PDA

View Full Version : KERRY'S PLAN . . . A NEW DIRECTION - EXPLAINED!



johnwk
October 15th, 2004, 07:58 PM
KERRY’S PLAN. . .A NEW DIRECTION - EXPLAINED!

Our Senator from Massachusetts, John Kerry, has informed the American people that health care ought to be a "right". Surely, if health care ought to be a “right” as our Senator from Massachusetts believes, as opposed to being that which each American has a constitutional right to “pursue” individually, then it is the duty of folks in government to tax and spend to provide that right to all Americans, and not discriminate in the protection of that right.

In accordance with Kerry’s view to provide health care to all Americans as a “right”, it becomes necessary and appropriate then to lay and collect taxes to pay for the health care needs of all, including the health care needs of tens of thousands of promiscuous homosexuals, some of whom may have engaged in multiple different partner same-sex sexual relations in just one evening which has predictably resulted in their HIV infection.

And what could be wrong with taxing prudent and hard working couples to pay the health care needs of sexual perverts in our society who predictable contract the Aids virus?

Kerry’s direction would also require prudent and hard working people with children to be taxed to pay the medical needs of unwed moms, some of whom have multiple children and by different fathers, and are unable or unwilling to meet the financial burden which has resulted from their promiscuous sexual activities.

But what could be wrong with health care being made a “right”, and then taxing our nation’s prudent and hard working couples to pay for the health care needs of promiscuous unwed moms, in some cases who may have two, three and even more children born out of wed lock?

Kerry’s direction would also tax prudent and hard working couples to pay for the medical needs of the obese who have brought on a sickly condition by self indulgence and the avoidance of prudent health practices to avoid predictable health consequences.

Likewise, Kerry’s direction would tax prudent and hard working couples to pay the medical needs of alcoholics suffering liver disease, crack heads and many others who have knowingly and willingly brought on their own medical conditions.

But what could be wrong with a new direction that taxes the prudent to pay for the excesses of others?


You bet Kerry has a new direction in mind…but it is not to help prudent and hard working couples in America, nor singles who are sensible and cautious in their every day activities. Kerry’s direction is to expand government, create more high paying government plum jobs to be filled by his self interested and dishonorable political campaign workers, who will then disburse the paychecks of America’s working class citizens which Kerry, with the help of Congress, intends to acquire via government taxation for a purpose not authorized by the Constitution of the United States. And, in the process, Kerry, as well as the Congress of the United States, will have done nothing more than follow a known and sinister strategy which benefits unscrupulous leaders as expressed by Hamilton in Federalist No. 79 “… a control over a man’s subsistence is a control over his will.”

If folks in government are allowed to tax the bread which you have earned for the purpose of providing you with your health care needs, then folks in government have become the master and you an unwitting servant, indebted to a master for your health care needs.

If Kerry were truly sincere in wanting to help America’s working class citizen, especially with their health care needs, he would immediately start by promoting the abolishment of a federal tax on the wages which labor has earned and focus his attention upon restoring our founding fathers original tax plan (http://www.gigo-soapbox.org/gigo/2002/06/18.shtml), which was intended to ensure individual economic liberty and keep in tact the earned resources needed by individuals to meet their own health care needs.


JWK
ACRS


“…..with all these blessings, what more is necessary to make us a happy and a prosperous people? Still one thing more, fellow-citizens—a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities“___ Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address

LuPeRcALiO
October 15th, 2004, 08:17 PM
“a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. --Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address

Hilarious. The Bush administration is neither wise nor frugal and not only steals bread from Americans but uses it to slaughter innocents (including Americans) halfway around the world.

TLOZ Link5
October 17th, 2004, 12:07 PM
In accordance with Kerry’s view to provide health care to all Americans as a “right”, it becomes necessary and appropriate then to lay and collect taxes to pay for the health care needs of all, including the health care needs of tens of thousands of promiscuous homosexuals, some of whom may have engaged in multiple different partner same-sex sexual relations in just one evening which has predictably resulted in their HIV infection.

And what could be wrong with taxing prudent and hard working couples to pay the health care needs of sexual perverts in our society who predictable contract the Aids virus?

HIV does not only affect homosexuals; drug users and heterosexuals comprise most new HIV infections. What about rape victims or babies who were born with the virus?

We turned our backs in the early '80s and allowed the disease to spread when it might have been contained had we done something to combat it at the beginning. We're seeing the exact same thing happen in Russia now, except that gay people are not particularly being infected.

ZippyTheChimp
October 17th, 2004, 12:34 PM
That post is a time-warp to the 80s, when the little known "gay mens' disease" was called God's wrath for homosexuality by Falwell, Swaggert, et al.

nybboy
October 17th, 2004, 01:15 PM
Actually, in the spring of this year. I remember reading an esquire magazine story that gay men do have a higher chance of getting HIV. By a much a higher percentage, it's more likely that homosexual activity will lead to HIV infection. Of course, anyone can get this virus, but it's just more likely that gay guys have a higher chance of getting it.
Also, about the health care plan. It is not the federal government's role to provide universal healthcare according to the constitution. I think only a state could be able to do that, but even that might run against the national constitution. See, if liberals, and even George Bush, had a stricter standard to the constitution, we wouldn't have such a high deficit because there'll be less programs and the social security system will be gone(which btw was only meant to be temporary when created in the 30's, that's why it has inherent flaws in it, and the entire system must change, not just throw money at a problem like a lot of liberals do) and also the income tax will be gone because it is actually against the constituion. A national sales tax wouldn't.

ZippyTheChimp
October 17th, 2004, 01:28 PM
Naive and simplistic.

nybboy
October 17th, 2004, 01:52 PM
A national health care plan by John Forbes Kerry, i might add, may lead to a decline in the actual quality of the health care. But, there's no doubt, that the health system should be addressed.

ZippyTheChimp
October 17th, 2004, 02:04 PM
Bush has presided over the largest deficit in U.S. history,and has actually increased the size of government.

nybboy
October 17th, 2004, 02:44 PM
No doubt that the government has grown. Even Republicans are guilty of not decreasing the size of government. Actually, when looking at facts it is more fitting and accurate to look at things in terms of percent. and w/ the economy, it's good to look at percent relative to the GDP. So actually, in terms of %, the deficit is not the highest, because it takes up less of the GDP compared to previous years. Although, it is worthwhile to take issue w/ the growing government deficit. Just a reminder, it is not the government's role to make a profit, that's why government generally tends to be in a deficit.

nybboy
October 17th, 2004, 03:03 PM
it's good that, Zippy, u seem not to enjoy the ever-increasing size of federal government. Remember, a government that governs the least is the best government. but, really it's the people that make this country, the USA, go. On a side note, that's why it is important that government keeps the citizens right to bear arms. Forbes Kerry tend to argue that hunters don't need powerful weapons, he's right. But the amendment wasn't written to allow us to hunt.
Zippy, maybe u are actually more conservative than u think. Dont worry, it's ok to be conservative. To believe in individual responisbility, that the people are the ultimate source of power, and that power is delegated up gradually in the government. Unlike, more liberal Europe, where u believe in the government, and the government has ultimate power and that power is handed down gradually in the government, until it finally reaches the people. That's why, in many countries, people don't have the right to bear arms. it's a fundamental difference. U can have a state that mandates equality, but which takes away individual liberty. or u can have the right to property and happiness in the U.S.

