Constitutional Limitations

[Pacridge]

Why is it OK for folks to lean to the left, if they choose, but not to the right, if they choose?

I understand that until 1973, homosexuality was listed by the American Psychiatric Association as a mental disorder. At the 1973 meeting, by a show of hands by members in attendance, it was removed.

This had to be the swiftest eradication a disease in history. Perhaps they could be encouraged to turn their attention to cancer.

I have no complaint with homosexuals, or heterosexuals, for that matter. I simply subscribe to the notion that there should be no sexual contact outside of marriage and, as stated in in the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, signed into law by then President Clinton, that marriage is defined as being between one man and one woman.

Who's saying it's not okay to lean right or left?

As far as the medical community quickly changing it's position on Homosexuality. Science routinely changes it's position. Up until about 1698 people with mental illnesses were thought to be possessed and or cursed by witches. Phlebotomy or bloodletting was standard treatment for centuries. In fact our first President, George Washington, died 1799 after nine pints of blood were removed from him in an attempt to cure his throat infection. Somehwhere around 1891-1892 phlebotomy was declared quackery.

As for your belief that sex should only be between two married persons. That's great. Then you should not engage in any sexual activity outside of wedlock. But how about you live your life the way you see it and let others do the same?

 

[Fantasea]

Your "sarcasm" lends me to think that you believe these psychiatrists were too swift in their decision to de-disease-ify homosexuality. C'mon Fantasea, don't beat around the bush, do you believe homosexuality is a disease?

Freud, Menninger, and all of the other giants of the Psychiatric profession did. And, until 1973, so did the American Psychiatric Association.

Am I to be so presumptuous as to disagree with these learned folk?

Without using religious or moral rationals, tell me why I shouldn't be allowed to marry anyone I damn well please?

You could, of course, move to West Virginia where, according to the 'red-neck' comedians, the word 'incest' seems to be missing from the state lexicon.

Does your query anticipate a multiple spouse situation, a la the Mormons before the enticement of statehood led them to discard a fundamental principle of their religion?

A great many of the economic and social ills we seek to abolish are traceable to folks who eschew the tradional one man, one woman, till death do us part, formal marriage arrangement.

The former president, W. J. Clinton, himself, agreed with the peoples elected representatives who passed the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act by overwhelming majorities (the Senate vote was 85-14) and signed it into law.

Note the title, 'Defense of Marriage Act'.

Again, I agree with such learned folk, and, aside from that, I think it makes complete sense for the laws to be respected and obeyed.

Yes, like the birth of GWBush.

Mock, if you wish. However, given the alternatives of Al Gore and John Kerry, during the past two elections, I and, it would seem, many registered Democrats, thought that GWB was a better choice to sit behind the desk in the Oval Office. That is why, based upon his accomplishments during his first term, he was elected to his second.

I marvel at the way his detractors are fighting a two front war. As they continue to battle the election of 2000, they are gearing up to start on the election of 2004.

 

[Fantasea]

Who's saying it's not okay to lean right or left?

As far as the medical community quickly changing it's position on Homosexuality. Science routinely changes it's position. Up until about 1698 people with mental illnesses were thought to be possessed and or cursed by witches. Phlebotomy or bloodletting was standard treatment for centuries. In fact our first President, George Washington, died 1799 after nine pints of blood were removed from him in an attempt to cure his throat infection. Somehwhere around 1891-1892 phlebotomy was declared quackery.

Am I to understand that you advocate mainstreaming the latest medical and scientific knowledge and discoveries along with the most up to date pharmacological products and equipment up to twenty-first century levels?

As for your belief that sex should only be between two married persons. That's great. Then you should not engage in any sexual activity outside of wedlock. But how about you live your life the way you see it and let others do the same?

Thank you for your unsolicited moral advice. However, it goes deeper than that. My resentment stems from the fact that the practitioners of that practice do not let me live my life the way I see it; they encroach upon it. They cause a substantial drain on my finances. Yours, too. Unless, of course, you don't pay taxes.

 

[Pacridge]

Am I to understand that you advocate mainstreaming the latest medical and scientific knowledge and discoveries along with the most up to date pharmacological products and equipment up to twenty-first century levels?



