From: krw on 25 Nov 2006 22:58 In article <4568EDE9.72E1B5ED(a)hotmail.com>, rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com says... > > > krw wrote: > > > Health care is not in the COnstitution as a federal power > > Are you always going to let a historical document rule your lives as if nothing > had changed ? THere is a method (actually two) for changing it. If it needs to be changed it can be tried[*]. Until then it is the supreme law of the land and must be treated as such or it has no meaning at all; a dangerous thing. [*] NHS won't even get to first base.
From: lucasea on 25 Nov 2006 22:58 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ek9ijm$8qk_006(a)s1007.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > > In article <45672D76.2B46C928(a)hotmail.com>, > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >>Scottish Law is different actually ! It has its own Parliament too as will >>Northern Ireland when the 'Loyalists' and Republicans can get their act > together >>again. > > I thought those places based their politics on ideas started > with the Magna Carta. If they don't, then they do not a uniform > basis. Two comments. First, so did the US (base its politics on ideas started with the Magna Carta). Are you saying that the US is the same as the UK? Second, all 50 states based their politics on ideas started with the US Constitution. By your reasoning, we would then have a uniform economy and the same laws. Which are you claiming--that the US is uniform, or that the UK is not uniform? Either way, your argument against a national health care system crumbles. Eric Lucas
From: lucasea on 25 Nov 2006 23:04 "Phineas T Puddleduck" <phineaspuddleduck(a)googlemail.com> wrote in message news:phineaspuddleduck-CFED3B.14281925112006(a)free.teranews.com... > In article <phineaspuddleduck-DA5DCC.14260525112006(a)free.teranews.com>, > Phineas T Puddleduck <phineaspuddleduck(a)googlemail.com> wrote: > >> They do NOT have a uniform political basis tho. > > To add. Although the act of Union between England and Wales meant that > Welsh Law (codified mainly by Hywel Dda) was superceded by English Law > (even though in a lot of ways Hywel's laws were better) - the act of > Union between Scotland and England did not - there is a wealth of > Scottish law that is unique to them. Yes, but I wanna know who ended up with all the unused vowels. Eric Lucas
From: lucasea on 25 Nov 2006 23:05 "Phineas T Puddleduck" <phineaspuddleduck(a)googlemail.com> wrote in message news:phineaspuddleduck-CFED3B.14281925112006(a)free.teranews.com... > In article <phineaspuddleduck-DA5DCC.14260525112006(a)free.teranews.com>, > Phineas T Puddleduck <phineaspuddleduck(a)googlemail.com> wrote: > >> They do NOT have a uniform political basis tho. > > To add. Although the act of Union between England and Wales meant that > Welsh Law (codified mainly by Hywel Dda) was superceded by English Law > (even though in a lot of ways Hywel's laws were better) - the act of > Union between Scotland and England did not - there is a wealth of > Scottish law that is unique to them. Actually, what I *really* wanna know is, who decided that it was a good idea to make "w" a vowel. Eric Lucas
From: krw on 25 Nov 2006 23:13
In article <4569013C.A9CD5750(a)hotmail.com>, rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com says... > > > krw wrote: > > > rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com says... > > > krw wrote: > > > > > > > Think, dumb donkey. A controlled economy *is* communism. > > > > > > Where did I say controlled ? > > > > My you do like to snip out what makes you look so foolish. Here, > > I'll remind you: > > > > > > It's more like a mixed economy run by a party that still calls > > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^ > > > > itself communist. > > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > "Economy run by" => "Economy controlled by", dumb donkey. > > Did the Republicans *control* the US economy No. > and do the Democrats do so now ? Dumb donkey, they aren't in power. And No, all they can do is muck it up, which I'm quite sure they will. > Is the USA economy a *comtrolled economy* ? No. -- Keith |