ZippyTheChimp
October 17th, 2004, 04:36 PM
My reply was sarcasm to your programmed

not just throw money at a problem like a lot of liberals do)


Unlike, more liberal Europe, where u believe in the government, and the government has ultimate power and that power is handed down gradually in the government, until it finally reaches the people. That's why, in many countries, people don't have the right to bear arms. it's a fundamental difference.

And what conclusion do you draw from this fundamental difference? I conclude that it is a primary reason that the murder rate in European countries is so much lower than in the US.

TLOZ Link5
October 17th, 2004, 04:53 PM
Actually, in the spring of this year. I remember reading an esquire magazine story that gay men do have a higher chance of getting HIV.

Higher chance or higher rate of infection?'


And what conclusion do you draw from this fundamental difference? I conclude that it is a primary reason that the murder rate in European countries is so much lower than in the US.

That said, Zippy, the crime rates of most European nations are actually rising as the crime rate of the U.S. falls. This goes for murder rates, as well; already you're more likely to be murdered in Moscow than in New York, and in general be a victim of crime in Paris than in New York. The same is happening in Canada as well.

johnwk
October 17th, 2004, 04:55 PM
TLOZ Link5 wrote

“HIV does not only affect homosexuals; drug users and heterosexuals comprise most new HIV infections. What about rape victims or babies who were born with the virus?

We turned our backs in the early '80s and allowed the disease to spread when it might have been contained had we done something to combat it at the beginning. We're seeing the exact same thing happen in Russia now, except that gay people are not particularly being infected.”

ANSWER

Your limited focus on homosexual related aids as a rebuttal does not address the primary argument in the original post: “…what could be wrong with a new direction that taxes the prudent to pay for the excesses of others?”

You see, the focus of the post with regard to homosexuals is not about homosexual contracted Aids as such, but rather, promiscuous homosexuals who have predictably contracted Aids and other sexual transmitted diseases because of their promiscuous life style, including multiple partner sexual activities, some of whom have several different sexual partners in just one night.

I suggest you read:New study: Homosexual men prone to promiscuity (http://www.sbcbaptistpress.org/bpnews.asp?ID=17458)

The focus my friend is upon the excesses engaged in by individuals within various identified groups, not limited to homosexuals, and which predictably leads to exorbitant health care costs. Why should those who are prudent pay for the excesses of others?

Heck, even the liberal kingpin, Washington, D.C.’s former Mayor Marion Barry, had enough integrity to admit single moms with multiple children out of wedlock was an unacceptable financial burden for the taxpayer when he advocated mandatory Norplant injections for welfare recipients___ the case in point being a mom with, as I recall, 14 kids and was ready to put out another which inspired Barry to speak out.

And what about the obese, which I also mentioned, who do not follow prudent lifestyles to avoid getting obese which leads to all kinds of diseases and then outrageous medical costs? Should the prudent hard working people of America be taxed to pay for the excesses of those who bring on their own obesity which then results in countless other diseases and excessive medical costs?

I suggest you read: Obesity…An Underlying Cause of Disease in North America (http://www.barrysnutrition.com/obesity.htm)

And what about the crack heads and other drug users? Should prudent hard working people have their paycheck taken from them to pay the medical expenses of the above?

Truth is, just as nybboy stated: “It is not the federal government's role to provide universal healthcare according to the constitution”

But, as I originally posted:

You bet Kerry has a new direction in mind…but it is not to help prudent and hard working couples in America, nor singles who are sensible and cautious in their every day activities. Kerry’s direction is to expand government, create more high paying government plum jobs to be filled by his self interested and dishonorable political campaign workers, who will then disburse the paychecks of America’s working class citizens which Kerry, with the help of Congress, intends to acquire via government taxation for a purpose not authorized by the Constitution of the United States. And, in the process, Kerry, as well as the Congress of the United States, will have done nothing more than follow a known and sinister strategy which benefits unscrupulous leaders as expressed by Hamilton in Federalist No. 79 “… a control over a man’s subsistence is a control over his will.”

If folks in government are allowed to tax the bread which you have earned for the purpose of providing you with your health care needs, then folks in government have become the master and you an unwitting servant, indebted to a master for your health care needs.

If Kerry were truly sincere in wanting to help America’s working class citizen, especially with their health care needs, he would immediately start by promoting the abolishment of a federal tax on the wages which labor has earned and focus his attention upon restoring our founding fathers original tax plan (http://www.gigo-soapbox.org/gigo/2002/06/18.shtml), which was intended to ensure individual economic liberty and keep in tact the economic resources earned and needed by individuals to meet their own health care needs.

JWK
ACRS

“…..with all these blessings, what more is necessary to make us a happy and a prosperous people? Still one thing more, fellow-citizens—a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities“___ Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address

nybboy
October 17th, 2004, 05:20 PM
It's not a direct-cause realtionship, u can argue though that crime and liberty have a positive correlaton.
Why was your first sentence stopped midway, after "programmed." Im assuming that you're going to say that i was programmed into thinking that there should be individual responsibility and that people have the ultimate source of power. Actually, i was educated in a very liberal education system in Eugene, OR. Where Ken Kesey is from, where the several authors of anarchism reside and where the thought of anarchy enjoys the most popularity. A place that has one of the highest voter turnouts in the country. And u say that i was programmed? to think what? to think that government is the solution to humanity's problems? it sounds more like communism.
I was talking about the ideals of the American constitution. The U.S. is not perfect, but the system we have seems to work the best for a populace of 300 million. Communism is a great idea, but only if everyone was in the church life, where the focus is Christ's life. And all actions and even thought might be governed by the "law of Life", which abides in everyone's spirit.( that information is from the book of Romans). After all, Karl Marx got his ideas about "communism" from a Christian author on the normal "church life." So aside from that, we need a system that best reflects human nature. our system allows for the most opportunity for anyone to achieve their goal. So ther're going to be inequailites. Because some people are smarter than other people, and some are better looking. i mean, communism runs against the very nature of Man. Remember, natural selection. that's why communism doesn't work. Someone will always rise up and be individualistic to criticize and revolt against such a government or system.
Back to the point of the murder rate, let's take this point by point. Was the U.S., in the following years of its independence, in a state of high crime? I dont think so. It's because the idea of individual responsibilty was promoted. the immorality of this age is worsening due to the immoral garbage the young people get, including me(im only 19) from MTV doesn't help.
2nd pt: Murder rate? u pointed out that because we, Americans, have the ultimate power and a smaller government, we also have a higher murder rate. well, that could only be a correlation-type of relationship, and a very weak one at it's best. A stronger correlation would be illegal immigration and crime(murder rate). Yes, our murder rate is higher than European countries. but we also have the most illegal immigrants. Over half of the inmate at federal prisons are actually illegal immigrants. IN texas and So. California, a very large percentage of crimes are committed by illegal immigrants. In general, in europe, the so called "liberal" countries of Europe have a tighter control on immigration. And within Europe, France, Italy and the U.K. have the highest murder rates. Now why is that? they have well-developed economies, don't they? It's because within Europe, the countries mentioned have the loosest grip on immigration. Talk to people in Paris, if they feel safe going to the Arab slums that are in the suburbs of Paris? In the U.K., crime has risen at an accelerating rate. And immigration is accelerating too along w/ murder. However, Germany, Austria, Switzerland, and the scandinavian countries have less murder than the 3 countries mentioned. Now why is that? well, one thing in common is that they an even stricter conrol on immigration than the U.K. or France. In, fact, immigration is pretty much not even allowed, only if there's so technical skills that may be provided. So the immigrant that are coming are coming from a higher status-background in their home country. Yet, all of these countries, are in essence welfare-states. So to make that case that the way constitution was written has increased our murder rate is a very weak one.

