
> that your have no problem
> with homosexuals marrying?
No. Well, let me qualify that statement. If a same-sex couple wishes to have
some ceremony in which they pledge lifelong devotion to each other, I have
no problem with that. I would have a problem only if they were recognized by
the state in which I live.
I hasten to add that the majority of the states have passed Defense of
Marriage Acts. I have no problem with those. I would be remiss if I did not
note the same-sex civil unions that have existed in Vermont for the past few
years. As an American jurisdiction, Vermont's shenanigans have much more
likelihood of affecting me than anything the Dutch or Canadians might have
to say about marriage. As of right now, they are only recognized in Vermont,
so I really couldn't give a damn about that, either. Ask me again if such
unions get conferred all the right, benefits, and privileges of married
couples.
> If not, I am simply interested in hearing
> your opinion on that issue, separate of legislative/judicial
> authority.
If I were a member of a state legislature and there were a bill that would
establish same-sex marriage, I would vote against that bill.
John W.
> Jason Cormier wrote:
> > Does the fact that you are against the Defence
> > of Marriage Act and would have voted to abolish the Texas law mean
> > that your have no problem
> > with homosexuals marrying?
>
> No. Well, let me qualify that statement. If a same-sex couple wishes to have
> some ceremony in which they pledge lifelong devotion to each other, I have
> no problem with that. I would have a problem only if they were recognized by
> the state in which I live.
>
John W.
Kevin Gowen
Why not? I want to live in a state that reflects my moral stands and
choices. For the same reason, I would have a problem if my state were to
recognize incestuous marriages.
> Homophobic?
No, I'm not scared of gay people. Well, maybe Jim J. Bullock.
Kevin Gowen
> Kevin Gowen wrote:
>
>
>> I don't know of any blue law jurisdiction where violation is a
>> jailable offense. Let's be honest, KWW. I also don't know of any
>> blue law jurisdiction where there is the flat ban on commerce that
>> your statement suggests. Such laws generally apply to the sale of
>> alcohol in retail outlets. This was the case in Atlanta when I lived
>> there. In one county, there was no sale of alcohol on Sunday.
>> However, one could simply cross the county line to where alcohol was
>> sold on Sunday. (Atlanta covers the intersection of several
>> counties). Also, the blue laws in that county did not apply to
>> alcohol served for consumption on a business's presence e.g. a
>> restaurant that served alcohol.
>
> Read McGowan v Maryland, and come back when you can deny the statement
> that "the government has the right to jail you for selling goods and
> services on a Sunday." .
I did. I see no language of the kind. You really need to put a "certain"
between "selling" and "goods". I deny your statement. If that is how you are
being taught how to read cases at LLS, the accreditation thing is making
sense. BTW, it's nice to give reporter cites.
> I didn't say that I was aware of a case where
> they still did. I said that they had the right to do so.
Yes, you did, and that was sloppy. The state does not have rights; it has
powers. That aside, you have no support for your claim that "the government
has the right to jail you for selling goods and services on a Sunday". It
doesn't even have that power.
> In Virginia,
> in
> the 80's, they had blue aisles in the stores. In the blue aisles, you
> could buy light bulbs, automotive batteries (but not motor oil),
> weedkiller (but not fertilizer), food (but not candy). The rest of the
> store was roped off. Why? Because selling motor oil, fertilizer, and
> candy, along with hundreds of other items, was illegal on Sunday. The
> laws were overturned by popular vote, but were never held to be
> unconstitutional.
*snore*snore*
You're done.
> The only case I could find where they were
> overturned
> on constitutionality was at the state level, in the Arkansas case you
> so conveniently trimmed,
What was convenient about it?
> where it was overturned because the list of
> proscribed items was vague, not because proscribing items for Sunday
> sale was unconstitutional.I cannot find any traces of McGowan v.
> Maryland ever being overturned.
Do you know what the word "Shepardize" means?
See:
_Swed v. Inhabitants of Town of Bar Harbor_, 158 Me. 220, 182 A.2d 664 (Me.
Jun 29, 1962)
_Horace Mann League of U. S. of America_, Inc. v. Board of Public Works, 242
Md. 645, 220 A.2d 51 (Md. Jun 02, 1966)
_Handy Dan Imp. Center, Inc. v. Adams_, 276 Ark. 268, 633 S.W.2d 699 (Ark.
Jun 01, 1982)
All cases give negative treatment of _McGowan_. Here's a little quote from
_Handy_:
"It will be seen from these cases that in applying the tests and
interpreting the cases, each case is controlled to a great extent by
statutory development over many decades, sometimes centuries. This accounts,
in part, for the wide diversity of results reached in different
jurisdictions. State cases decided since McGowan, supra, and the other
landmark 1961 cases continue to be divided. This is because the precedential
value of these landmark cases is limited by the particular legislative
schemes involved."