Thank you for your unsolicited moral advice. However, it goes deeper than that. My resentment stems from the fact that the practitioners of that practice do not let me live my life the way I see it; they encroach upon it. They cause a substantial drain on my finances. Yours, too. Unless, of course, you don't pay taxes.

Yes, I think we should be updating our knowledge and discoveries on an ongoing basis.

I'm not sure I gave you any moral advice. All I said was you should live your life as you see it. How is anyone draining your finances more than youself?

 

[Fantasea]

Yes, I think we should be updating our knowledge and discoveries on an ongoing basis.

That's a great idea. Since advances in DNA research and obstetrics, not available when Roe v Wade was being decided, have shown us that life begins at conception, suppose we start by acknowledging that every abortion kills a human being.

I'm not sure I gave you any moral advice. All I said was you should live your life as you see it.

Your words included, "Then you should not engage in any sexual activity outside of wedlock." If that's not moral advice, what is it?

How is anyone draining your finances more than youself?

Federal, state, and county governments spend billions of dollars each year for the care and maintenance of tens of millions of folks whose social, economic, and medical problems stem from sexual activity outside of wedlock.

None of these entities has any money of its own. They can spend only what they either borrow or raise through taxing me and persons like me. Therefore, a share of every dollar so spent is coming out of my pocket. Am I wrong to resent being forced to subsidize the actions of irresponsible people?

 

[Pacridge]

That's a great idea. Since advances in DNA research and obstetrics, not available when Roe v Wade was being decided, have shown us that life begins at conception, suppose we start by acknowledging that every abortion kills a human being.


No arguement from me here.


Your words included, "Then you should not engage in any sexual activity outside of wedlock." If that's not moral advice, what is it?

You're taking what I said out of context completely. You said you believed sex should not occur outside of wedlock and I answered with the above. Prefaced by "that's great."



Federal, state, and county governments spend billions of dollars each year for the care and maintenance of tens of millions of folks whose social, economic, and medical problems stem from sexual activity outside of wedlock.

None of these entities has any money of its own. They can spend only what they either borrow or raise through taxing me and persons like me. Therefore, a share of every dollar so spent is coming out of my pocket. Am I wrong to resent being forced to subsidize the actions of irresponsible people?


And you're getting these numbers where?

How about this? I won't take what you say out of context and try to twist it and use it against you. And you return the favor. This way we could have an honest serious debate regarding the issues. Or do you just prefer name calling and twisting words?

 

[Fantasea]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fantasea
That's a great idea. Since advances in DNA research and obstetrics, not available when Roe v Wade was being decided, have shown us that life begins at conception, suppose we start by acknowledging that every abortion kills a human being.

Pacridge:
No arguement from me here.

Fantasea:
Your words included, "Then you should not engage in any sexual activity outside of wedlock." If that's not moral advice, what is it?

Pacridge:
You're taking what I said out of context completely. You said you believed sex should not occur outside of wedlock and I answered with the above. Prefaced by "that's great."


Fantasea:
Federal, state, and county governments spend billions of dollars each year for the care and maintenance of tens of millions of folks whose social, economic, and medical problems stem from sexual activity outside of wedlock.

None of these entities has any money of its own. They can spend only what they either borrow or raise through taxing me and persons like me. Therefore, a share of every dollar so spent is coming out of my pocket. Am I wrong to resent being forced to subsidize the actions of irresponsible people?

Pacridge:
And you're getting these numbers where?

How about this? I won't take what you say out of context and try to twist it and use it against you. And you return the favor. This way we could have an honest serious debate regarding the issues. Or do you just prefer name calling and twisting words?

====================================================_
Fantasea responds:

1. Since you say,” No argument from me here.”, does this mean that you believe that Roe v Wade should be revisited in an attempt to do something about the carnage wrought by 50 million abortions that resulted thereafter?

2. The trouble with the printed word is that sarcasm and other feelings, the transmission of which, depend upon vocal inflexions and, perhaps, facial expressions, often are not recognized by the reader as intended by the writer. Therefore, I believe that plain ‘speaking’ works best to avoid misunderstandings in the medium in which these exchanges occur.