ZippyTheChimp
October 17th, 2004, 07:11 PM
My first sentence wasn't stopped. It directly led into your quote. I don't know whether you are programmed, but your remark is a programmed tag on liberal spending. My sarcasm was pointing out that conservatives also throw money at problems.

You seem to have chosen a label for yourself,and all your views are from column A. I don't regard myself in that manner. I try to take positions on issues based on their merit, not some dogmatic philosophy. Maybe that comes from having been around for awhile (I was once like you).

You have argued the constitutional right to bear arms beyond recreational use, but how do you personally feel about it? Where do you live? Why do you think it is necessary, in your life, to have a weapon?

I grew up with guns, was in the military, and am comfortable around them, but I do not keep a handgun in the house. The Constitution is not the Bible. In fact, the Bible is not the Bible. Things change. The 18th century America no longer exists, whether discussing murder rates or the necessity for the 2nd Amendment.

As for reasons for the high murder rate, I'll simply state that in the majority of gun murders, the murderer and victim knew each other.

If you are going to blame the media for influencing crime, then you are going to have to explain how the "media capital of the world" has such a comparatively low murder rate.


u pointed out that because we, Americans, have the ultimate power and a smaller government, we also have a higher murder rate.

No, I concluded that we have a higher murder rate because we have more guns. I couldn't give a rat's ass about the comparative size of the governments.

johnwk
October 17th, 2004, 07:51 PM
mp"] I grew up with guns, was in the military, and am comfortable around them, but I do not keep a handgun in the house. The Constitution is not the Bible. In fact, the Bible is not the Bible. Things change. The 18th century America no longer exists, whether discussing murder rates or the necessity for the 2nd Amendment.


But Zippy, I would assume you agree that the principles stated in the Ten Commandments are as valid today as when they were first introduced. Simply because our federal Constitution is over two hundred years old does not, in and of itself, provide an argument that its principles are not valid today. But aside from all that, I suggest if the “necessity” for the 2nd Amendment is an impediment to the People’s interests, then I would say that the wise framers and ratifiers of our constitution provided a prescribed manner in which to address that issue, which is by the amendment process outlined in Article V, and not by the arbitrary actions of a legislature or an activist judge attempting to amend the constitution by judicial fiat…which is nothing more than tyranny.

Hopefully we both agree that our existing constitution must be followed, less we become a nation ruled by the whims and fancies of those in power and are no longer protected by the rule of law, adopted by We The People.



JWK

BrooklynRider
October 18th, 2004, 04:26 PM
... But aside from all that, I suggest if the “necessity” for the 2nd Amendment is an impediment to the People’s interests, then I would say that the wise framers and ratifiers of our constitution provided a prescribed manner in which to address that issue, which is by the amendment process outlined in Article V, and not by the arbitrary actions of a legislature or an activist judge attempting to amend the constitution by judicial fiat…which is nothing more than tyranny.


The amendment process can be an arbitrary action by a legislature as in the case of the Defense of Marriage Act or the Gay Marriage Amendment.

"Activist" judge is another of those Bush euphemisms likethe "Clean Sklies Initiative" that weakens the Clean Air Act or the "Healthy Forest Initiative" that opens national parks and forests to mining and lumber interests.

A judge, by definition, is subjective. It seems they are only activist to you and right-wing extremists, when they make a judgement you don't like. Do you mean "activist" as in: in interpreting law in favor of civil rights for gays, legal abortions for women, against school prayer? Or perhaps the piece below better exemplifies what an "activist judge" is. Let us know if, after reading the dissents of Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, that they couldn't be characterized as "activist judges" - particularly if they had a majority on the court.

October 18, 2004
EDITORIAL OBSERVER
Imagining America if George Bush Chose the Supreme Court
By ADAM COHEN

Abortion might be a crime in most states. Gay people could be thrown in prison for having sex in their homes. States might be free to become mini-theocracies, endorsing Christianity and using tax money to help spread the gospel. The Constitution might no longer protect inmates from being brutalized by prison guards. Family and medical leave and environmental protections could disappear.

It hardly sounds like a winning platform, and of course President Bush isn't openly espousing these positions. But he did say in his last campaign that his favorite Supreme Court justices were Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, and the nominations he has made to the lower courts bear that out. Justices Scalia and Thomas are often called "conservative," but that does not begin to capture their philosophies. Both vehemently reject many of the core tenets of modern constitutional law.

For years, Justices Scalia and Thomas have been lobbing their judicial Molotov cocktails from the sidelines, while the court proceeded on its moderate-conservative path. But given the ages and inclinations of the current justices, it is quite possible that if Mr. Bush is re-elected, he will get three appointments, enough to forge a new majority that would turn the extreme Scalia-Thomas worldview into the law of the land.

There is every reason to believe Roe v. Wade would quickly be overturned. Mr. Bush ducked a question about his views on Roe in the third debate. But he sent his base a coded message in the second debate, with an odd reference to the Dred Scott case. Dred Scott, an 1857 decision upholding slavery, is rarely mentioned today, except in right-wing legal circles, where it is often likened to Roe. (Anti-abortion theorists say that the court refused to see blacks as human in Dred Scott and that the same thing happened to fetuses in Roe.) For more than a decade, Justices Scalia and Thomas have urged their colleagues to reverse Roe and "get out of this area, where we have no right to be."

If Roe is lost, the Center for Reproductive Rights warns, there's a good chance that 30 states, home to more than 70 million women, will outlaw abortions within a year; some states may take only weeks. Criminalization will sweep well beyond the Bible Belt: Ohio could be among the first to drive young women to back-alley abortions and prosecute doctors.