There is no wholesale "the government has the right to jail you for selling
goods and services on a Sunday." It is far more accurate to say "the state
has the power to jail you for selling certain goods and services on a given
day of the week". While none of those cases are an overturning of _McGowan_,
it is substantial and nuanced negative treatment which flies in the face of
your verbal fart. What you blurted out wasn't even true the day _McGowan_
was decided.
BTW, Kick Bottle, it seems that your rare moments of weakness are becoming
increasingly frequent. I thought that powerlifters were supposed to be
strong. Maybe you should take some powdered egg whites? GRRR!
Kevin Gowen
> From Connor's separate opinion:
> "Rather than relying on the substantive component of the Fourteenth
> Amendment's Due Process Clause, as the Court does, I base my
> conclusion
> on the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause."
Who appointed Justice Connor? I missed that one.
Brett Robson
>
>On Mon, 30 Jun 2003 04:33:12 GMT, Kevin Wayne Williams
><nih...@paxonet.kom> belched the alphabet and kept on going with:
>
>>Brett Robson wrote:
>>
>>>Which misses the point entirely. It is no business of anyone what people do in
>>> prvacy.
>Pardon me for piggybacking, but I need to tell Brent that there is
>something about his message that causes Agent to crash on my chat
>machine. Done it twice in a row.
>
>I don't mind you fucking up the internet, it *does* belong to your
>company after all. But me and Bill Gates own my machine.
>
Sorry 'bout that guv, I can't see any weird characters or message format
breaches. Maybe it was one of the following keywords
"Seventh Day Adventists"
"John Ashcroft"
"Jesus"
"office prayers"
"Ben Shapiro"
mtfe...@netscape.net
> John W. wrote:
>> "Kevin Gowen" <kgowen...@myfastmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:<bdplpr$vhcok$1...@ID-105084.news.dfncis.de>...
>>> Jason Cormier wrote:
>> Why?
> Why not? I want to live in a state that reflects my moral stands and
> choices.
"Freedom of choice, for all those who choose correctly."
> For the same reason, I would have a problem if my state were to
> recognize incestuous marriages.
First cousins?
Mike
Michael Cash
the alphabet and kept on going with:
>On Mon, 30 Jun 2003 19:34:55 +0900, Michael ...
>>
>>On Mon, 30 Jun 2003 04:33:12 GMT, Kevin Wayne Williams
>><nih...@paxonet.kom> belched the alphabet and kept on going with:
>>
>>>Brett Robson wrote:
>>>
>>>>Which misses the point entirely. It is no business of anyone what people do in
>>>> prvacy.
>>Pardon me for piggybacking, but I need to tell Brent that there is
>>something about his message that causes Agent to crash on my chat
>>machine. Done it twice in a row.
>>
>>I don't mind you fucking up the internet, it *does* belong to your
>>company after all. But me and Bill Gates own my machine.
>>
>
>Sorry 'bout that guv, I can't see any weird characters or message format
>breaches. Maybe it was one of the following keywords
>
>"Seventh Day Adventists"
>"John Ashcroft"
>"Jesus"
>"office prayers"
>"Ben Shapiro"
Since I can't even view the message, I have no idea either. The
program sort of freezes up, I get three error warnings (with no
details), and then the program shuts down.
I hope you're proud of yourself.
Bryan Parker
>On Thu, 26 Jun 2003 10:50:10 -0400, "Kevin ...
>>
>>For over two year I have told apoplectic leftists that the Supreme Court was
>>not a conservative body that made a purely political decision in Bush v.
>>Gore. Now I must stand corrected. On Monday, the Court upheld affirmative
>>action and today it struck down a law banning gay sex.
>>
>
>Bryan and Michael have invited me to a party to celebrate. Should I go?
The party's going to be held in the back of
Brent's throat. Guess which 2 fjlij regulars are
going to be coming?
--
Bryan
gaijeneration -
noun: the act of propagating
noun: group of gaijenetically related organisms
constituting a single step in the line of descent
noun: the normal time between successive gaijenerations
(Example: "They had to wait a gaijeneration for that
prejudice to fade")
noun: all foreigners living at the same time or
of approximately the same age
Bryan Parker
>On Mon, 30 Jun 2003 05:53:33 GMT, cjundie...@powerup.com.au
>(obakesan) belched the alphabet and kept on going with:
>
>>HiYa
>>
>>In article <bdoae...@drn.newsguy.com>, Brett Robson <jet...@deja.com>
>>wrote:
>>>On Thu, 26 Jun 2003 10:50:10 -0400, "Kevin ...
>>>>
>>>>For over two year I have told apoplectic leftists that the Supreme Court was
>>>>not a conservative body that made a purely political decision in Bush v.
>>>>Gore. Now I must stand corrected. On Monday, the Court upheld affirmative
>>>>action and today it struck down a law banning gay sex.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Bryan and Michael have invited me to a party to celebrate. Should I go?
>>
>>sure
>>
>>will there be web cam?
>
>We're doing it up right. Gonna be pay-per-view on satellite.
"Fist-a-Mania I"