3. Surely, you can't be oblivious to the fact that government makes payment to support single parents and their illegitimate offspring? (Of course, if the child is aborted, then they don't have to pay to raise it, just to abort it.) That it spends considerable sums in an effort to re-educate many them to the point of self-sufficiency since the initial efforts at educating them during the elementary and secondary school years were fruitless? That the health of these folks is usually substandard and requires considerably more in the way of care and treatment and, even then, results in higher infant mortality rates and shorter life spans for the adults? That lifetime subsidies are not the exception? That prolonging the lives of those afflicted with a wide variety of sexually transmitted diseases requires the equivalent an army of medical professionals and their staffs?

4. Until it became politically incorrect to call it that, the federal Department of Health and Human Services was known since its inception, as the Department of Welfare. Unfortunately, the formatting of the following page from the 2005 Federal Budget Submission was lost in the copy & paste effort. However, with a little imagination, one can figure out that the Health and Human Services portion typically runs in excess of half a trillion, that’s with a ‘t’ not a ‘b’. I haven’t time to break it down further, but anyone who doesn’t believe that a substantial part of this is spent on the effects of out of wedlock sex would be sadly mistaken. Don’t forget to augment this by the additional amounts included in state and county budgets that go for the same purposes.

These folks increase my tax bills and those of all taxpayers. So, again I ask, "Am I wrong to resent being forced to subsidize the conduct of irresponsible people?

Table 17. OUTLAYS BY AGENCY
(In billions of dollars)
2003 February estimates Mid-Session estimates
Actual 2004 2005 2004 2005
Legislative Branch .................................................................. 3.4 4.3 4.4 4.3 4.4
Judicial Branch ....................................................................... 5.1 5.3 5.9 5.4 5.9
Agriculture .............................................................................. 72.4 77.7 81.8 75.5 78.7
Commerce ................................................................................ 5.7 6.2 6.1 6.2 6.1
Defense—Military ................................................................... 388.9 435.7 429.7 434.1 448.0
Education ................................................................................. 57.4 62.8 64.3 65.5 67.1
Energy ...................................................................................... 19.4 20.6 22.5 20.6 22.5
Health and Human Services .................................................. 505.3 547.9 579.9 551.7 582.9
Homeland Security ................................................................. 32.0 30.7 31.1 30.7 31.1
Housing and Urban Development ......................................... 37.5 46.2 38.9 46.3 39.4
Interior ..................................................................................... 9.2 10.0 9.8 9.7 9.4
Justice ...................................................................................... 21.5 23.5 23.7 26.0 23.0
Labor ........................................................................................ 69.6 59.9 57.0 56.7 52.9
State ......................................................................................... 9.3 11.3 11.1 11.3 11.1
Transportation ........................................................................ 50.8 58.0 59.0 58.0 59.0
Treasury .................................................................................. 367.0 369.0 395.2 374.8 399.7
Veterans Affairs ...................................................................... 56.9 60.3 67.3 59.4 66.9
Corps of Engineers-Civil Works ............................................. 4.8 4.3 4.2 4.3 4.2
Other Defense Civil Programs ............................................... 39.9 41.9 42.0 41.9 42.4
Environmental Protection Agency ......................................... 8.1 8.1 8.3 8.4 8.3
Executive Office of the President .......................................... 0.4 6.6 9.9 2.7 9.3
General Services Administration ........................................... 0.6 0.8 0.6 0.8 0.6
International Assistance Programs ....................................... 13.5 17.4 16.6 16.5 17.5
National Aeronautics and Space Administration ................. 14.6 14.6 16.4 14.6 16.4
National Science Foundation ................................................. 4.7 5.3 5.6 5.3 5.6
Office of Personnel Management ........................................... 54.1 57.6 60.9 57.3 61.3
Small Business Administration ............................................. 1.6 4.0 0.7 4.0 0.7
Social Security Administration .............................................. 507.7 530.5 554.3 531.4 557.9
Other Independent Agencies .................................................. 6.4 11.4 17.4 9.9 17.0
Allowances ............................................................................... .................... .................... ¥0.8 .................... ¥0.8
Undistributed Offsetting Receipts ......................................... ¥210.4 ¥213.0 ¥223.9 ¥214.2 ¥225.6
Total ..................................................................................... 2,157.1 2,318.8 2,399.8 2,319.1 2,422.6

 

[Pacridge]

Fantasea responds:

1. Since you say,” No argument from me here.”, does this mean that you believe that Roe v Wade should be revisited in an attempt to do something about the carnage wrought by 50 million abortions that resulted thereafter?