If Justices Scalia and Thomas become the Constitution's final arbiters, the rights of racial minorities, gay people and the poor will be rolled back considerably. Both men dissented from the Supreme Court's narrow ruling upholding the University of Michigan's affirmative-action program, and appear eager to dismantle a wide array of diversity programs. When the court struck down Texas' "Homosexual Conduct" law last year, holding that the police violated John Lawrence's right to liberty when they raided his home and arrested him for having sex there, Justices Scalia and Thomas sided with the police.

They were just as indifferent to the plight of "M.L.B.," a poor mother of two from Mississippi. When her parental rights were terminated, she wanted to appeal, but Mississippi would not let her because she could not afford a court fee of $2,352.36. The Supreme Court held that she had a constitutional right to appeal. But Justices Scalia and Thomas dissented, arguing that if M.L.B. didn't have the money, her children would have to be put up for adoption.

That sort of cruelty is a theme running through many Scalia-Thomas opinions. A Louisiana inmate sued after he was shackled and then punched and kicked by two prison guards while a supervisor looked on. The court ruled that the beating, which left the inmate with a swollen face, loosened teeth and a cracked dental plate, violated the prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment. But Justices Scalia and Thomas insisted that the Eighth Amendment was not violated by the "insignificant" harm the inmate suffered.

This year, the court heard the case of a man with a court appearance in rural Tennessee who was forced to either crawl out of his wheelchair and up to the second floor or be carried up by court officers he worried would drop him. The man crawled up once, but when he refused to do it again, he was arrested. The court ruled that Tennessee violated the Americans With Disabilities Act by not providing an accessible courtroom, but Justices Scalia and Thomas said it didn't have to.

A Scalia-Thomas court would dismantle the wall between church and state. Justice Thomas gave an indication of just how much in his opinion in a case upholding Ohio's school voucher program. He suggested, despite many Supreme Court rulings to the contrary, that the First Amendment prohibition on establishing a religion may not apply to the states. If it doesn't, the states could adopt particular religions, and use tax money to proselytize for them. Justices Scalia and Thomas have also argued against basic rights of criminal suspects, like the Miranda warning about the right to remain silent.

President Bush claims to want judges who will apply law, not make it. But Justices Scalia and Thomas are judicial activists, eager to use the fast-expanding federalism doctrine to strike down laws that protect people's rights. Last year, they dissented from a decision upholding the Family and Medical Leave Act, which guarantees most workers up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave to care for a loved one. They said Congress did not have that power. They have expressed a desire to strike down air pollution and campaign finance laws for similar reasons.

Neither President Bush nor John Kerry has said much about Supreme Court nominations, wary of any issue whose impact on undecided voters cannot be readily predicted. But voters have to think about the Supreme Court. If President Bush gets the chance to name three young justices who share the views of Justices Scalia and Thomas, it could fundamentally change America for decades.



Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

nybboy
October 18th, 2004, 05:18 PM
All i can say is that judges need to determine whether a law passed by the legislature or an executive order is constitutional, no matter if people think it's good or wrong. But, these days judges are making law, and there's nothing people can do about it. because the judges are not elected, which means they don't need to worry about being re-elected, so their decisions don't represent the culture of their constituency, like legislators generally do. For example, the texas sodomy law which applied to everyone, was illegally struck down, it should have been left to the states, plus people in texas generally agree w/ this law, a state law that reflects the culture of the people and wasn't contrary to the national constitution.
It's all about check and balances, the court's sole job is to check the constitutionality of laws. So who keeps the government in check? we the people, that's why the constitution say that as U.S. citizens we have the right to bear arms.

johnwk
October 18th, 2004, 05:30 PM
... But aside from all that, I suggest if the “necessity” for the 2nd Amendment is an impediment to the People’s interests, then I would say that the wise framers and ratifiers of our constitution provided a prescribed manner in which to address that issue, which is by the amendment process outlined in Article V, and not by the arbitrary actions of a legislature or an activist judge attempting to amend the constitution by judicial fiat…which is nothing more than tyranny.


The amendment process can be an arbitrary action by a legislature as in the case of the Defense of Marriage Act or the Gay Marriage Amendment.

"Activist" judge is another of those Bush euphemisms likethe "Clean Sklies Initiative" that weakens the Clean Air Act or the "Healthy Forest Initiative" that opens national parks and forests to mining and lumber interests.

A judge, by definition, is subjective. It seems they are only activist to you and right-wing extremists, when they make a judgement you don't like. Do you mean "activist" as in: in interpreting law in favor of civil rights for gays, legal abortions for women, against school prayer? Or perhaps the piece below better exemplifies what an "activist judge" is. Let us know if, after reading the dissents of Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, that they couldn't be characterized as "activist judges" - particularly if they had a majority on the court.


BrooklynRider:

I would suggest you study Article V of the Constitution, and how it works, before suggesting what you have above with regard to “ arbitrary action”.

Right-wing extremists? Is this your best shot…name calling?

You charge that a judge is activist in my mind when I don’t like their decision. Please provide documentation to support your claim about my thinking.

Fact is, a judge becomes activist in my mind when his/her decision is in conflict with the legislative intent of our constitutions, state or federal, as contemplated by those who framed them and the people who adopted them. This is the most fundamental principle of constitutional law to be followed:

"On every question of construction [of the Constitution], let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."--Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p. 322.

I can assure you that when I disagree with a decision of the court in regard to the constitutionality of a law, I will always have documentation to support my contentions from those who framed and ratified the constitution, and will not supplant or pretend that my personal predilections are a reflection of the intent of the people when they adopted any article, section or clause.

Having responded to your post, perhaps you are interested in the following which brings us back to the topic of the thread:



KERRY’S SECRET PLAN: FUND HEALTH CARE FROM S.S. TAX BASE!


Well, if you link to Kerry’s Health care plan (http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/health_care/health_care.html), and study it very carefully, you will discover his secret method to fund the system. Part of that secret is explained under the heading “John Kerry's New Deal To Cover Millions Of Americans, Including Covering All Kids, And Boost The Economy”

Aside from the fact that such a New Deal agreed to by the states would have to be by constitutional amendment, it’s funding will be raised upon the backs of those already burdened to finance America’s Social Security system, which includes our nation’s young who are made up of high school and college graduates just entering the work force!

But don’t expect MTV to alarm our nation’s young what Kerry’s plan has in store for them. And certainly don’t expect MTV to explain to our nation’s young that Bush, who understands the evil nature of America’s S.S. system, simply wants restore some economic liberty to our nation’s young by allowing them to start investing their own money as they see fit for their retirement years.

The Kerry plan, on their other hand, is designed to enslave our nation’s young, making them totally dependant upon government for their retirement years and tightening the noose by also making them dependant upon government for their health care needs. And why would Kerry and the Democratic Party leaders do such a thing? Because a control over a man’s subsistence is a control over their will. If folks in government control the economic needs of our nation’s young, then they control their vote.

