Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Lloyd Parker on 27 Nov 2006 05:37 In article <MPG.1fd266107aed13ca989c9e(a)news.individual.net>, krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: >In article <6CO9h.6326$yf7.931(a)newssvr21.news.prodigy.net>, >lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net says... >> >> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >> news:ek70h3$8qk_012(a)s989.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >> > >> > Most people, (except it seems our current Demcocrat leadership), >> > in this country are highly allergic to throwing away our >> > Constitution. >> >> That's hilarious. The Bush administration has been throwing out wholesale >> clauses of the Constitution at their whim. Or was your substituting >> "Democrat" for "neo-conservative Republican" another Freudian slip? > >More claptrap from a leftist loon. > >> >> > To transfer states' powers to the Federal >> > government is unconstitutional >> >> Please quote the clause that forbids this in general. And please quote the >> clause that says that providing health care is a "states' power". > >Health care is not in the COnstitution as a federal power, thus >under the Xth Amendment it becomes a power of the states or the >people. The air force isn't in the constitution. Neither is radio/TV. Neither is sending troops abroad (only "common defense" is mentioned). > >> > and requires extraordinary >> > circumstances >> >> And you think that having 20 % of our population without health care is not >> "extraordinary"? > >Now you're confusing "health care" with "health insurance". And >no, it's not "extraordinary". How many had health *insurance* >fifty years ago? >> >> > and legal actions to do so. >> >> And what makes you think the needed legal actions cannot happen? >> >That's what I'm always afraid of "legal actions". They're the >worst subversions of the Constitution (again, see: Kelo). >>
From: Lloyd Parker on 27 Nov 2006 05:54 In article <ekc7ba$8qk_002(a)s963.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >In article <45699BCB.BDACF454(a)hotmail.com>, > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>> > >>> >> In case you two haven't noticed, the trend is to make possession >>> >> of tobacco illegal. >>> > >>> >No sweetheart. It's the smoking of it where it's not wanted that's >becoming >>> >illegal. >>> >>> In this country, it's also illegal where it is wanted. The >>> commentary now going on in my state is the estimate that it >>> will take 10 years to make possession of tobacco illegal. >> >>That sounds like simple 'scaremongering' to me. > >It's exactly how the current laws barring all people from >smoking in all public places started. >> Then I take it you wouldn't mind someone spraying polonium around in a public place either. >> >>> Granted, this is personal experience again and not allowed in >>> your discussions. What I would like to know is why are your >>> personal experiences allowed to be used as debating facts >>> and mine cannot be? >> >>Which personal experiences ? You've posted many and I've posted very few. >That >>seems to contradict your assertion. > >ARe you being ignorant on purpose? You don't allow me to use >facts that happens in my life as a valid debating point. > >/BAH
From: Lloyd Parker on 27 Nov 2006 05:51 In article <ekc28m$8ss_001(a)s963.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >In article <MPG.1fd2d7e6ed030e26989ce1(a)news.individual.net>, > krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: >>In article <slrnemhu90.5qi.don(a)manx.misty.com>, don(a)manx.misty.com >>says... ><snip> > >>> Also, the USA's worst-in-the-world "War On Drugs"! Punish users >>> inadequately and make most punishment to distribution, so as to give >>> a profit motive to smarter meaner distributors! >>> I thing USA is better off choosing either of two extremes: >>> >>> 1) Get caught with half a joint, spend 2 years in "The Joint". According >>> to my German teacher when I was taking German in highschool, that was the >>> law of Germany! >>> >>> 2) Make USA's recreational drug laws like they were in 1900 - when >>> marijuana, cocaine and opiates were LEGAL! >> >>Legalizing marijuana is a good idea, the government doesn't like it >>because unlike alcohol or tobacco it cannot be taxed. It's too >>easy to grow. I don't like the idea of legalizing cocaine or >>opiates. THe cost to society of these things now makes tobacco look >>like chump change. > >In case you two haven't noticed, the trend is to make possession >of tobacco illegal. That kind of rhetoric has already started >in Massachusetts. And, since this is an all-Democrat state, >you others can't blame Republicans. It is one of life's >largest ironies that the Democrats, who call themselves >Liberals, are the most tight-assed, prudish, intolerable >people. > >/BAH Whatever happened to "your right stops when it injures me"?
From: Lloyd Parker on 27 Nov 2006 05:56 In article <ekc910$8qk_004(a)s963.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >In article <45699770.B6957F47(a)hotmail.com>, > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >>> krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: >>> >rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com says... >>> >> krw wrote: >>> >> > rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com says... >>> >> > > krw wrote: >>> >> > > > rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com says... >>> >> > > > > krw wrote: >>> >> > > > > >>> >> > > > > > you'd likely be all for nationalizing the oil companies too. >>> >> > > > > >>> >> > > > > What would be the point of that ? >>> >> > > > >>> >> > > > It makes as much sense as nationalizing health care; none. Why >>> >> > > > don't you nationalize food production while you're at it? >>> >> > > >>> >> > > Who said anything about nationalisation ? >>> >> > >>> >> > What exactly do you think *NATIONALIZED* Health Care is? >>> >> > >>> >> > Dumb donkey! >>> >> >>> >> The NHS *does not* nationalise all health care. >>> >> >>> >> Private practice continues and GPs run their own practices essentially >as >>> >> they like. They simply receive a salary from the NHS. >>> > >>> >If they receive a salary from the NHS, their practices *have* been >>> >nationalized. They're no longer in control of their business. >>> >Sheesh! >>> > >>> There is something more important here. He cannot conceive >>> of a medical distriubtion system that isn't completely >>> controlled by the national government. >> >>You're utterly wrong. >> >>The government doesn't control the 'medical distribution system' as you call >it. >>There is private practice too as I keep telling you. > >But only your upper, upper class are allowed to use those >services. How long do you think it will take some socialist >to use that as a class warfare tool? YOu've already decimated >your wealthy class by bankrupting them through death taxes. > >/BAH I'm sure Paris Hilton loves your advocacy of a system which allows her to inherit all her parents' wealth with no taxation.
From: Lloyd Parker on 27 Nov 2006 05:35
In article <MPG.1fd25e30bbdf206e989c9a(a)news.individual.net>, krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: >In article <4568506B.B2ADEA0D(a)hotmail.com>, >rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com says... >> >> >> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >> > Take a look at European nations that are blatant socialists. >> >> False premise commented on. >> >> >> > They have to import people to do the work. >> >> Like Mexicans in the 'socialist' USA you mean ? > >A little. The difference is that the Mexicans are here illegally >rather than having been invited in because of a negative population >rate. It's about time for an open season on Mexican here. > So, are you celebrating Eric Rudolph's work or Tim McVeigh's? |