I'm no fan of abortion. Putting limits on it wouldn't hurt my feelings any. Though I'm not sure out and out making it illegal is the answer either.

2. The trouble with the printed word is that sarcasm and other feelings, the transmission of which, depend upon vocal inflexions and, perhaps, facial expressions, often are not recognized by the reader as intended by the writer. Therefore, I believe that plain ‘speaking’ works best to avoid misunderstandings in the medium in which these exchanges occur.

I honestly have no idea what you're attempting to say here.

3. Surely, you can't be oblivious to the fact that government makes payment to support single parents and their illegitimate offspring? (Of course, if the child is aborted, then they don't have to pay to raise it, just to abort it.) That it spends considerable sums in an effort to re-educate many them to the point of self-sufficiency since the initial efforts at educating them during the elementary and secondary school years were fruitless? That the health of these folks is usually substandard and requires considerably more in the way of care and treatment and, even then, results in higher infant mortality rates and shorter life spans for the adults? That lifetime subsidies are not the exception? That prolonging the lives of those afflicted with a wide variety of sexually transmitted diseases requires the equivalent an army of medical professionals and their staffs?

4. Until it became politically incorrect to call it that, the federal Department of Health and Human Services was known since its inception, as the Department of Welfare. Unfortunately, the formatting of the following page from the 2005 Federal Budget Submission was lost in the copy & paste effort. However, with a little imagination, one can figure out that the Health and Human Services portion typically runs in excess of half a trillion, that’s with a ‘t’ not a ‘b’. I haven’t time to break it down further, but anyone who doesn’t believe that a substantial part of this is spent on the effects of out of wedlock sex would be sadly mistaken. Don’t forget to augment this by the additional amounts included in state and county budgets that go for the same purposes.

These folks increase my tax bills and those of all taxpayers. So, again I ask, "Am I wrong to resent being forced to subsidize the conduct of irresponsible people?

Interesting arguement. So if people didn't have sex out of wedlock your taxes would decrease?

There a large percentage of "Welfare" dollars going to support families that are married. To think that by insisting people only have sex if they're married in an attempt to reduce our tax burden is a little nutty if you ask me. Sounds like a good way to increase the divorce rates.

 

[Fantasea]

There a large percentage of "Welfare" dollars going to support families that are married. To think that by insisting people only have sex if they're married in an attempt to reduce our tax burden is a little nutty if you ask me. Sounds like a good way to increase the divorce rates.

Non-responsive.

 

[Hoot]

>The Congress is supposed to determine the winner when there is no candidate with a majority of electoral votes, true, but there was a winner in 2000, the results were challenged in court. The issue put to rest in the Supreme Court (we hope it was put to rest, anyway) was that little part of the Constitution that says that the states determine how their electoral votes will be determined. The Supreme Court ruled that the issue was up to the state, and under the application of Florida's state law, George W. Bush won the election, by 529 votes. There was no usurpation by the Supreme Court.<
__________________
Bryan F.

Forgive me for dredging up an old topic that many are bored with, but here's my main objection to what happened in FL.

Tuesday, Nov 7, 2000

Bush 2,909,155
Gore 2,907,351

A difference of 1,784 votes, or less than one half of one percent.

Under Fl State Law (102.141 of the FL Election Code) an automatic machine recount was done on 11/8 and 11/9, with Bush's lead dropping to 327 votes.

In light of the closeness of the election, the FL Democratic Executive Committee, not Gore, REQUESTED that manual hand recounts be done under 102.166 of the FL Election Code.

Before a manual recount can be conducted, a sample recount must be done...this sample recount, started on 11/11 and finished on 11/12 showed Gore picking up several net votes, therefore, all 4 counties involved decided to conduct full manual recounts...all perfectly legal under FL. State law, and even warrented under FL State law, to protect the rights of the people.

It was this full manual recount that was stopped by the US Supreme court...

Stopped before the results were known...thus handing the election to Bush.

You see...I don't care what the end vote result was....the real issue for every American should be the USSC stopped the legal recounting of votes.

Congress has the right to decide disputes between electors.

The USSC had no more right than you or I would to stop that vote count.

Another blurring of the lines, I guess, between the separation of powers?

Hoot