For some important related information on Kerry’s Health Care plan see:

KERRY’S PLAN. . .A NEW DIRECTION - EXPLAINED! (http://forums.wirednewyork.com/viewforum.php?f=10&sid=34476a33a3654423c0ff063cdf7 16e16)

ZippyTheChimp
October 18th, 2004, 06:03 PM
So who keeps the government in check? we the people, that's why the constitution say that as U.S. citizens we have the right to bear arms.
Please explain this. We keep the government in check by the threat of armed revolt?

And please lay off the extra large type. It doesn't make your point any more valid.

Bob
October 18th, 2004, 06:14 PM
Let's face it. Everybody knows, by now, who they are going to vote for. Yelling louder, and calling names, won't change a single vote on either side of the left/right split. Neither will the trot-out of tired liberal/conservative dogma.

(By the way, where are the libertarians this year?)

nybboy
October 18th, 2004, 08:11 PM
Yes, you're right, the fact that the people are armed keeps the government in check.
I write w/ large print, to point out something important, im afraid that some people might not read such long messages in the same boring font size, so at least the increased size will grap their attention to a major poknt.

Edward
October 18th, 2004, 08:18 PM
So who keeps the government in check? we the people, that's why the constitution say that as U.S. citizens we have the right to bear arms.
Please explain this.

Allow me. The reason I keep a couple of Stinger missiles in my closet is to protect myself in case of the government attack with the Apache helicopters.

http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/war-tech-apache-helicopter-200.jpg

Edward
October 18th, 2004, 08:34 PM
And what could be wrong with taxing prudent and hard working couples to pay the health care needs of sexual perverts in our society who predictable contract the Aids virus?

I value being preached to by homophobic ideologue as much as the next guy, but need some clarification: what if a couple of sexual perverts is paying taxes and are hardworking?

Edward
October 18th, 2004, 08:45 PM
Kerry’s direction would also require prudent and hard working people with children to be taxed to pay the medical needs of unwed moms, some of whom have multiple children and by different fathers, and are unable or unwilling to meet the financial burden which has resulted from their promiscuous sexual activities.


Right on, johnwk. And if these unwelcome children die because the mother does not have the health insurance, well, that would be a lesson to her - about promiscuity. It's Wild West, isn't it? unless I forgot what century it is.

God, I have too much fun with this gold of a thread, I think I should be punished...

johnwk
October 18th, 2004, 09:35 PM
Kerry’s direction would also require prudent and hard working people with children to be taxed to pay the medical needs of unwed moms, some of whom have multiple children and by different fathers, and are unable or unwilling to meet the financial burden which has resulted from their promiscuous sexual activities.


Right on, johnwk. And if these unwelcome children die because the mother does not have the health insurance, well, that would be a lesson to her - about promiscuity. It's Wild West, isn't it? unless I forgot what century it is.

God, I have too much fun with this gold of a thread, I think I should be punished...

Is that what you would do? Punish the children and not the mom for her neglect and promiscuous sexual activities? Indeed, you should be punished!

Heck, even the liberal kingpin, Washington, D.C.’s former Mayor Marion Barry, had enough integrity to admit single moms with multiple children out of wedlock was an unacceptable financial burden for the taxpayer when he advocated mandatory Norplant injections for welfare recipients___ the case in point being a mom with, as I recall, 14 kids and was ready to put out another which inspired Barry to speak out.

Edward
October 18th, 2004, 09:43 PM
johnwk, not only you are the moldy homophob, you are slow - I will pray for you. A lot. Pray-A-Lot.

johnwk
October 18th, 2004, 09:49 PM
And what could be wrong with taxing prudent and hard working couples to pay the health care needs of sexual perverts in our society who predictable contract the Aids virus?
I value being preached to by homophobic ideologue as much as the next guy, but need some clarification: what if a couple of sexual perverts is paying taxes and are hardworking?
Homophobic? Is that you best shot…name calling? But to answer you silly question, which has already been answered by what I wrote…is the sexual pervert you have in mind engaging in an activity which will predictably result in contracting a STD [sexually transmitted disease] ?

The primary question of the post was: Why should those who are prudent pay for the excesses of others?

Edward
October 18th, 2004, 10:09 PM
Homophobic? Is that you best shot…name calling?
Well, let's get to the bottom of this - what is your personal opinion about those perverts engaging in unnatural sex?

nybboy
October 18th, 2004, 10:39 PM
So are u saying that sodomy is unnatural sex?

Edward
October 18th, 2004, 10:49 PM
So are u saying that sodomy is unnatural sex?
I thought that you are younger and speedier than the moldy johnwk - you dissapoint me - get up to speed, boy, I mean nybboy.

ZippyTheChimp
October 18th, 2004, 11:05 PM
What about those deviant skiers? I'm getting sick and tired of paying for their broken bones.

nybboy
October 18th, 2004, 11:27 PM
Im not trying to to be part of the "trend" or caught up with the times of this age. I just believe in things that I thinkare right and proper regardless of how old something is. I don't want to be wishy-washy and just "flow" with the times. I think we need something solid to fall back upon, like the constitution, or for some people the Bible.
Anyways, i least we all love NYC, right?
Im sorry i dissapointed u Edwards, what type of person did u think i was before my last post?

Edward
October 19th, 2004, 09:34 AM
Im sorry i dissapointed u Edwards, what type of person did u think i was before my last post?
I thought you are like me - the type that keeps a couple of Stinger missiles in the closet to protect them against the government Apache helicopters.

BrooklynRider
October 19th, 2004, 11:49 AM
Right-wing extremists? Is this your best shot…name calling?

Nope. I think, based on your posts, that I would call you homophobic, hateful, totally lacking in compassion, self-centered, judgemental, without moral fiber, and, at the core of your arguments, repugnant.

Generally, I am not a person who calls names, but you did invite me to expand in my name calling of you. I justify this "name calling" with the supported documentation of your original post in which you used the terms:


...promiscuous homosexuals ...sexual perverts ...promiscuous unwed moms ...obese who have brought on a sickly condition ... alcoholics suffering liver disease ...crack heads ...self interested and dishonorable political campaign workers ...unscrupulous leaders

The strong articulation of your opinion does nothing to mitigate the offensive hate woven through your weak arguments.




You charge that a judge is activist in my mind when I don’t like their decision. Please provide documentation to support your claim about my thinking.

I pointedly criticize your use of of the term "activist judges" because your arguments are full of subjective "supporting documentation". As you are combining terminology created and extensively utilized by the Bush administration (i.e. "activist judges"), with an unyielding attack upon the those different from you and those less fortunate than you (i.e homosexuals, AIDS victims, unwed moms, alcoholics, and drug addicts), it is easy to see that you are not arguing for objective interpretation of law as much as you are for your interpretation of law.

Since you make assumptions about the stance of other's without benefit of supporting documentaion as in the following quote, I am surprised you hold me to a higher standard.


But Zippy, I would assume you agree that the principles stated in the Ten Commandments are as valid today as when they were first introduced.

