North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical
Re: [elug-advo] Re: An idea <- Your examples continue to be utter failures ...
On Thu, Dec 07, 2000 at 02:21:47PM -0500, Darren Humphrey wrote: > > Civil suits are non-binding between states unless they agree to make them > binding. I'm amazed that a state's rights person such as yourself would > stand for one state having jurisdiction over another. Darren, you're making the mistake again of assuming potential problems are actual problems. I have no problem with the current arrangement on that. You were the one concerned, remember? > It's a giant loophole to get around the rule of law. You sound like a baby > who doesn't want to eat his carrots. You're getting mad at mom for making > you eat them. And you sound like the mother next door who's bitching about how my mom takes care of me. Leave us the hell alone. > "Founding fathers" is an extremely loose term. Quite a few of them did > think so. Quite a lot didn't. Thank goodness, most of 'em didn't want the government to be mommy and daddy. > >The slaves would have been free within 15 years without that war. 600,000 > >people would have lived out their natural spans. Bad feelings that persist > >to this day would have been avoided. > > I see, did your tarot card reader tell you that. Now you're arguing > possibles vs. actual history. No, I'm arguing the several other countries that abolished slavery the peaceful way during the same time frame, without bloodshed, because they didn't take the "executive proclamation" route. > 600,000 people died because the southern > states didn't want to submit to the rule of law. 600,000 people died because Abe Lincoln was too impatient to submit to the rule of law. > unwilling to bend even in this slighest degree, then God help us all if > libertarian minded people get into power. The republic will self destruct. God help us all if people like Thomas Jefferson get into power. The last time libertarian-minded people got into power, they abolished the income tax, gun laws, and unwarranted search and seizure. Now those things are all happening again. > Um, no. Your standard is if xxx wasn't around for yyy years than it isn't > necessary. The same yardstick measures in both directions. Wrong, Darren. If a implies b, b does not necessarily imply a. > >And I've gotten that way for 224 years. Does that stick in your craw? > > Not in the slightest. The amendment process is intentionally very > difficult. The amendment I propose is no different than the amendment that > got rid of poll taxes. It's very different, Darren, in that poll taxes prevented a huge segment of the population from voting and weren't created deliberately in the Constitution. The poll tax amendment was to prevent a loophole. You're talking about changing something that was put in there deliberately. That's quite different, but I'm not surprised that you don't see that.