I made assumptions about your stance that I believe are rightly supported by the nature and tone of your posts throughout this thread. Your supporting documentation is weak and, I would say, laughable.

Your "suggested reading", indicating the depth of your education on "AIDS and Homsexuality", comes from The Southern Baptist Conference's "Baptist Press" website - not exactly the objective psychiatric, infectious disease, sociological, or human behavior professionals a serious researcher or policy maker would quote.

Your "suggested reading" on obesity comes from a commercial website called "Barry's Nutrition Centre". It is helpful for all of us to know that "Barry's Nutrition Centre carries the complete lines of Quest Vitamins, Naka Herbs, Jamieson Vitamins, Greensplus, Natural Factors, Nu-Life, Sports Nutrition Supplements, Nature's Way herbs, Swiss Herbal Vitamins, Trophic and many many more." That is certainly an impartial objective website with no alterior motives.

Your link on the founding father's original tax plan is written by William Kurowski, Founder Of The American Constitutional Research Service - for your educational purpose, there is no such thing as "The American Constitutional Research Service" - it is wholly made up pseudonym for John William Kurowski's political opinions. He is basically blogger on the "Free Republic" website. The stated mission of Free Republic, lifted directly from their homepage: "Free Republic is an online gathering place for independent, grass-roots conservatism on the web. We're working to roll back decades of governmental largesse, to root out political fraud and corruption, and to champion causes which further conservatism in America. And we always have fun doing it. Hoo-yah!" Which of course leads to the question: Is WiredNY user "Johnwk" one and the same with John W. Kurowski? And if so, referring to your own posts on another site as supporting documentation makes you even less credible.


I would suggest you study Article V of the Constitution, and how it works, before suggesting what you have above with regard to “ arbitrary action”.

I certainly have a better understanding of Article V that you profess. It states, in its first sentence that "The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution...". The pursuit of a Gay Marriage Amendment is, as I said, an arbitrary action as it never had the the two thirds support to deem it necessary. In the Senate, it only garnered 38 votes of 100. In the House, 233 of 435. I've done enough research for you on your "facts". I won't teach you math as well.

My experience in these forums has taught me that opinions are welcome, but they are subject to debate or rebuttal. Facts are welcome too, but they represent the foundation upon which opinions are developed.

And I will add, that your 16 posts to date in this forum have been made almost exclusively to bash or citicize gays and spew hate and predjudice, however well articulated.

BrooklynRider
October 19th, 2004, 01:15 PM
Also, Johnwk...

I have a curiosity that maybe you would divulge. Why exactly are you choosing this forum to post to these blatantly inflammatory, hateful posts with a specific intention to bash John Kerry? All your nonsensical postings aside, you keep creating threads that invoke Kerry's name. Why not just call it "The Religious Right Conservative Plan for America"? At least in that one phrase, I'd be able to find an inkling of truth and credibility in your post.

You created this thread: KERRYS PLAN...A NEW DIRECTION - EXPLAINED!
Totally disingenous.

You created the thread: Kerry Has A Plan!
In that thread, you reference a diatribe on Republic vs. Democracy that doesn't even have an author listed. Despite the name you gave it, the site is at www.chrononhotonthologos.com. I imagine you utilize the Ann Coulter methodology of research, meaning you Google until you find the results to match your theory. Of course, had you researched that site further, you would find the sites mission by clicking on the "WHY" link. It states:

Chrononhotonthologos explained
QUESTION:
I've just browsed through Chrononhotonthologos
er.........I don't get it!!!!


ANSWER:
In order to really appreciate it you have to have an 18th century mindset. Ordinary people did not have TV or radio, could not read or write, and were generally uneducated. To them, Chrononhotonthologos was a humorous play. It was so popular that the word "Chrononhotonthologos" became a commonly used word in the English language and was used to describe a blustering overbearing ineffective person. It's is a great noun that can be applied to any noisy sputtering overbearing jerk that thinks he knows it all.

The site memorializes the play.

'nuf said.

johnwk
October 20th, 2004, 08:02 AM
Right-wing extremists? Is this your best shot…name calling?

Nope. I think, based on your posts, that I would call you homophobic, hateful, totally lacking in compassion, self-centered, judgemental, without moral fiber, and, at the core of your arguments, repugnant.” bla, bla, bla.

BrooklynRider:

I am very amused at your response to my post posted on Oct 18, 2004 at 4:30 pm PAGE TWO OF THIS THREAD (http://forums.wirednewyork.com/viewtopic.php?t=3642&start=15&sid=1471a720b23538f4 65a3ba280cb6127f) Sorry to have gotten you panties all wound up in a knot.

Seems you still find the need to engage in name calling, attack the messenger and not the message, and have avoided any rebuttal to the truthfulness or accuracy of what I have written. I would say you have successfully applied, not one, not two, but several of the known stupid debating tricks (http://www.rightwingnews.com/john/stupiddebate.php) used to avoid addressing the substance of another person’s opinions when you disagree with them but are unable to formulate a reasoned opposing view.

You took me to task for using the phrase “activist judge” and made the claim it was another one of those “Bush euphemisms”. But the truth is, BrooklynRider, the phrase has been around for many, many years, was not invented by Bush, and in the context in which I used the phrase it had nothing to do with Bush who you apparently have an ax to grind with and decided to take a swipe at rather than address my post.

The definition of “activist judge” was made quite clear in my post and identified a judge who would use his/her power to amend the constitution, not by the prescribed manner as outlined in Article V, but by judicial fiat…which is nothing more than tyranny. I even took the time to elaborate further by saying:

“Fact is, a judge becomes activist in my mind when his/her decision is in conflict with the legislative intent of our constitutions, state or federal, as contemplated by those who framed them and the people who adopted them. This is the most fundamental principle of constitutional law to be followed:

"On every question of construction [of the Constitution], let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."--Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p. 322“

So, BrooklynRider, what would you call a judge who pretends the constitution means something other than what the framers and those who ratified it intended it to mean, and uses his/her office of public trust to enforce a meaning of the constitution which is inconsistent with the documented intent of the constitution as found in the Federalist Papers, Madison’s Notes on the Convention, Elliot’s Debates, etc? I only ask you this question because I am willing to use your appropriate term for such a judge.


Instead of objecting to my definition of an “activist judge” with a reasoned response, you offered nothing but a personal attack upon my character.

You also quoted various words I used, conveniently quoting them out of context, and then made the charge:

“The strong articulation of your opinion does nothing to mitigate the offensive hate woven through your weak arguments.”

But, BrooklynRider, you never did answer the pertinent question in which those words were used, and identified specific types of people who engage in excesses which predictably result in medical consequences which have to be paid for. For example, I asked, “…what could be wrong with health care being made a “right”, and then taxing our nation’s prudent and hard working couples to pay for the health care needs of promiscuous unwed moms, in some cases who may have two, three and even more children born out of wed lock?”

Your answer being, the statement is a hate woven and a weak argument!

Is that so, BrooklynRider? Hate to disagree with you but as I pointed out in this thread,“…even the liberal kingpin, Washington, D.C.’s former Mayor Marion Barry, had enough integrity to admit single moms with multiple children out of wedlock was an unacceptable financial burden for the taxpayer when he advocated mandatory Norplant injections for welfare recipients___ the case in point being a mom with, as I recall, 14 kids and was ready to put out another which inspired Barry to speak out.”

Seems to me, BrooklyRider, when my words are put into their original context, they establish a reasonable argument which you apparently disagree with but are unwilling to address, and choose to assault my character rather than my argument. And, you have the nerve to talk about a hate woven opinion with weak arguments? Oh, I just realized, that’s a very easy way to respond to another’s opinion,,, make an unsupported charge attacking the messenger and then change the subject matter to avoid presenting a reasoned rebuttal to the subject matter. Tell me BrooklynRider, where did you learn your stupid debating tricks (http://www.rightwingnews.com/john/stupiddebate.php)? Have you been visiting a right wing extremist web page to learn how to engage in dishonorable discourse?


Oh, BTW, I suggested to you to study Article V of the Constitution, and how it works, before suggesting what you have with regard to “ arbitrary action”.

In response you said:

“I certainly have a better understanding of Article V that you profess. It states, in its first sentence that "The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution...". The pursuit of a Gay Marriage Amendment is, as I said, an arbitrary action as it never had the the two thirds support to deem it necessary. In the Senate, it only garnered 38 votes of 100. In the House, 233 of 435. I've done enough research for you on your "facts". I won't teach you math as well.”


Perhaps you need to learn math before teaching it, or simply need to learn to read. Fact is, after a constitutional amendment is approved by two thirds of both Houses, the next step is to obtain the approval of three fourths of the various states which I would say is far from being an arbitrary action. Our constitution does in fact resist “arbitrary action” by the math, and makes your charge moot and irrelevant. Your charge being: “The amendment process can be an arbitrary action by a legislature as in the case of the Defense of Marriage Act or the Gay Marriage Amendment”

[please note; the DOMA was not adopted by Article V’s amendment process….learn the distinctions between an Act and a constitutional amendment before you falsely assert you have an understanding of Article V] And as for the proposed marriage amendment, it never did make it to the states for their approval, did it? And you charge arbitrary with reference to a mere proposal?


Regards,

JWK
ACRS

BrooklynRider
October 20th, 2004, 11:18 AM
Seems you still find the need to engage in name calling, attack the messenger and not the message...

Your seem to forget what questions you pose from one post to the next. You invited the name calling and asked for more. Please reread your post and recognize, as anyone else can, my response with those names was to a direct question you asked.

As you only post inflammatory rhetoric in threads you create, you wouldn't know my reputation on these boards.


...and have avoided any rebuttal to the truthfulness or accuracy of what I have written.

I notice you chose to ignore all of the evidence I placed at your doorstep regarding you dubious documentation.


I would say you have successfully applied, not one, not two, but several of the known stupid debating tricks (http://www.rightwingnews.com/john/stupiddebate.php) used to avoid addressing the substance of another person’s opinions when you disagree with them but are unable to formulate a reasoned opposing view.

I believe the uninvited name calling violates TOS. You have proven by your rude responses, inability to engage with civility, and complete disregard for the on-line community standards, we all so easily adhere to, that you are unworthy of further responses.


Seems to me, BrooklyRider, when my words are put into their original context, they establish a reasonable argument which you apparently disagree with but are unwilling to address, and choose to assault my character rather than my argument.

I attacked your credibility. You rationalize your arguments with flimsy references. A question of credibility is not necessarily an attack on your character. Personally, I find no need to attack your character, as it permeates each word you write. However, my judgement of your character ensures that this will be my last response to any posts by you, provided you are still allowed to continue as a forum member - given your disregard for courtesy, your insistance on delivering monologues, your penchant for making bigoted statements, and your glaring unwillingness to engage in dialogue that answers questions asked of you.


... I just realized, that’s a very easy way to respond to another’s opinion,,, make an unsupported charge attacking the messenger and then change the subject matter to avoid presenting a reasoned rebuttal to the subject matter. Tell me BrooklynRider, where did you learn your stupid debating tricks (http://www.rightwingnews.com/john/stupiddebate.php)? Have you been visiting a right wing extremist web page to learn how to engage in dishonorable discourse?

You are delusional. With your second spate of name calling (i.e. stupid debating tricks), I request that the moderators or administrator review your posts in this thread and determine if there is a violation of TOS.

It would make sense, to me, that this thread be locked. It is meaningless for an individual to post an opinion, refuse to address questions, reiterate the same questions over and over, and basically utilize this forum as an echo chamber.

Johnwk - It is very clear that you like to hear yourself talk. You seem to fancy yourself a master debater, yet you are heavy on rhetoric and hair splitting, but totally lacking in substance. I didn't attack your character and I won't, because, frankly, there's something kind of sad in witnessing people like you stumbling through the world.


OVER AND OUT

Schadenfrau
October 20th, 2004, 11:58 AM
So, BrooklynRider, what would you call a judge who pretends the constitution means something other than what the framers and those who ratified it intended it to mean, and uses his/her office of public trust to enforce a meaning of the constitution which is inconsistent with the documented intent of the constitution as found in the Federalist Papers, Madison’s Notes on the Convention, Elliot’s Debates, etc? I only ask you this question because I am willing to use your appropriate term for such a judge. ACRS

It's interesting to me that you've such a problem with so-called activist judges and such support for a President making the same "activist" decisions.

What's the appropriate term for that, JohnWK? I'm thinking "hypocrisy" suits nicely.

Edward
October 20th, 2004, 12:51 PM
I think if johnwk is going to cut-and-paste that paragraph about the single moms for the fourth time, I am just going to shoot him in the leg - with my AK-47 that I keep in my closet, next to the Stingers.

ZippyTheChimp
October 20th, 2004, 03:05 PM
Cutting & Pasting.

The 2nd most popular activity on the Internet.

johnwk
October 20th, 2004, 06:37 PM
[quote=johnwk] Seems you still find the need to engage in name calling, attack the messenger and not the message...

Your seem to forget what questions you pose from one post to the next. You invited the name calling and asked for more. Please reread your post and recognize, as anyone else can, my response with those names was to a direct question you asked.

As you only post inflammatory rhetoric in threads you create, you wouldn't know my reputation on these boards.


Please quote my words in context which you suggest invite name calling.

Inflammatory rhetoric? Please quote my words in context and why you consider them inflammatory.





...and have avoided any rebuttal to the truthfulness or accuracy of what I have written.

I notice you chose to ignore all of the evidence I placed at your doorstep regarding you dubious documentation.

And what have you posted which addresses the truthfulness or accuracy of any specific statement which I have written?





I would say you have successfully applied, not one, not two, but several of the known stupid debating tricks (http://www.rightwingnews.com/john/stupiddebate.php) used to avoid addressing the substance of another person’s opinions when you disagree with them but are unable to formulate a reasoned opposing view.

I believe the uninvited name calling violates TOS. You have proven by your rude responses, inability to engage with civility, and complete disregard for the on-line community standards, we all so easily adhere to, that you are unworthy of further responses.

Please quote my words in context to which you refer.




Seems to me, BrooklyRider, when my words are put into their original context, they establish a reasonable argument which you apparently disagree with but are unwilling to address, and choose to assault my character rather than my argument.

I attacked your credibility. You rationalize your arguments with flimsy references. A question of credibility is not necessarily an attack on your character. Personally, I find no need to attack your character, as it permeates each word you write. However, my judgement of your character ensures that this will be my last response to any posts by you, provided you are still allowed to continue as a forum member - given your disregard for courtesy, your insistance on delivering monologues, your penchant for making bigoted statements, and your glaring unwillingness to engage in dialogue that answers questions asked of you.


What you did was attack the source of the material, and not the content. Even a broken clock is correct two times in a twenty four hour time period. You didn’t like the content so you attacked the source.

What you seem to be calling bigoted statements, although you have not provided a complete quote of mine, are my references to those who engage in a particular type of activity which will, in all likely hood, result in undesirable medical and/or financial consequences which prudent people do not engage in because of the medical and/or financial consequences.





... I just realized, that’s a very easy way to respond to another’s opinion,,, make an unsupported charge attacking the messenger and then change the subject matter to avoid presenting a reasoned rebuttal to the subject matter. Tell me BrooklynRider, where did you learn your stupid debating tricks (http://www.rightwingnews.com/john/stupiddebate.php)? Have you been visiting a right wing extremist web page to learn how to engage in dishonorable discourse?

You are delusional. With your second spate of name calling (i.e. stupid debating tricks), I request that the moderators or administrator review your posts in this thread and determine if there is a violation of TOS.

So, identifying your method of response to my post, and classifying that method as being stupid, is name calling?



It would make sense, to me, that this thread be locked. It is meaningless for an individual to post an opinion, refuse to address questions, reiterate the same questions over and over, and basically utilize this forum as an echo chamber.

Fact is, I have responded to pertinent questions, and in particular what you wrote to me about using the term “activist judges”. Did my best to respond in a polite fashion, but you have choose to ignite a continuous attack upon my character, rather than address the substance of my post.



Regards,

JWK

johnwk
October 20th, 2004, 06:42 PM
So, BrooklynRider, what would you call a judge who pretends the constitution means something other than what the framers and those who ratified it intended it to mean, and uses his/her office of public trust to enforce a meaning of the constitution which is inconsistent with the documented intent of the constitution as found in the Federalist Papers, Madison’s Notes on the Convention, Elliot’s Debates, etc? I only ask you this question because I am willing to use your appropriate term for such a judge. ACRS

It's interesting to me that you've such a problem with so-called activist judges and such support for a President making the same "activist" decisions.

What's the appropriate term for that, JohnWK? I'm thinking "hypocrisy" suits nicely.


Hypocrisy? Please provide documentation showing my "support for a President making the same "activist" decisions."

Waiting......still waiting....guess you just made that up, didn't you?

johnwk
October 20th, 2004, 06:47 PM
I think if johnwk is going to cut-and-paste that paragraph about the single moms for the fourth time, I am just going to shoot him in the leg - with my AK-47 that I keep in my closet, next to the Stingers.

Better not try that…I have 14 armed Apache helicopters in my back yard on standby!

BTW, where do you live in Manhattan?

nybboy
October 20th, 2004, 06:59 PM
Good reply. Even though we all have our opinions, seems like u give point by point explanations. Brooklyn Rider, again, went to name calling, calling u a bigot, etc. but he didn't properly rebuttal w/ facts against the "content" of your arguments. Now, he believes he's taking the high ground by signing out.

ZippyTheChimp
October 20th, 2004, 07:12 PM
nyboy: Instead of provoking an escalation in the discussion, concentrate on your own arguments, most of which fall into the silly or bizzare category.

My opinion, of course.

nybboy
October 20th, 2004, 07:22 PM
IM just giving some support to those few people who believe in the strict intrepretation of the constitution, and who believe that the constitution is "not" a living and breathing document, but a steady one, something that this country can fall back on.

ZippyTheChimp
October 20th, 2004, 07:36 PM
Yeah, you're a regular Caped Crusader.

Please reconcile, Constitutionally speaking, the theory of representative government and your theory that universal gun ownership controls government, which seems to me to be a pure democracy - sort of one gun one vote deciding policy.

johnwk
October 20th, 2004, 08:01 PM
Right-wing extremists? Is this your best shot…name calling?

Nope. I think, based on your posts, that I would call you homophobic, hateful, totally lacking in compassion, self-centered, judgemental, without moral fiber, and, at the core of your arguments, repugnant….I made assumptions about your stance that I believe are rightly supported by the nature and tone of your posts throughout this thread. Your supporting documentation is weak and, I would say, laughable.


Well then, how about the following documentation which supports the view [my view] that people, even homosexuals, should take responsibility for their own actions? See: Historic Community Manifesto addressing HIV and STDs locally signed by Sims, Plough (http://www.metrokc.gov/health/news/03101501.htm):

“This groundbreaking document calls for new norms and responsibility in sexual practices in response to skyrocketing rates of STDs and HIV in local MSM (men who have sex with men) community.”


"This Manifesto signals a new community dialogue," says Taskforce member Phil Pelino. "Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men - whether they are HIV negative or positive - must take responsibility for their sexual actions and prevent the spread of HIV and STDs."

"Each of us must take personal responsibility and commit to being a part of a community solution if we are to see these frustrating trends reversed," said Chuck Kuehn, Executive Director of Lifelong AIDS Alliance.


“One in seven gay, bisexual, and other MSM are infected with HIV in King County, and MSM are now 100 times more likely than the general heterosexual population to have syphilis. HIV positive gay men are 1,000 times more likely than the general heterosexual population to have syphilis.”



The fact is, BrooklyRider, there is a serious and very threatening medical problem among homosexuals resulting from promiscuous and risk taking sexual activity. Personally, I do not believe it is my place to tell homosexuals how they ought to conduct their sexual activities or live their lives, but when they, or anybody, runs to government and seeks to use government force to acquire my financial resources, my paycheck, to finance the medical consequences of their excesses, I will speak out and express my view and it has nothing to do with “hatred” “bigotry” "homophobic", or whatever slanderous remark you may use to define my character.


JWK

johnwk
October 20th, 2004, 08:15 PM
IM just giving some support to those few people who believe in the strict intrepretation of the constitution, and who believe that the constitution is "not" a living and breathing document, but a steady one, something that this country can fall back on.

Thought you would find the following informative...very well documented!

The Revolutionary Second Amendment (http://www.law.ua.edu/lawreview/mcintosh512.htm)

Regards,

JWK